What Is The Insurrection Act?
npr.org
npr.org
I feel it is an afront to the Constitution and the founders' intent, though. The Second Amendment is there, in part, to avoid the need for a standing military at all, because standing armies have a tendancy to be turned on the people.
Another reason the Second Amendment exists is so that citizens can remove their local police and protect themselves until they organize a new poloce force. A bit better organization could have put that into effect in Minneapolis.
https://www.governing.com/topics/public-justice-safety/gov-c...
“ The Camden County Police Department rehired most of the laid-off cops, along with nearly 100 other officers, but at much lower salaries and with fewer benefits than they had received from the city.”
It comes from having them, not from using them. You don't have to shoot at gangs robbing everybody at knifepoint if the threat of getting shot deters them from going around robbing everybody at knifepoint.
> And "for a while" can be quite long if you need to find and train a complete new police force.
In practice most of what the police do is paperwork and interviews. If the general population is armed (so the deterrent is still there) then you could take the guns away from the police and never have them leave the police station and still almost all of the policework would get done.
Or my neighbors decide that 2am is a great time for some jackhammering. I threaten to shoot them unless they stop? They threaten to shoot me in turn?
Does this depend on righteous mobs of gun owners assembling and holding an impromptu court martial?
You take a picture of their license plate number and bring it to a courthouse. They show up in court or the court gives you a default judgement and orders their insurance/bank to give you the money.
> Or my neighbors decide that 2am is a great time for some jackhammering.
You make a timestamped recording of the jackhammering and bring it to a courthouse. Do you see where this is going? You don't need police to have courts.
And most of the time you don't even need to use the courts for the same reason you don't need to use the guns -- the other party can predict what will happen and it's easier for everybody to settle things and not go there.
And if they don't show up in court then you win and the court fines them.
The reason it doesn’t happen is because society allows the political to not hold the police accountable.
There is no possibility of sacked police execution a coup , it isn’t an armed confrontation problem
The "replacement" of the RUC with the PSNI was achieved without interruption or total turnover of personnel, but managed to change the ethos and image enough to bring peace enough to Northern Ireland. At the same time, the troops with a record of shooting civilians were withdrawn from the streets.
It's not perfect, but it's definitely a success.
With the second amendment, you can simply fire the police without (as much) worry for your family's safety. It would still be bad, but at least you have an option.
So it's not necessarily a violent confrontation. You just get a mayor in place that will stop paying them. A large group of people can often get a mayor to do something if they have a specific proposal.
Are you sure about that? I feel like the Whiskey Rebellion does away with that idea.
I don't think there is any question about the constitutionality of the Act. I don't think there was any question about the constitutionality of the act in 1992 either. There might be a question about a particular application of it, however.
> I feel it is an afront to the Constitution and the founders' intent, though.
Article I, section 8 of the Constitution says Congress gets to deal with insurrection: "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"
Well, the Insurrection Act, passed a mere 20 years after the Constitution was written, before the last founder President, does exactly what the bit of the Constitution I quoted says. There had been revolts within Washington's presidency, which he himself put down in the field (not from his residence or office).
> Another reason the Second Amendment exists is so that citizens can remove their local police and protect themselves until they organize a new poloce force.
There was no police in 1787, or in 1807 for that matter. There was also no standing army. The militia was all there was, and the militia was just armed citizens. Certainly, many believe that the Second Amendment's purpose is to make feasible a revolt / tyranny difficult to impose, so in that sense you're right, but there was no police in 1807.
A long time ago maybe that meant not having police at all, today it means that the police can be fired.
Civil war ideation is probably not productive at this time nor generally -- let it always be a remote possibility, possible, yes, but remote and unwanted. We're seeing a fair bit of legislative and social change right now, and we can expect more; there's no need to start killing people or threatening to or fantasizing about it.
If you can protect yourself, you can simply (along with fellow voters) abolish the police. Once they stop getting paychecks, they will go home peacefully.
Without private gun ownership, abolishing the police would be too painful because you'd be at the mercy of the strongest criminals. Private gun ownership at least affords some protecting while you reform.
So history is repeating itself?
Setting aside of course, the many irregularities involved in the conviction of the conspirators.
When injustice is systemic and protected, there is no hope of change. That's not the general case anymore.
This case is a freak accident. The method to subdue isn't obviously racially motivated and historically is applied without regard to race. Why nobody in supervision acted after 44 uses resulted in loss of conciousness is the mystery; the 45th turned out fatal. But I don't think this officer is getting any kid glove treatment like Simi Valley provided.
Ultimately, the Bush (41) DOJ successfully prosecuted Koon and Powell on Federal civil rights charges. Justice was delayed but not wholly denied.
[1] Lt. Gen. Jay Silveria: "If you can't treat someone with dignity and respect, then you need to get out. If you can't treat someone from another gender, whether that's a man or a woman, with dignity and respect, then you need to get out. If you demean someone in any way, then you need to get out. And if you can't treat someone from another race, or different color skin, with dignity and respect, then you need to get out."
[2] witness the USN response when Trump tweeted they should fire on sight on the NEDAJA: we retain the right to self-defense.
I wish you all the best of luck and hope you all live your lives and do wonderful things. https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2003/04/11/Rumsfeld-Looting...
In seriousness, does this statement count as the proclamation/warning referred to in the article?
Under the US Constitution, The President is the Commander in Chief of the military, to not follow a direct order would be a likely be a crime for anyone within the military.
Trumps statements counted as a proclamation, if the US Attorney General said they did.
United States vs Keenan being one example — soldiers need to obey lawful orders, but obeying unlawful orders puts them at risk of criminal prosecution.
At that point, disobeying has to be a moral act, and the law isn’t a concern anymore.
I say this living in an apartment about three blocks from a tank in Los Angeles.
* dictatorships
There were many instances when they did. E.g.,
Photo in the story, taken late today, is of Trump with the highest-ranking military officer in the US Armed Forces (on the right) - and the US Attorney General (on the left).
Trump intentionally left the White House to force his way through the protesters.
I wish the internet was always like that.
Irrespective of the primary intent of the civil unrest [1], failing to disperse after being ordered to is an act of insurrection. I express no opinion as to whether insurrection is called for or not, just that technically it seems to be such.
[1] some people say 'protests', others say 'riots', I'm hoping 'civil unrest' is neutral but I'd happily take correction if it is not.
Both are happening at the same time in similar places. Plenty of people are using the correct term for the group they mean, which others are twisting to conflate into one mass group. Don't fall into the same trap.