The Insurrection Act is a dangerous law that gives the president broad powers to authorize far-reaching uses of the military in the domestic sphere.

H

Hume

Verified User
The Insurrection Act — a collection of laws enacted across the nation’s first century — is different: It offers the president much more robust authorities and gives him several advantages over the current mode of military deployment.

First, it authorizes use of the regular armed forces in addition to the Guard. This gives the president access to a much larger military force without the need to deal with complications that arise when federalizing and organizing state-level National Guard troops.
 
Hume said:
The Insurrection Act — a collection of laws enacted across the nation’s first century — is different: It offers the president much more robust authorities and gives him several advantages over the current mode of military deployment.

First, it authorizes use of the regular armed forces in addition to the Guard. This gives the president access to a much larger military force without the need to deal with complications that arise when federalizing and organizing state-level National Guard troops.
Click to expand...
Should have had a better candidate was wipe
 
Hume said:
Soon to stand between voters and polling booths.
Click to expand...
derp derp

Eisenhower’s decision to send the 101st Airborne to Little Rock wasn’t about the level of bloodshed — it was about the principle that federal law must be obeyed, even when it’s resisted locally.


Portland in 2025 echoes that same tension: federal officers enforcing national immigration law against the will of local leaders and protesters who reject it. The issue isn’t the volume of violence — it’s whether the rule of law still holds when a city refuses to cooperate.
 
Hume said:
The Insurrection Act — a collection of laws enacted across the nation’s first century — is different: It offers the president much more robust authorities and gives him several advantages over the current mode of military deployment.

First, it authorizes use of the regular armed forces in addition to the Guard. This gives the president access to a much larger military force without the need to deal with complications that arise when federalizing and organizing state-level National Guard troops.
Click to expand...
:magagrin:
 
zymurgy said:
you are a fraud. You used to post as @BidenPresident

that retard acted every bit like you do. puts people on ignore, only to quote them later. same language used

your charade is comical. you fool nobody dipshit. you want to run from your old post history, so you changed names
Click to expand...
Before he was Biden President he was also known as Sprat. He runs away from his old content regularly.
 
Hume said:
The Insurrection Act — a collection of laws enacted across the nation’s first century — is different: It offers the president much more robust authorities and gives him several advantages over the current mode of military deployment.

First, it authorizes use of the regular armed forces in addition to the Guard. This gives the president access to a much larger military force without the need to deal with complications that arise when federalizing and organizing state-level National Guard troops.
Click to expand...

Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy used the act multiple times to enforce desegregation and civil rights laws.

Historical uses, like during the Civil War (to stop Democrat riots) or to enforce desegregation (against Democrat opposition) in the 1950s (e.g., Little Rock), show it can protect federal law and civil rights.
  • While the laws give a president broad authority, Congress can theoretically intervene by withholding funding or passing laws to limit its use. The judiciary can also review deployments for constitutionality, and it has.
  • Context Matters: The Act’s “danger” depends on the intent and circumstances of its use. Deploying troops to restore order during a genuine crisis (e.g., widespread looting) differs from using it to suppress peaceful protests.
What's happening in Portland isn't peaceful. Several incidents in September and October 2025 have involved violence, leading to police declarations of riots, arrests, and the use of crowd-control measures. A "riot" is generally defined under Oregon law (ORS 166.015) as six or more people assembling to disturb the peace through threats, violence, or disorderly conduct that endangers people or property. Federally, it aligns with disruptions under 18 U.S.C. § 2101. Based on reports, at least three incidents since September 1, 2025, fit this definition due to property damage, assaults on officers or civilians. There have been attacks on officers (e.g., lasers, machete threats) and arson attempts. The PPB (Portland Police Bureau) is not quelling the disturbances adequately.

BTW, The Brennan Center is extremely biased.
 
Hume said:
The Insurrection Act — a collection of laws enacted across the nation’s first century — is different: It offers the president much more robust authorities and gives him several advantages over the current mode of military deployment.

First, it authorizes use of the regular armed forces in addition to the Guard. This gives the president access to a much larger military force without the need to deal with complications that arise when federalizing and organizing state-level National Guard troops.
Click to expand...
The national guard is not a State militia, Hugo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top