28
Comments (6)
sorted by:
2
thunderstorm 2 points ago +3 / -1

Of course it is.

1
queenicarius [S] 1 point ago +3 / -2

You're wrong, of course. the Insurrection Act, which allows the use of active-duty or National Guard troops for federal law enforcement in cases when “rebellion against the authority of the U.S. makes it impracticable to enforce the laws of the U.S. by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings,” according to U.S. Northern Command.

1
thunderstorm 1 point ago +3 / -2

I am agreeing with you...

2
deleted 2 points ago +3 / -1
1
Wtf_socialismreally 1 point ago +2 / -1

We love you anyway

1
queenicarius [S] 1 point ago +2 / -1

Under the US Constitution, governors generally have the authority to maintain order within state borders. This principle is reflected in a law called the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally bars the federal military from participating in domestic law enforcement.

The Insurrection Act, which was signed into law by Thomas Jefferson in 1807, creates an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act. It permits the president to send in US forces to suppress a domestic insurrection that has hindered the normal enforcement of US law but only at the explicit request of a state governor. If invoked, the Insurrection Act allows the president to deploy "land or naval forces of the U.S." ... "to suppress [an] insurrection" or rebellion.

The law lays out a scenarios in which the president is required to have approval from a state's governor or legislature - and also instances where such approval is not necessary.