Posted on 08/29/2020 9:18:07 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The penalty for insurrection:
Section 2383. The law prohibits the incitement, assistance, and participation in a rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States and its laws. The punishment for this crime is a fine, a maximum sentence of 10 years in federal prison, and ineligibility for public office
I believe "Russia Russia Russia" would like to have a couple words with him.
The penalty for insurrection:
Section 2383. The law prohibits the incitement, assistance, and participation in a rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States and its laws. The punishment for this crime is a fine, a maximum sentence of 10 years in federal prison, and ineligibility for public office.
Section 253 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code, gives the president the right to take military action within a state when “any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection.”
In 1861, Abraham Lincoln expanded the law to form the legal basis for waging the Civil War. Without it, he wouldn’t have had the authority to send federal troops into a state without the governor’s permission.
Empty threats are meaningless by now.
Timing is very important should the President invoke the Insurrection Act. Understanding ‘how long’ it can remain in place is also signifficant....and if or not it can be extended without Congress.
see post 66
So by what authority did Eisenhower and Kennedy use the National Guard in states over the wishes of the governors and legislatures at the time? Because they damned sure DID so use the troops.
Glad to see POTUS start in NH...
The Hildabeast won NH in 2016 by less than 0.5%, 2,736 votes...
Could be a pick-up of 4 electoral votes...
Absolutely!
10 U.S. Code § 252 - Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority
Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.
10 U.S. Code § 253 - Interference with State and Federal law
The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it—
(1)so hinders the of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
(2)opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.
He did not say this in the way the article insinuates.
I did not hear it when I was listening.
See my post #72, regarding 10 USC 253.
If “the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection;”
Then the President can step in. He does not need to prove to any court that the local authorities are willfully defying the law. He just needs to observe that the laws protecting the people are not being enforced.
If the local authorities are complicit then it would seem that arresting the authorities and charging them with Federal crimes would be a necessary first step before sending in military force against the wishes of state/local government officials.
No, read the statute:
If “the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection;”
It DOES NOT MATTER WHY. It does not matter if the reason is refusal or inability, or simple failure. The President merely has to observe that the people are not getting the protections of the laws.
They’re relentlessly focused on burning down federal courthouses, so yeah.
Well, it is obvious to any sane person that this "is" the case.....so....hopefully it will happen.
Will We be Forced,,,?
.
We Will.
With all due respect, you're a slow learner.
PT isn't talking about the Insurrection Act because he plans to declare one tomorrow.
He's talking about it because he wants the conversation among the public.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.