Talk:Insurrection Act

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Move to wikisource 2 Act date? 3 Criticism section 4 Temporal imbalance

[edit] Move to wikisource

I think that copying this to wikisource is a good idea, but I also think that the encyclopedic comment at the top should be expanded and retained as an article. What do other people think? --Apyule 13:20, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• I agree completely. Hito —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.143.139.55 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 18 September 2005.
  • I don't see the point of copying such a small section of the code to Wikisource. If some one goes to the trouble they might as well out in the whole sub-section. Be sure to put it in the proper place this should point you to s:US Code - Title 10--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 23:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Act date?

When did the Insurrection Act become law? The Posse Comitatus Act dates from 1878... 66.146.62.19 04:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• The Insurrection Act became law in 1807.

The part of the Insurrection Act most affected by the 2006 changes -- 10 U.S.C. 333 -- was enacted in 1871 as part of the Ku Klux Klan Act, which authorized the President to declare martial law and suspend habeas corpus, among other measures, to enforce civil rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. 70.174.147.104 03:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism section

In this section, there is a lot of point of view information, and information that is patently incorrect. Examples:

- Calling the inclusion of changes "quiet", as if they were somehow secret

- "clearly a significant and controversial change" - To who? The blogosphere?

- The insinuation that it's abnormal for a statute to be updated as a part of another bill, including a defense appropriations bill

- The assertion that this violates, weakens, ignores, etc., the Posse Comitatus Act, when the Posse Comitatus Act specifically doesn't apply, since both the original Insurrection Act and the appropriations bill that modifies it are both an "Act of Congress", which is specifically exempted by the Posse Comitatus Act. The Posse Comitatus Act was designed to prevent against the arbitrary use of the military as a domestic police force, but it is allowable when allowed by an Act of Congress.

How can we get this corrected without starting some kind of edit war? -- Dave Schroeder, das@doit.wisc.edu

• you cant. It was quiet insofar as the modifications to the act were not mentioned at all when the blanket 2007 defense Authorization Bill was announced.

-no not to the blogosphere, but I am assuming you are a part of it. It is a controversial change because it gives federal authority over the military to use in domestic affairs. Specifically the "other condition" wording can be interpreted as anything. The executive could attempt to justify anything as "other condition".

-As far as the posse comitatus act is concerned they mean an act of congress for each specific instance of anything that could fall under this act. Nothing should be completely left up to the executive. signing statements are bullshit. You will not get your pro-dictatorial changes here without a fight.

• Did you read anything in this article? The "other condition" wasn't intended to allow it to apply to anything, as you and others seem to think. First, "other condition" is included in a section describing major public emergencies, and as such, is interpreted to be a condition that is akin to the others listed in the same section (natural disaster, epidemic, terrorist attack, etc.). And yes, "other condition" can be some other condition - but the "other condition" still MUST be a condition that happens in conjunction with BOTH of the following:

- "domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order," and

- a condition exists that "so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that State or possession, 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 or possession are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws."

So it's not just any random "other condition", and to say so is disingenuous. Something has to happen to make both of those above statements true, and that would likely be a pretty damned big public emergency, which is exactly what this update was meant to address. Also, the standard for the new conditions, which are "natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition" are higher than the previous standard, because it includes the addition provision that "domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order." For the previous 200 years, the Insurrection Act could be invoked in conditions of "insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy." If the goal was to use the Insurrection Act to arbitrarily declare martial law or stifle dissent, don't you think it could have ridiculously easily been done under the existing wording? I mean, "insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy"? Come on. To any sane person, it's clear that these changes were simply updates to an old act. They weren't "quiet", and yes, they were discussed. The reason why they didn't cause some huge blowup is because it's not a big deal for exactly the reasons I just explained. The SAME conditions that always had to be met for the invocation of the Insurrection Act still have to be met, except that it can be a result of a major public emergency instead of just rebellion.

As to the Posse Comitatus Act, no, they don't "mean" that at all. The Posse Comitatus Act clearly states that acts deemed allowable by the Constitution OR an "Act of Congress" allowing such use is exempt. This is such an Act of Congress. Also, you act as if it's not "specific" enough (even though that's actually completely irrelevant; an Act of Congress is an Act of Congress). Actually, it's pretty damned specific: it requires all order to be lost, and for the State to no longer be able to enforce the law, and very clearly describes the conditions using the same wording that has been in force for almost two centuries. You're making the mistake of believing that "other condition" means it can be invoked any time (it can't, as I've already explained), or assertions that PCA really "means" something else and this isn't specific enough to be an exemption (regardless of how specific it is or isn't, that line of reasoning is still wrong).

So I'm sorry to say that this wasn't "quiet", wasn't "snuck through", no signing statements actually even apply to this, doesn't violate the PCA, and isn't some kind of conspiracy to make it easier to declare martial law. Also, it's not getting any coverage in the press because everything I said above about the nature of the modifications are factually accurate, whereas what many bloggers are saying is completely and utterly incorrect. Further, many people who think the Insurrection Act changes are some kind of sneaky trick or part of a conspiracy are probably the same people who think the current administration will ignore the law and do whatever it wishes anyway; if you believe that, why would you even bother discussing the specific changes of a law like this? This will NEVER get any mainstream press coverage, and it's not because the "corporate media" are administration lapdogs loyally hiding it. It's because there's no story. It's just minor updates to an old law that make sense in modern times, and in the context of recent events (e.g., Katrina, which was exactly what initiated the changes to the Insurrection Act in the first place). --das 02:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Temporal imbalance

Doesn't anybody else find it somewhat unbalanced that the very first section of this article is about "recent changes"? I mean, this is an article about a 200 year old document, but at least 90% of the article is devoted to the last two years of its existence! --JianLi 23:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe it is an issue -- the recent changes were quite significant and reflect the law as it is relevant today; whereas the secondary information relating to the earlier version(s) of the document are more for historical reference. --Thisisbossi 03:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)