insurrection act: Did a Supreme Court Loss Embolden Trump on the Insurrection Act?

insurrection act: Did a Supreme Court Loss Embolden Trump on the Insurrection Act?

 

Insurrection Act: Did the Supreme Court defeat embolden Trump to commit the Insurrection Act that happened there last night? FOX NINE has also reached out to the MINNEAPOLIS POLICE

INDFOX NINE has also reached out to the MINNEAPOLIS POLICE for information on any potential arrests in this case. This morning, about any potential arrests in this case.

This morning, President Trump threatened in this case. This morning, President Trump threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act, President Trump threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act in response to the ongoing insurrection process

Conflict between ice agents and those who don't want them in response to the ongoing conflict between ice agents and those who don't want them

Who don't want them in Minnesota. And those who don't want them in Minnesota. And this is going to be a major step in Minnesota. And it's going to be a major step, but it's not going to be a major step,

But it's not unprecedented. FOX NI's Dugescalation, but it's not unprecedented. FOX NINE's DUG in the History of the Insurrection ACT. He joins us now to take us through some of the Insurrection Act. He joins us now to take us through some of that corn.

What did you do to take us through some of that corn? What did you discover? And by that I mean corn. What did you discover? And by that I mean

What would actually happen or be able to discover? And by that I mean what would actually happen or could actually happen if the President invoked

The President invoked the Insurrection Act here in Minnesota? Randy and Kelsey, the ITinsurrection Act here in Minnesota? Randy and Kelsey, that would mean the President would invoke Minnesota? Randy and Kelsey, that would mean that the president could use the U.S. military to try

And that means that the president could use the U.S. military to try and control any unrest. So it uses the U.S. military to try and control any unrest.

So it's usually the state's national control of any unrest. So it's usually the state's National Guard that's brought in to enforce the state's National Guard

that's brought in to enforce local law enforcement. Enforcement. U.S. presidents are enforcing local law enforcement.

U.S. presidents have invoked the Insurrection Act of 1807 30 times in 219 years. The most recent year, it was GEORGE1807 30 times in 219 years.

The most recent, it was George H.W. Bush. The most recent, it was George H.W. Bush. The governor is sending troops into California. Bush is sending troops to California at the governor's request.

During Rodney King California at the governor's request. During the Rodney King riots in 1992. Eisenhower andrequest. During the Rodney King riots in 1992.

Eisenhower and JFK also used it to enforce it in 1992. PRESIDENTJFK also used it to enforce school desegregation.

President Trump chose not to use it to enforce school desegregation. President Trump chose not to use it in 2020 George FloydTrump chose not to use it in 2020

During the George Floyd protests or on January 6, and 2020 George Preston chose not to use it on January 6, and Dr. Larry Jacobs answers questions

On January 6, and Dr. Larry Jacobs answers questions about whether he would follow through onDr. Larry Jacobs's questions about whether he would follow through on Thursday's threat. It could be

that he follows through on Thursday's threat. It could be a bluff on his part, which is a threat on Thursday. It could be a bluff on his part,

which is a message to the governor and a bluff on his part, which is a message to the governor and the mayor in Minneapolis,

To tell the governor and the mayor in Minneapolis, look, get things under control. The mayor in Minneapolis says, look, get things under control. I'm going to send in the military.

Look, get things under control. I'm going to send in the military. But Jacobs says the president is going to send in the military. But Jacobs says the president has broad discretion to decide

But Jacobs says the president has broad discretion to decide on military deployments PATHWAYS, the most common military deployment through three pathways,

 

 

Most commonly when a state requests three-way assistance, Most commonly when a state requests assistance, the state requests assistance to control unrest,

But also to maintain federal authority while controlling unrest, but also to maintain federal authority, when insurrection, violence, insecurity, federal authority,

Obstruction Prevents insurrection, violence, or obstruction Prevents the enforcement of federal laws Obstruction Prevents the enforcement of federal laws or court orders, or prevents the protection of security

Or to protect civil rights when there are unlawful orders, or to protect civil rights when unlawful actions deprive citizens of their rights

When unlawful actions deprive citizens of their rights Depriving citizens of their constitutional rights, the president can do it over the constitutional rights, the president can do it over the objection of the governor

And the president can do it despite the governor's recent court decisions and despite the recent court decisions that he was not authorized to send the National Party to the National Party. Send the National Guard to Chicago. I think the National Guard has been sent to Chicago. I think

What are the limits of the president to Chicago. I think there are some limits to what the president can do. The president can use the limits to what he can do.

He can use the Sedition Act to put him down. He can use the Sedition Act to reduce violence, but it's not the Cortene Secession Act to reduce violence,

But it's not a carte blanche to take action against police violence, to reduce it, a police state that could somehow manage to establish a police state

That could somehow prevent elections, you know, 10 states that could somehow prevent elections,

NOM1MONOWS Jacobs's election 10 or 11 months from now, you know, Jacobs says that the image of the military 11 months from now, Jacobs says

That the image of the military in America is generally politically damaging in American cities, American cities are generally politically damaging,

So President Trump is likely to be politically damaging. Republicans, President Trump will likely get pushback from Republicans, just as he was convinced of pushback from Republicans,

just as he was convinced that he would not join WCHOWHEC convinced not to use the Insurrection Act here in 2020. During his

What is the Insurrection Act and how could Trump use it to stop protesters i Minneapolis?

What is the Insurrection Act and how could Trump use it to stop protesters in Minneapolis? President Trump threatened in a True Social post today

that he would invoke the Insurrection Act in Minneapolis to stop protesters with military force. We wanted to see what the Insurrection Act would allow President Trump to do.

First, the Insurrection Act is not actually a single law, but rather a series that has been passed between 1792 and 1871. The U.S. military is prohibited from engaging in domestic law enforcement activities such as traffic stops and making arrests by the PosiKomaatus

Act of 1878. Insurrection is one of the only exceptions to the 1878 law.

This describes the circumstances under which a president can deploy military forces within U.S. law enforcement. They are if the state legislature or governor asks the president to prevent an insurrection,

to combat obstruction of the execution of U.S. laws through ordinary court proceedings, to suppress a conspiracy, to deny the residents of a state their constitutional rights

and to take note of federal law when a state refuses to intervene or interfere with a state that interferes with the execution of the laws of the United States.

Brennan Center analysts have noted that the breadth of the law gives the president a great deal of latitude and how he can use the act.

All that is required is for the president to sign a proclamation and order the rioters to disperse. Most recently, George H.W. Bush did so in 1992 after the governor of California requested help in responding to Rodney King’s

protest. The Insurrection Act has been invoked by presidents 32 times in U.S. history.

Presidents have created a variety of scenarios, including confronting white supremacy after the Civil War, ending union strikes, and protecting the civil rights of black residents.

CBS News legal assistant Jessica Levinson joined the menu. So, Jessica, if President Trump invokes the Insurrection Act, can it be challenged in the courts? That’s the big question.

The Trump administration will make an argument similar to the one they made when the president invoked the federal National Guard, which is that it’s a decision for the president alone.

This is a political question, and judges can’t second-guess it. When it comes to federalizing the National Guard, which is a small step compared to invoking the Insurrection Act,

we look at what the judges have said so far. We determine whether the invocation was appropriate in the circumstances, but we don’t specifically look for it.

Basically, we think we have to give you the difference. Now, the question because as far as I know, we don't have any case that indicates at least in the last 200 years

where we are on this. Now the question would be if the president was acting in rebellion and there was a challenge to it, then the court would say the same thing that you know

that we actually want to be a small check but we have to understand that this is a very big decision for any elected chief executive to be in the Oval Office,

is there any precedent that has challenged the president's action in a way that I can't see being successful. What we usually see in this situation

and as you just mentioned is actually cooperation. So at least for the last 50-plus years that we've seen the insurrection act used,

it's because a governor has said we need help. I remember the riots in Los Angeles when I was very young and the governor said,

"We need some help. Please send in the military." It was just back in the civil rights era where you saw the president say over the objections of the governor that we were going to send in the military that we were going to use the Insurrection Act and the failed challenges in these cases. Do we know why the language here is so broad

that what the spirit of it is? We do. I would say that I think we are recognizing that the language is very broad and there is some emphasis in it that basically tries to narrow it down.

The language is broad. My understanding is that what it describes is the main flaw. I mean, you made it very clear that where something resembling

you cannot enforce through ordinary court proceedings is a violation of federal law or the constitutional rights of the people and the state will not help.

In these kinds of unexplained catastrophic situations, what legislation does is it gives the president a lot of power and authority. And so I think

that something terrible is going to happen, we want the president to be able to act, Jessica Evenson, love it when you take us to school. Thank you.