4 ms·
Is there an official definition? I'm not American but I'm looking at images of locals and foreign nationals burning down cities flying the Mexican flag. ChatGPT
by Gareth321 1y ago
Is there an official definition? I'm not American but I'm looking at images of locals and foreign nationals burning down cities flying the Mexican flag. ChatGPT tells me the following:
> The authority for the President to use the military in cases of insurrection comes primarily from the Insurrection Act, codified in 10 U.S. Code §§ 251-255. This act provides the statutory exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act.
> When unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce federal laws in any state by ordinary judicial proceedings. (10 U.S.C. § 252)
> When an insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy in a state hinders the execution of state and federal laws, depriving people of their constitutional rights, and the state authorities are unable, fail, or refuse to protect those rights. (10 U.S.C. § 253)
> When an insurrection opposes or obstructs the execution of U.S. laws or impedes the course of justice under those laws. (10 U.S.C. § 253)
The last time this Act was used was in 1992 during the Los Angeles riots and it withstood all legal contests. This time around it is a stated intent of these rioters to specifically obstruct federal law enforcement efforts. That's their stated goal which they are very consistent and very loud about in interviews. This clearly satisfies the criteria for the Insurrection Act.
I understand that this is a concerning action, but the law is black and white. If the U.S. and Congress and the House didn't want Presidents to have this power, the country has had more than 200 years to amend it.
- albedoa 1y ago> Is there an official definition? > the law is black and white. You more than tipped your hand here. You flipped it over and announced it.
- Gareth321 1y agoI made a case and asked the other person if they had other information, ideas, or an argument. That's kind of how discussion used to work before we decided pithy soundbites was a suitable replacement for reasoned discussion.
- UncleEntity 1y ago> If the U.S. and Congress and the House didn't want Presidents to have this power, the country has had more than 200 years to amend it. Kind of like using the Insurrection Act to suspend habeas corpus and then threatening judges if they dare to question its legality? > This time around it is a stated intent of these rioters to specifically obstruct federal law enforcement efforts. Or, one might argue, "petition the Government for a redress of grievances".
- Gareth321 1y ago> Kind of like using the Insurrection Act to suspend habeas corpus and then threatening judges if they dare to question its legality? The President does not have a legal right to suspend habeas corpus. Only Congress. > Or, one might argue, "petition the Government for a redress of grievances". No, a petition is a piece of paper or in verb form, lobbying politicians. Burning down cities and attacking officers does not fall under the definition.
- UncleEntity 1y ago> No, a petition is a piece of paper or in verb form, lobbying politicians. I would say that mass groups of people gathering on the streets protesting the same cause is a form of "lobbying politicians". > Burning down cities and attacking officers does not fall under the definition. Sure, if that's what is actually occurring. AFAICT they are mostly peaceful protests with a couple of examples of limited unlawful behavior but that's what the news is showing because burning cop cars make for good ratings. It's not like the people of LA don't know how to put on a proper riot or anything...