Insurrection Act

The Insurrection Act of 1807 is the set of laws that govern the President of the United States of America's ability to deploy troops within the United States to put down lawlessness, insurrection and rebellion. The laws are chiefly contained in usc|10|331 - usc|10|335. The general aim is to limit Presidential power as much as possible, relying on state and local governments for initial response in the event of insurrection. Coupled with the Posse Comitatus Act, Presidential powers for law enforcement are limited and delayed.

Relation to Posse Comitatus

The entire text of the Posse Comitatus Act is as follows:

:"UnitedStatesCode|18|1385 - Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus

::"Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both"."

Accordingly, actions taken under the Insurrection Act have always been exempt from the Posse Comitatus Act. [cite book
first=Eric V.|last=Larson
coauthors=John E. Peters
title=Preparing the U.S. Army for Homeland Security: Concepts, Issues, and Options
publisher=RAND Corporation
id=ISBN 0-8330-2919-3
pages=244
url=http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1251/MR1251.AppD.pdf] [cite journal
first=Matthew Carlton|last=Hammond
date=Summer 1997
title=The Posse Comitatus Act: A Principle in Need of Renewal
journal=Washington University Law Quarterly
volume=75|issue=2
url=http://law.wustl.edu/WULQ/75-2/752-10.html
accessdate=2007-06-24]

Amendments of 2006

On September 30, 2006, the Congress modified the Insurrection Act as part of the 2007 Defense Authorization Bill. Section 1076 of the new law changes Sec. 333 of the "Insurrection Act," and widens the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States to enforce the laws. Under this act, the President may also deploy troops as a police force during a natural disaster, epidemic, serious public health emergency, terrorist attack, or other condition, when the President determines that the authorities of the state are incapable of maintaining public order. The bill also modified Sec. 334 of the Insurrection Act, giving the President authority to order the dispersal of either insurgents or "those obstructing the enforcement of the laws." The new law changed the name of the chapter from "Insurrection" to "Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order."

The 2008 Defense Authorization Bill, H.R. 1585, repeals the changes made in the 2007 bill, [cite news | last = Camire | first = Dennis | title = Governors poised to regain more control over National Guard| work = The Shreveport Times | language = English | date = 2007-12-19 | url = http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071219/NEWS01/712190339/1060/NEWS01 | accessdate = 2008-01-02] but was pocket vetoed by President George W. Bush. [cite news | last = Woolley | first = John | title = Memorandum to the House of Representatives Returning Without Approval the "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008" | work = The American Presidency Project | language = English | date = 2007-12-28 | url = http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=76199 | accessdate = 2008-01-15] A new bill, H.R. 4986, has been passed which also repeals the changes made in the 2007 bill. [cite news | title = H.R. 4986: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 | work = GovTrack.us | language = English | date = 2008 | url = http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-4986 | accessdate = 2008-01-24]

The 2007 Defense Authorization Bill, with over $500 billion allocated to the military, and which also contained the changes to the Insurrection Act of 1807, was passed by a bipartisan majority of both houses of Congress: 398-23 in the House and by unanimous consent in the Senate. [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR05122:@@@L&summ2=m&] In order for military forces to be used under the provisions of the revised Insurrection Act, the following conditions must be met:

: "(1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to--

:: "(A) restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that--

::: "(i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order; and

::: "(ii) such violence results in a condition described in paragraph (2); or

:: "(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2).

: "(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that--

:: "(A) 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

:: "(B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws."

Differences between old and new wording

The original wording of the Act required the conditions as worded in Paragraph (2), above, to be met as the result of

: "insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy"

The new wording of the Act, as amended, still requires the same conditions as worded in Paragraph (2), above, but those conditions could, after the changes, also be a result of

: "natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition"

and only if

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

Congress was granted the right to be informed immediately and every 14 days thereafter during the exercise of federal authority under these conditions.

Flowchart illustrating differences in application

Comparison of differences

Below is a comparison between the previous and current wording of usc|10|331 - usc|10|335 with new or revised sections and wording in bold (with the exception of paragraph and formatting notation):

Opposition

On February 7, 2007, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) introduced legislation that would revert the Insurrection Act to its previous state. [http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200702/020707.html] [http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200702/020707a.html] Sen. Leahy argues that the modifications to the law make it unnecessarily easy to assert federal authority over national guard elements without the consent of governors, and that the changes removed a "useful friction" that existed between the Insurrection Act and the Posse Comitatus Act.

Senator Leahy remarked on September 19th, 2006 [http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200609/091906a.html] "we certainly do not need to make it easier for Presidents to declare martial law. Invoking the Insurrection Act and using the military for law enforcement activities goes against some of the central tenets of our democracy. It creates needless tension among the various levels of government – one can easily envision governors and mayors in charge of an emergency having to constantly look over their shoulders while someone who has never visited their communities gives the orders."

No mention of Section 1076 was made in the President's statement about H.R. 5122. While this section was in effect [http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s109-2766] , it allowed the President to declare a public emergency and station the military anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities.

Criticism in 1997 of weakening the PCA and using the federal military for domestic conditions charged that it endangered the military and the U.S. [http://law.wustl.edu/WULQ/75-2/752-10.html] :

The PCA's exceptions-in-name and exceptions-in-fact endanger the military and the United States by blurring the traditional line between military and civilian roles, undermining civilian control of the military, damaging military readiness, and providing the wrong tool for the job. Besides the current drug interdiction exceptions, the 104th Congress considered two bills to create new exceptions to the PCA. The Border Integrity Act would have created an exception to allow direct military enforcement of immigration and customs laws in border areas. The Comprehensive Antiterrorism Act would have allowed military involvement in investigations of chemical and biological weapons. [...] Increasing direct military involvement in law enforcement through border policing—an exception-in-fact—is an easy case against which to argue. Investigative support—an exception-in-name—is passive, indirect enforcement. Drug interdiction—an exception-in-name for the most part—falls between border policing and investigative support because of the extensive military involvement.

This case was also argued by the Departments of Justice and Defense in 1979 [http://law.wustl.edu/WULQ/75-2/752-10.html#fnB210] :

The [PCA] expresses one of the clearest political traditions in Anglo-American history: that using military power to enforce the civilian law is harmful to both civilian and military interests. The authors of the [PCA] drew upon a melancholy history of military rule for evidence that even the best intentioned use of the Armed Forces to govern the civil population may lead to unfortunate consequences. They knew, moreover, that military involvement in civilian affairs consumed resources needed for national defense and drew the Armed Forces into political and legal quarrels that could only harm their ability to defend the country. Accordingly, they intended that the Armed Forces be used in law enforcement only in those serious cases to which the ordinary processes of civilian law were incapable of responding.

These changes were repealed in their entirety in 2008.

Repeal of amendments

The changes described above were repealed in their entirety by [http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-4986 HR 4986: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008] ( [http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-4986 full text] ):

"'SEC. 1068. REPEAL OF PROVISIONS IN SECTION 1076 OF PUBLIC LAW 109-364 RELATING TO USE OF ARMED FORCES IN MAJOR PUBLIC EMERGENCIES.

: "(a) Interference With State and Federal Laws-

:: "(1) IN GENERAL- Section 333 of title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

"'Sec. 333. 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 execution 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.'.

:: "(2) PROCLAMATION TO DISPERSE- Section 334 of such title is amended by striking 'or those obstructing the enforcement of the laws' after 'insurgents'.

:: "(3) HEADING AMENDMENT- The heading of chapter 15 of such title is amended to read as follows:

"'CHAPTER 15--INSURRECTION.

: "(4) CLERICAL AMENDMENTS-

:: "(A) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 15 of such title is amended by striking the item relating to section 333 and inserting the following new item:

: "333. Interference with State and Federal law.

:: "(B) The tables of chapters at the beginning of subtitle A of title 10, United States Code, and at the beginning of part I of such subtitle, are each amended by striking the item relating to chapter 15 and inserting the following new item:

331.

: "(b) Repeal of Section Relating to Provision of Supplies, Services, and Equipment-

:: "(1) IN GENERAL- Section 2567 of title 10, United States Code, is repealed.

:: "(2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 152 of such title is amended by striking the item relating to section 2567.

: "(c) Conforming Amendment- Section 12304(c) of such title is amended by striking 'Except to perform' and all that follows through 'this section' and inserting 'No unit or member of a reserve component may be ordered to active duty under this section to perform any of the functions authorized by chapter 15 or section 12406 of this title or, except as provided in subsection (b),

: "(d) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

All changes have been repealed, and have changed back to the original state of the Insurrection Act of 1807.

References

External links

* [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061017-9.html President's Statement on H.R.5122]
* [http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200609/091906a.html Hill's National Guard Advocates Hold News Conference To Protest DOD Bill's Proposed Decisions On National Guard]
* [http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200609/092906b.html Remarks Of Sen. Patrick Leahy, National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2007, Conference Report, Congressional Record, September 29, 2006]
* [http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/53685.pdf Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, "The Use of Federal Troops for Disaster Assistance: Legal Issues," by Jennifer K. Elsea, Legislative Attorney, August 14, 2006]
* [http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sup_01_10_10_A_20_I_30_15.html US Code Title 10 Chapter 15 from Cornell Law School]
* [http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s109-2766 Text of National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, Public Law No: 109-364.]
* [http://www.cdi.org/PDFs/CRS%20on%202007%20bills%20Sept%2029.pdf Defense: FY2007 Authorization and Appropriations]
* [http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/editorials/signs20061027_BushMovesTowardMartialLaw.php Bush Moves Toward Martial Law] (Opinion)
* [http://law.wustl.edu/WULQ/75-2/752-10.html The Posse Comitatus Act: A Principle In Need of Renewal]
* [http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/bacon3.html It's Not Exactly a National Emergency] (Opinion)