Introduction

Since the 2020 US election, the discourse around the deployment of the US military against domestic protests has gained significant traction. Proponents and critics alike have debated the legal standing and practical implications of such a move. This article explores the legality and precedent of deploying the US military within the US borders, focusing on the role of the Insurrections Act and the complexities of executive power.

Legal Precedents and the Insurrections Act

The authority to deploy the US military during times of disorder is enshrined in the Insurrections Act. This piece of legislation allows the President to call upon federal troops to quell unrest within the country's borders. The act was invoked to enforce civil rights during significant periods of unrest in American history, such as the 1957 Little Rock Crisis and the urban riots of the 1960s.

The full text of the Insurrections Act is detailed in the 10 U.S. Code § 251, which states:

“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 by the civil authority of any State, the President may in his discretion call into Federal service, at any time, such of the militia of the other States, in the number requested by the State, and use such of the armed forces as he considers necessary to suppress the insurrection.”

Deployment Process and Oversight

For the President to deploy federal troops or the National Guard, a specific process must be followed. The key elements are:

Request from the State Governor: The governor of the state must request the deployment and certify that a general state of disorder exists, rendering the state and local resources insufficient to restore order. Presidential Discretion: The President, in his discretion, may then call upon federal troops to assist in maintaining public order. Exception for Washington, D.C.: A special provision exists for the capital city, where federal troops can be deployed without a state governor's request.

Executive Power and Democratic Principles

The notion that the President can act without constraint has raised concerns among many Americans. The insurrections stemming from the 2020 election have prompted discussions about the balance of powers within the US government. Critics argue that the current system has shifted from a democratic framework towards a kakaokracy, where institutions prioritize the interests of the elite over the rule of law.

The rhetoric about potential inconsequential outcomes from the election, if it were to be discarded, highlights a disturbing trend. If the federal government were to ignore the election results, it would fundamentally undermine the democratic process. Advocates claim that voter dissatisfaction is driving the push for extended election cycles, while others argue that such sentiments are leading to a dangerous precedent.

Democracy thrives on the principles of fair elections and the rule of law. The continued discussion on executive overreach and the potential for military action against domestic citizens is a clear indicator of the challenges democracy faces in today’s political climate.

Conclusion

The debate over the deployment of the US military to maintain order during periods of civil unrest is a complex and sensitive issue. While the Insurrections Act provides legal backing for such actions, the process and the associated governance must be carefully controlled to uphold democratic principles. As we navigate the challenges of modern governance, it is crucial to preserve the integrity of our democratic institutions and ensure that executive power is exercised responsibly.