Jump to content

Talk:Insurrection Act of 1807

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Insurrection Act)

Current Law

[edit]

Reading this article it isnt clear at all what version of this act is law. what was repealed in 2008, the changes made in 2007, or the original amendment from 2006?

can we have one section devoted to the actual present day content, and move everything else to a historical subsection? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snarfbottle (talk • contribs) 16:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - I can't determine from this article what is currently in the Insurrection Act. It seems the whole article is about repealed changes, plus a reference to the Posse Comitatus Act. Kbk (talk) 16:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the third paragraph, it's unbelievably vague what is meant by "As part of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, these provisions have since been amended." Which provisions? As it seems, it would not make sense for the aspect of the law mentioned in the previous sentence to be those provisions, as the Posse Comitatus was attempting to accomplish the opposite of the effects that such revocation would have. JackSitilides (talk) 14:36, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Temporal Imbalance Redux

[edit]

The now-repealed 2006 amendments take up over 3/4 of the article space. I appreciate the depth of detail which went into the section's writing, but shouldn't this be moved to 'historic'? Aerowolf (talk) 21:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


List of uses by the President & History of Act?

[edit]

Can anyone find and update a list of instances in which the act was used by the President. For example I know of two instances, the LA Riots and the deploying of troops by President Kennedy to force desegregation. Also I think that the Whiskey Rebellion was probably the reason this was enacted but I am not sure. Can anyone find any research articles that lead to more information. Plus their should be some background as to the Constitutionality of this act. The Constitution itself gives the legislature authority to declare war but the President has broad authority over the use of the armed forces as commander in chief and there is a struggle here by Congress to rein in the power of the President by specifically authorizing his use of the powers with this act. Need to find good articles on this issue to cite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.199.122.237 (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move to wikisource

[edit]

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)[reply]


Act date?

[edit]

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

  • 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)[reply]

Criticism section

[edit]

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)[reply]

Why was there such an overwhelming majority for the changes to the act in congress and passed unanimously in the senate and then a year later it was completely repealed? Is this not kind of spectacular? Noteworthy? Nunamiut (talk) 04:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did I just read "and so Donald Trump can start a civil war" in a wikipedia article? Give me a break, comrade, you don't have much experience with checks and balances in your 'bot' land, or so it seems.

Temporal imbalance

[edit]

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)[reply]

YES! It's terrible as written. A reasonable structure would be the normal Wiki one of Introduction: Brief History of the Act: The Act Itself Explained : Controversy surrounding the Act. I came here to read about the act, not about failed attempts to modify it (modify what? can't tell from reading this article) in 2006. Lets fix this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.230.162.189 (talk) 17:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
I believe that it is an issue. If we go about using that reasoning that we only talk about things that are currently relevant in the modern age, then I would submit that we should outright delete the article on the Magna Carta since it does not apply in any form to any nation at current. The Magna Carta was declared invalid as it was only signed under knife point. True, it serves as a basis for all modern constitutions, but the original document is, according to Thisisbossi, is disinteresting because it has no modern context. Also, I'd like to add that the "or other condition" wording added on in 2007 to this act is, quite frankly, scary. To me "or other condition" means "all previous conditions are a pretense, any condition including - no matter how absurd, including someone sneezing - will suffice." 24.252.142.184 (talk) 15:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly is a problem that a supposed encyclopedia article about a 200-year old act mentions nothing about its origins or its history up to 2006. The article isn't a forum for discussion of the changes. Gazpacho 22:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have found the sections on recent history very useful and am fully supportive of their inclusion in Wikipedia. They document an important political and legal controversy, and both the passage and the repeal of the changes should be documented. One of the great advantages that Wikipedia has over the paper encyclopedias on my book shelves is that is both larger and more current. The greater detail and depth of coverage makes it an even more universally useful reffernce.
BUT This article is historically or temporally unbalanced. There is no reference to the Civil Rights/Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, and the extent of coverage of the 2006 changes obscure the fact that they were in effect for only a short time. I propose that the useful analysis of the changes, which shed light on recent history and on the reasons for the relatively quick repeal of the changes be moved to a separate section, and replaced here by a new "History" section which lays out the 1807, 1871, 2006, and 2008 changes in a shorter and more temporally balanced fashion. This section would make reference to the new article, and to the article on the 1871 act.
Additionally, the article on the 1871 act doesn't make any reference to the changes that it added to the Insurrection Act, and while not rising to the level of importance of Section 1983, the current controversy, amendment and repeal warrant some mention. --Brons (talk) 15:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ok we are all agreed, what are we going to do about it? 98.206.155.53 (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV Risk

[edit]

Similar to events that led to the Enabling Act of 1933 in Germany, critics contend that the federal government is taking steps to quietly increase the power of the federal authority over the regions while simultaneously increasing executive control specifically for policing the domestic population through legal use of the military. Doesn't bringing Nazi's into this risk making this article look bias? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pete bot (talk • contribs) 13:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I share concern in that this statement has a very high potential to become particularly touchy with regards to NPOV, but it is tough to deny that this is a significant criticism against this law. There are many sources which confirm this viewpoint: a quick Google search yields a high volume of blog banter as well as several more notable organisations such as the advocacy group Toward Freedom. Any other opinions on this concern? --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 23:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

[edit]

Please don't use Wikipedia articles as a slate for debating or commenting on the merits of something. Opinions, for or against, should be specifically cited to a reliable source Gazpacho 22:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Insurrection Act

[edit]

Could someone write up a section that details under what context and for what reason the Insurrection Act was passed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.211.160.121 (talk) 21:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'm particularly interested in those background for under which this act was enacted. Thanks. --Legion (talk) 08:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abridging of section "Amendments of 2006"

[edit]

In light of the repeal of the amendments, might it be worth abridging the section? The section is now quite lengthy and includes a table and flow chart detailing the changes, which is appropriate for a current even, and perhaps for the law as it stands currently, but the relevance of the amendments had definitely declined, I think. Is it an idea to shrink down the section to something more succinct? Posse Comitatus Act has a much briefer section on similar changes. Knight of Truth (talk) 11:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Insurrection Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Insurrection Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Protect this article

[edit]

This article needs to be edit-protected immediately due to current events.

Agreed. The act has not been invoked at this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rarshonsky (talk • contribs) 23:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With the act now in the news right now, the article keeps being vandalized. It should definitely be protected. KeybladeSpyMaster (talk) 23:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Vandals are already causing problems on it. Halyonix (talk) 23:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Especially because it will be the source of information for thousands. Would be worth it to add more information about the law, it’s rather sparse. Ashley (talk) 23:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course protection is needed. And regarding the sparseness of the article: earlier today a very large section was deleted, I don't know if it was necessary or if there is a start for expansion. Eissink (talk) 23:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

 Done - page has now been protected, thank god. Ed6767 (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Creation of the act

[edit]

Can anyone find materials to offer context as to why this act was created? I've spent a few minutes searching online without success. Thank you, WikiWikiHigh (talk) 00:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actual text?

[edit]

Where is the original text? The USC is fine for whatever, but it is not the law as passed in 1807. We should be able to see the original and any amendments! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.90.75.20 (talk)

Looks like it is here, Chapter 39 (XXXIX). Via fn 17, page 8 of this. —Luis (talk) 05:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2020

[edit]

To be added to the list of invocations of the Insurrection Act:

1932 Bonus Army incident, whereby US Army was used to rebel a march of WW1 veterans in Washington DC. 1992 LA Riots, whereby US Army was called in to quell the riots 1990 Operation Green Sweep, whereby US Army took part in a series of domestic drug raids 65.35.103.58 (talk) 00:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. Moreover, any additions like this would also require reliable sources to support them. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fix the table.

[edit]

This text appears a little above the table:

"The Insurrection Act has been invoked infrequently throughout American history, most recently following looting in the aftermath of Hurricane Hugo in 1989 and during the 1992 Los Angeles riots. [3][4]"

HOWEVER, these two recent invocations of the Act are not included in the table, which caption asks for updates! I am not competent to mess with a Wiki table, so appeal to someone capable of updating it.LarryWiki115 00:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larry11565 (talk • contribs)

The table also lists the incorrect president for the 1992 invocation. George HW Bush, was president, not George W Bush. This should be fixed.

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2020

[edit]

George W Bush was not president in 1992. 73.164.209.76 (talk) 01:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The article refers to George_H._W._Bush, who was President until 1993. RudolfRed (talk) 02:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2020

[edit]

. Donald Trump activates it on June 1st often threatening to do so 72.66.65.4 (talk) 01:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article already says Trump activated it. RudolfRed (talk) 02:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2020

[edit]

Currently the article reads "On June 1, 2020, President Donald Trump threatened to invoke the Act in response to the nationwide George Floyd protests following his death in police custody." If read literally the his is modifying Donald Trump. While it would be nice if he dies in policy custody that's not what has happened. Clearer wording would be something along the lines of:

"On June 1, 2020, President Donald Trump threatened to invoke the Act in response to the nationwide protests following George Floyd's murder by police." Billarkansaw (talk) 03:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Agreed. Added. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 12:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2020

[edit]

please change the last paragraph in 'Application' from

"On June 1, 2020, President Donald Trump threatened to invoke the Act in response to the nationwide George Floyd protests following his death in police custody.[8][9]"

to something like

"On June 1, 2020, President Donald Trump threatened to invoke the Act in response to the arson, looting, rioting, and vandalism in many of the nationwide George Floyd protests following Floyd's death in police custody.[8][9]" 96.32.9.112 (talk) 03:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. NW (Talk) 15:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2020

[edit]

Change, "On June 1, 2020, President Donald Trump threatened to invoke the Act ..." to "On June 1, 2020, President Donald Trump invoked the Act ...".

While the current text is consistent with Trump's message in the Rose Garden speech, he had already deployed U.S. Army military police and (just after 7:00 pm) at least one U.S. Army helicopter from Ft. Bragg, NC to disperse protesters. See e.g., [1], [2]. CWinDC (talk) 16:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. That's only in Washington DC. I don't know the exact specifics of that deployment, or whether it's even US armed forces, but it is not under the provisions of the Insurrection Act. Invoking this act requires a proclamation to disperse first. There has been no such proclamation added to the White House website, nor is any media reporting that it has already been invoked. It hasn't been invoked yet; it remains a threat. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2020

[edit]

The insurrection act does NOT need approval from the governor of a state or it's legislation. The act allows a governor or legislative to request assistance and grants the president the power to provide military, if requested.

US Code 10 (§252), further expands the president's power:

"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 in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion." 68.35.219.101 (talk) 05:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 12:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Linking directly to primary sources from the table of uses?

[edit]

Many of the invocations in the table have primary documents, either in the relevant category on Wikisource or now linked in External Links. Should we just move them into the table? Seems like a logical place to put them, assuming each table entry still has a citation to a secondary/tertiary source. Thoughts? —Luis (talk) 05:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2020

[edit]

The application section by President Trump is inaccurate and reflects bias. It is not true that President Trump asserted an intention to invoke the 1807 Act in response to "nationwide protests", as you well know. The assertion was specifically related to the riots, looting, destruction of private property (arson), and injury of innocent people that are either occurring without check by state and local officials or where local police are overwhelmed. The rioters burned down two police stations and a fire department. If this is not insurrection, I am not sure what is. Please correct the page to at least accurately state that the intention to invoke the 1807 act is related to riots and looting (not "protests"). 96.82.86.201 (talk) 17:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pro forma, since the editor who did this didn't mark it:  Done RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Background?

[edit]

The article should have more details about the background of the act and its predecessor document. An "insurrection act" signed into law by the author of the Declaration of Independence could use a little explaining. (Hm...would the American Revolution been lawful under something like the Insurrection Act?) Count Robert of Paris (talk) 15:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2020

[edit]
98.115.164.70 (talk) 16:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please check Was the Insurrection Act of 1807 invoked in 1932 against the Bonus Army (aka Bonus Marchers) in Washington D.C.?

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP (talk • contribs) 17:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2020

[edit]

Text that should be removed: The Insurrection Act of 1807 is a United States federal law (10 U.S.C. §§ 251–255; prior to 2016, 10 U.S.C. §§ 331–335) that empowers the president of the United States to deploy U.S. military and federalized National Guard troops within the United States in particular circumstances, such as to suppress civil disorder, insurrection and rebellion.

Text that should replace it: The Insurrection Act of 1807 was amended in 2006 and the name changed to Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order. It is a United States federal law (10 U.S.C. 15 §§ 331-336) that empowers the president of the United States to deploy U.S. military and federalized National Guard troops within the United States in particular circumstances, such as to suppress civil disorder, insurrection and rebellion.

Sources:

https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCODE-2006-title10/USCODE-2006-title10-subtitleA-partI-chap15 (official U. S. government website)

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22266.pdf (Congressional Research Service, The Use of Federal Troops for Disaster Assistance: Legal Issues, Page 2) Aspinwall (talk) 20:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I rescind my above proposed edit, as Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order was repealed on January 28, 2008 and the previous Insurrection Act was restored. (Homeland Security Digital Library, https://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&did=10686) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspinwall (talk • contribs) 11:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Partly done: I've mentioned the amendments but in a slightly different way. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2020

[edit]

Insurrection Act Table.

Add line for John Brown's Raid at Harper's Ferry, Maryland, October 17-18, 1859. Federal U.S. Marines and Army troops under the command of Colonel Robert E. Lee put down the rebellion. 173.69.146.70 (talk) 18:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. QueerFilmNerdtalk 19:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Secret 2007 amendment

[edit]

An earlier version of the article contained this following very surprising claim:

A secret amendment was made to the Insurrection Act by an unknown Congressional sponsor, allowing such intervention against the will of state governors.

I thought this seemed unlikely (“What is a ‘secret amendment’?”, I asked), but there was a reliable-seeming source, and when I checked it, it did actually say that. I improved the citation and added a short quotation from the source:

Hoffmeister, Thaddeus (2010). "An Insurrection Act for the Twenty-First Century". Stetson Law Review. 39: 898. Once finalized, the Enforcement Act was quietly tucked into a large defense authorization bill: the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007. Very few people, including many members of Congress who voted on the larger defense bill, actually knew they were also voting to modify the Insurrection Act. The secrecy surrounding the Enforcement Act was so pervasive that the actual sponsor of the new legislation remains unknown to this day.

Despite this, not long afterward, another editor replaced the claim with a much less interesting version. The new wording is:

An amendment was made to the Insurrection Act by the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 to explicitly allow any emergency hindering the enforcement of laws, regardless of state consent, to be a cause for use of the military.

This does not mention the extreme secrecy with which the amendment was introduced, or that members of Congress might have inadvertently voted for the amendment. No explanation for the change was given in the edit summary.

I think the circumstances around this amendment are unusual and noteworthy. They are supported by a reliable source. I am going to restore this information unless there is a good reason not to. —Mark Dominus (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten that part of the article. —Mark Dominus (talk) 20:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, I took a deep look into this rabbit hole of public legislative records; quick spoilers: it’s still unresolvable. The House passed an initial version of H.R.5122 (the NDAA of FY 2007) without this language on 5/11/2006, it was then placed (again without this language) onto the Senate Calendar on 5/15/2006. However, on the Senate side there were already at that point three bills relating to the NDAA of FY 2007: S.2507, S.2766, and S.2767. S.2507 was introduced to the Senate on 04/04/2006, and does not include the language, but it is then just forgotten and left for dead. Later, both S.2766 and S.2767 had this language from the moment they were put on the Senate’s calendar on 05/09/2006. Both of them passed sequentially the same day 06/22/2006, followed later the same day by passing a version of H.R.5122 specifically, but which now has the language. So, short of intra-committee records from the Senate, the the language appears in the original Senate versions of the bills fully formed. So, really the closest anything about the origins can be narrowed down through the readily available records is that it originated in the Senate Committee on Armed Services, which is quite a disappointing dead end to this rabbit hole. --Puellanivis (talk) 12:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WTF, guys, it looks like the same happens here: the amendment 833 of Veronica Escobar to H.R.6395 (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021) was voted yeas-nays 215-190, nothing happens to it in Senate and then it is not present in latest version of the bill. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/6395/text/enr WTF. This is crazy. P.S. Sorry, Senate removed it. https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/116th-congress/house-report/617 "The House bill contained a provision (sec. 1052) that would amend sections 251, 252, and 253 of title 10, United ..." 109.252.94.59 (talk) 09:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dominus 96.68.23.233 (talk) 19:41, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Addition to the Table

[edit]

The March to Montgomery should be included in the table.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.63.112 (talk) 05:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selma_to_Montgomery_marches#March_to_Montgomery

Article Protection

[edit]

Due to recent events, and given how this article may be used to weaponize information to misinform the public on current events, it may be prudent to place this article under some form of protection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:281:D480:1040:9992:1BFD:304E:23F9 (talk) 12:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wording of the introductory paragraphs

[edit]

I wonder if any else finds the opening two paragraphs to be a bit odd in the phrasing.

Specifically, the article opens by naming the Insurrection Act of 1807 but then goes on, in the second paragraph, to say that, "The act provides a 'statutory exception' to the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878" which is a confusing non-sequitur, seeming to suggest that the 1807 act was created as a type of amendment to the subsequent 1878 act that it predates.

Rewording perhaps along the lines of "The act itself became a 'statutory exception' to the later Posse Comitatus Act of 1878"?

Not a huge big deal but it made me re-read the paragraphs twice over and caused me to think which kinda hurt a little.  : )

P6m8k (talk) 03:01, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep looked through talk to find if anyone else had the issue. Should be re-worded but I'm not super well read on this act to make the changes but it should happen. Jjazz76 (talk) 06:15, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Calls for reform stale

[edit]

The section says that Senator Blumenthal introduced the CIVIL Act in 2020 to limit presidential use of the act. I could not find anything by Googling this acronym or nickname, and no bill number is provided to assist tracking it on the Senate web sources. There is no follow up on Blumenthal’s website. Lots of bills are was sent to committee and die at the end of that congressional session. If that’s so, then it is getting undue and unencyclopedic prominence, and giving the false impression that it might have passed or be close to being enacted. It does not seem to have gotten all that much press coverage, in general. If it’s just one more failed piece of legislation, is there justification to leave mention of it in the article? Edison (talk) 20:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Insurrection_Act_of_1807&oldid=1256216436"