The law allows the president to dispatch the military to suppress a domestic uprising if the uprising has “made enforcement of the law impracticable. . S.. . through the ordinary course of legal proceedings. ”
The law is different from martial law, which allows some civil liberties to be suspended under the constitution.
A law professor previously stated that the insurrection law is intended to enforce, not replace, the law.
« This is not martial law. In this way, the federal government supports states that have problems with rioting, domestic violence, the inability to pass their own laws to enforce their own laws, or situations where the state of affairs makes the federal government unable to enforce its own laws Laws, be it a riot or some other disturbance, ”said Engel.
President Trump considered invoking the law in the aftermath of George Floyd’s death that led to rioting around federal buildings.
But Engel says if this election happens, states are violating their own constitutions by doing things like changing electoral laws just before the election or promoting illegal votes.
“We are dealing with a lot of turbulence. However, I know of no act in any state that makes it impractical to enforce United States law. They don’t enforce their own laws. The Insurrection Act, however, has to do with enforcing the laws of the United States, not individual states, ”Engel said.
Instead, he says that much of the power to deal with potential fraud rests in the hands of the citizens in any state.
« As I said, it’s not the Congress. And it is not up to the federal government to get these states to solve their problems. Ultimately, it’s up to the people in these states, ”said Engel.
Insurrection Act of 1807, Donald Trump, Martial Law, Michael Flynn, Rebellion
World News – CA – Scholar explains Insurrection Act
Donnez votre avis et abonnez-vous pour plus d’infos
Vidéo du jour: