Insurrection Act vs. martial law
So you all might have heard about Trump about this Insurrection Act.
While President Trump has discussed the possibility of invoking this act, he has not officially signed any new legislation related to it.
Invoking the Insurrection Act temporarily suspends another U.S. law that forbids federal troops from conducting civilian law enforcement.
A president can invoke the law after determining that "unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion" against the federal government make it "impracticable to enforce" U.S. law "by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings." In those cases, the Insurrection Act would allow the president to direct federal troops "as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion."
Martial law, on the other hand, typically refers to imposing military law on civilians.
The Insurrection Act does not allow the president to completely replace regular authorities with military authority.
The Insurrection Act was used in Watts riots and during the 1992 Los Angeles riots, after four white police officers were acquitted in the roadside beating of Rodney King
While President Trump has discussed the possibility of invoking this act, he has not officially signed any new legislation related to it.
Social media posts predicted that President Donald Trump will declare martial law April 20, but they appeared to conflate it with the Insurrection Act of 1807, which was mentioned in a recent executive order.
Invoking the Insurrection Act would not create what is commonly understood as martial law, legal experts said.
Legal experts said they don’t see a clear path for Trump to lawfully implement martial law in the way it’s commonly understood, but some of Trump’s statements and actions signal a disregard for legal and constitutional limits.
Invoking the Insurrection Act temporarily suspends another U.S. law that forbids federal troops from conducting civilian law enforcement.
A president can invoke the law after determining that "unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion" against the federal government make it "impracticable to enforce" U.S. law "by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings." In those cases, the Insurrection Act would allow the president to direct federal troops "as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion."
Martial law, on the other hand, typically refers to imposing military law on civilians.
The Insurrection Act does not allow the president to completely replace regular authorities with military authority.
The Insurrection Act was used in Watts riots and during the 1992 Los Angeles riots, after four white police officers were acquitted in the roadside beating of Rodney King
