It’s a big ask, but try to be open-minded and consider what I’m going to tell you and break it down, and then I want your opinion at the end of this. Because this, I mean, this is a hot-button issue here. Regardless of who’s president right now, and I don’t claim to know it all. I just did a bunch of digging, quite a bit of reading and research, and I want your opinion on what I present here. Now, you may have seen recent headlines. What is the Insurrection Act? Could it help President Trump deploy troops to the cities? That’s exactly what I’m going to break down for you today.

And in this video, I’ll walk you through a few things. Number one, what the Insurrection Act is, historically and legally. Two, how it interacts with other laws like the Posse Comitatus Act. Three, whether Trump can realistically invoke it now. Four, what the legal and constitutional limits are or are supposed to be. Five, some case studies and some precedents real quick. And then six, what it means going forward. Now, Patriots, if you love America and you love your coffee strong, you’ve got to check out Blackout Coffee. This isn’t your average store-bought brew. It’s premium small batch roasted coffee made here in the USA by us.

People who love freedom as much as you do. Every bag is roasted fresh so that you’re not getting coffee that’s been sitting on a shelf for months. You’re getting bold, rich flavored, delivered straight to your door within two to three days of us even roasting it. And when you support us at Blackout Coffee, you’re supporting a company that proudly backs the Constitution, our Second Amendment and hardworking Americans to include sending coffee overseas to our troops. So start your mornings the right way with coffee that tastes as good as freedom feels. Head on over to blackoutcoffee.com slash G&G and you can use my code G&G 10 for 10% off your entire order.

Blackout Coffee, wake up like a patriot. Oh, and one more thing. If you like bourbon, I have just released with Heraclitus Select my own barrel pick. This will not last long. I’m not gonna, there’s a post I did on YouTube and all my socials that will have more information on it. Limited, very limited. But Heraclitus, if you know who Heraclitus was, he was a philosopher and this has to do with his quote. It says, out of every 100 men, 10 shouldn’t even be there. 80 are just targets. Nine are the real fighters and we’re lucky to have them before they make the battle.

Ah, but the one. One is a warrior and he will bring the others back. So here’s to the nines and ones. Grab some, I’ll have a link down below, but it’s really good. It’s nine, almost nine years aged, eight and a half years. It’s a bourbon and thank you for your consideration. Now the Insurrection Act here, let’s get started on this. It’s a federal statute that originally passed in 1807, giving the President of the United States authority to deploy the military or federalize the National Guard within states under certain circumstances to restore public order during an insurrection or a rebellion.

Now under normal circumstances, day-to-day law enforcement is handled by the states and local authorities. But if there is a breakdown, for example, when civil authorities cannot maintain order, the president may invoke this law to step in. Now it’s very important to note that the Insurrection Act doesn’t act in isolation. It works in tension with the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which generally forbids the use of the U.S. military for domestic law enforcement. But the Insurrection Act is a carve-out. When law enforcement fails or in emergencies, the president can override the Posse Comitatus Act. Now in short, the Insurrection Act is an exceptional power to bring in military force domestically, but only under tightly defined conditions.

To fully understand how the Insurrection Act might be used or abused, we need to look at how it meshes with other statutes and constitutional constraints. Let’s look first at the Posse Comitatus Act. Now this law generally prohibits active-duty military forces from performing civilian law enforcement. The Insurrection Act provides a legal exception under specific conditions. And then there’s the Title X authority. This is another federal power that allows for deployment of forces under certain conditions. In fact, in recent times, President Trump has used Title X rather than the Insurrection Act to deploy troops. And then there’s state-level control over the National Guard.

National Guard units are usually under state control through the governor, and a state can choose whether to permit their use in local enforcement. But under the Insurrection Act, the president can federalize guard troops superseding governors. Now thus, the interplay here is very complex. Like I said, I’m just giving you a brief overview, a 30,000-foot view, but I want you to keep an open mind here. Invoking the Insurrection Act is not simply issuing an order. It must navigate legal hurdles, intergovernmental conflicts, and constitutional boundaries. And you’re seeing a lot of claims on that here in the last week or two.

Now recently, President Trump has threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act if courts or state officials block his plans to deploy soldiers in cities particularly tied to his immigration crackdown. Now a few key developments here. In Portland, like the troops started arriving yesterday, but protests erupted near the ICE facility there in Portland. And President Trump claimed that there was an insurrection happening, and he said he could use the law to send in troops. But, and here’s the problem, like Oregon’s governor, regardless of whether you think the governor is phenomenal or not, regardless of what letter is after their name, the governor rejected this characterization from the president stating that there’s no insurrection in Portland, there’s no threat to national security.

Now, a federal judge has temporarily blocked Trump’s use of Title 10 to deploy to Oregon, which is going to delay troop movement until October 18 pending an appeal, which the administration has done, but we haven’t received a decision on that as of yet, as of the time I’m recording this. I could change in five minutes. Illinois and the city of Chicago filed a suit arguing that the deployment of 300 National Guard troops was unlawful, and Governor Pritzker declared the move was an invasion and another state was invading his state. Now, Trump has used Title 10 previously, for example, deploying 2000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles, despite opposition from California’s Governor, Gavin Newsom.

So the scenario is this. Donald Trump says that he may invoke the Insurrection Act if legal roadblocks persist, but is it legal? And that’s what we’re here to discuss. Is it legal? That’s where things get murky here. Now, a number of constitutional scholars and lawyers argue that invoking the Insurrection Act in scenarios like this would exceed legal boundaries. And you can see everybody who is anybody sounding off about this now in the last couple of days, especially with the buildup in Portland. Now, here are some of the main arguments. Number one is the threshold of insurrection or rebellion.

A constitutional lawyer, Bruce Fine, is somebody I saw a lot talk about this, and he argues that the act is meant for a major rebellion akin to civil war level where normal law enforcement is overwhelmed. He also says that using it in situations like Portland without overwhelming evidence of a true rebellion would be clearly illegal. And then there’s the issue of challengeability in court. It is unclear whether the President’s declaration of an insurrection can be blocked by courts before deployment. Some say courts have jurisdiction, but others argue the political questions doctrine might prevent judicial review.

And then there’s the duty of the military to refuse unlawful orders. Under military laws, if an order is manifestly illegal, service members have a duty to disobey. And that adds another barrier to blunt use of force from law enforcement. You have that same order, that same constitutional demand, yet cops still enforce illegal and unconstitutional laws. So there’s that. Not all of them, but enough of them to cause us to be where we’re at. And number four, there’s congressional oversight and potential impeachment, right? So even if courts cannot stop the misuse quickly, Congress could respond, for example, through an impeachment, again, or legislative limitation of authority.

And this guy fine suggests that if Trump were to misuse the act, Congress might intervene. I don’t think they would, but you never know. After the midterms, if the Democrats take control of the Senate and the House, I guarantee they’re going to impeach Trump no matter what. No matter what he does, whether it’s now or anything, they’re going to do it again if they gain control. So even though the act grants broad powers on paper, in practice those powers are bounded by constitutional rules, judicial constraints, and fundamental rights. Now to understand how extraordinary this is, let’s look at some precedent.

The Insurrection Act has been used about 30 times in U.S. history according to the Brennan Center for Justice. Now the last invocation was in 1992, during the Los Angeles riots following the Rodney King verdict. Then President George H. W. Bush deployed 2,000 National Guard troops and 1,500 Marines to restore order. Now that situation involved massive civil unrest, broad property destruction, and an incapacitated local law enforcement environment. Conditions far more severe than localized protests is what many people are claiming when they’re comparing the two. What happened with the Rodney King riots versus what’s going on today.

So using the act is historically seen as a measure of last resort when civil order is collapsing. Now let’s consider what’s on the line here. Someone does try to invoke the Insurrection Act in modern U.S. cities. Now first, the possible justifications or arguments in favor of it. A president might argue that local authorities are refusing to act or are overwhelmed by violence or chaos, and Donald Trump is now saying that these local authorities are refusing to act. So there’s that. In extreme cases of lawlessness, federal intervention might be needed to protect lives and property, or in many cases, the way that the administration does it, no matter what administration is, they send in the troops to protect federal buildings because feds have a vested interest in keeping federal buildings safe.

Now it gives a tool for enforcing federal laws, for instance immigration law, when local resistance is strong. Now what are some major risks and drawbacks? Well there’s the infringement of civil liberties to look at. This is why I say have an open mind. Don’t care what president you like or don’t like. This is something that we need to consider, not just now, but every day to maintain our constitutional republic or try to. So deploying the military in civilian settings risks violation of rights, search and seizure, use of force, freedom of movement, due process, all of it.

Then there’s political backlash. It would be highly, highly controversial and it could galvanize opposition, which is what the Democrats I think are trying to lean on right now in this scenario. Then there’s like legal shame. If it was determined to be illegal after the fact, it could lead to liability impeachment or damage to institutional credibility. I mean look at today, you got former FBI head James Comey is right now in court being indicted and arraigned. So he was arrested for lying to Congress. So that could happen. Then there’s the state versus federal conflict.

Governors and local leaders may resist or litigate. There’s military refusal or internal breakdown possibilities. If troops judge that an order is unlawful, then they may refuse to carry it out, creating dysfunction or disobedience. So there’s a bunch of stuff, but in short, the power is enormous, but so is the potential for abuse and a constitutional crisis. So to summarize for you, the insurrection act is a very rare presidential tool to use the military domestically in times of insurrection or rebellion. And that’s key. It has to be those. Now it requires conditions so extreme that many experts say it’s reserved for scenarios akin to full scale civil collapse.

Now, President Trump currently has threatened to use it in response to protests related to immigration, but legal, constitutional and practical barriers are substantial. Then you got courts and Congress and governors, even military law could constrain or block misuse. But only the only recent precedent, like I said, was in 1992 during the LA riots after the Rodney King verdict, which is a very different context from today’s protests that we’re looking at. I really, really want to hear what you think about this, guys. If you found this helpful, this breakdown, hit like and subscribe and ring the bell so you don’t miss future breakdowns that I do like this, whether it’s a constitutional issue or second amendment specific.

And let me know in the comments, do you think the insurrection act could be legally invoked today? Or do you think it would be blocked? And do you support any president, detach yourself from any political views? Do you support any president using this power to stop what they deem to be an insurrection? Who deems what is the problem I see here for potential misuse? I want to hear from you, though. Sound off down below. Thank you for watching. Stay sharp, stay informed, stay armed and stay free. I’ll see you next time on Guns and Gadgets.

I really want to see your opinions on this. Take care, America. God bless you. [tr:trw].

See more of Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News on their Public Channel and the MPN Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News channel.