Did you know the Insurrection Act was modified?

[Molon Labe]

For an overview read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act

The bill is HR 5122, and is called "John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007."

Here's Section 1076:

SEC. 1076. USE OF THE ARMED FORCES IN MAJOR PUBLIC EMERGENCIES.


(a) Use of the Armed Forces Authorized-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 333 of title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

`Sec. 333. Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law

`(a) Use of Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies- (1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to--

`(A) restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that--

`(i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order; and

`(ii) such violence results in a condition described in paragraph (2); or

`(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2).

`(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that--

`(A) 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

`(B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

`(3) In any situation covered by paragraph (1)(B), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.

`(b) Notice to Congress- The President shall notify Congress of the determination to exercise the authority in subsection (a)(1)(A) as soon as practicable after the determination and every 14 days thereafter during the duration of the exercise of that authority.'.

(2) PROCLAMATION TO DISPERSE- Section 334 of such title is amended by inserting `or those obstructing the enforcement of the laws' after `insurgents'.

(3) HEADING AMENDMENT- The heading of chapter 15 of such title is amended to read as follows:

`CHAPTER 15--ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAWS TO RESTORE PUBLIC ORDER'.

(4) CLERICAL AMENDMENTS- (A) The tables of chapters at the beginning of subtitle A of title 10, United States Code, and at the beginning of part I of such subtitle, are each amended by striking the item relating to chapter 15 and inserting the following new item:
331'.


(B) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 15 of such title is amended by striking the item relating to sections 333 and inserting the following new item:

`333. Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law.'.

(b) Provision of Supplies, Services, and Equipment-

(1) IN GENERAL- Chapter 152 of such title is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

`Sec. 2567. Supplies, services, and equipment: provision in major public emergencies

`(a) Provision Authorized- In any situation in which the President determines to exercise the authority in section 333(a)(1)(A) of this title, the President may direct the Secretary of Defense to provide supplies, services, and equipment to persons affected by the situation.

`(b) Covered Supplies, Services, and Equipment- The supplies, services, and equipment provided under this section may include food, water, utilities, bedding, transportation, tentage, search and rescue, medical care, minor repairs, the removal of debris, and other assistance necessary for the immediate preservation of life and property.

`© Limitations- (1) Supplies, services, and equipment may be provided under this section--

`(A) only to the extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession concerned are unable to provide such supplies, services, and equipment, as the case may be; and

`(B) only until such authorities, or other departments or agencies of the United States charged with the provision of such supplies, services, and equipment, are able to provide such supplies, services, and equipment.

`(2) The Secretary may provide supplies, services, and equipment under this section only to the extent that the Secretary determines that doing so will not interfere with military preparedness or ongoing military operations or functions.

`(d) Inapplicability of Certain Authorities- The provision of supplies, services, or equipment under this section shall not be subject to the provisions of section 403© of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170b©).'.

(2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

`2567. Supplies, services, and equipment: provision in major public emergencies'.

© Conforming Amendment- Section 12304©(1) of such title is amended by striking `No unit' and all that follows through `subsection (b),' and inserting `Except to perform any of the functions authorized by chapter 15 or section 12406 of this title or by subsection (b), no unit or member of a reserve component may be ordered to active duty under this section'.

Overall I am troubled by this. But let me play devil's advocate for a second. Let's pretend a state (e.g. Massachusetts) passes a law that forbids anyone in the state from keeping and bearing arms. Under this law, the federal government could (theoretically) come in and free the people of Massachusetts, and restore their constitutionally-protected rights:

A condition described in this paragraph is a condition 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.

Thoughts?

 

[River Wraith]

I like your scenario, but think realistically pigs will fly before it happens. I don't see much good in this bill whatsoever.

 

[Can'thavenuthingood]

Its the "other conditions" generalities that allow a wide interpretation of when a specific action can be ordered.

Depending on who is making the decision, the definition if "is" principle again.

Specific elements of military use rather than an entire Army used to track down and put down the insurrectees, media will call us guerillas.

The good in the bill is from the controllers standpoint, only they know what is good for us.
Restoring public order means culling out the stray beligerent sheep from the herd.

Warner must be retiring soon.

Vick

 

[SamTuckerMTNMAN]

bright spot

well,

if there is some good in it...perhaps we could do a better job stopping the rampant burning and looting by the 'oppressed' Muslims than they have done in France, where one policeman this morning said "100 cars burned is a light evening. We have 100 cars burned in the suburbs on any average evening."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,226061,00.html

???

ST

 

[deadin]

As with most "laws", I think the intent is good. However there are always enough loopholes that allow for abuses.

Dean

 

[Chucksredvette]

OR say the state of MA passes those same laws, and honest hardworking citizens, now made lawbreakers by those same laws rise up in protest. The president then sends in the 10th mountain division to quell the "uprising".

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Speakin' Of Loopholes...

...right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law,...

If it is in the Constitution, it must also be secured by law "...and secured by law,..."

But, in my view, "named in the Constitution" IS secured by law...the Supreme Law of the Land.

Too much wiggle room, though. Remove the "and" in question and replace it with "or" and you've got a deal!

Woody

"The Right of the People to move about freely in a secure manner shall not be infringed. Any manner of self defense shall not be restricted, regardless of the mode of travel, WHAT STORMS OR TROUBLE MAY BREW, or where you stop along the way, as it is the right so enumerated at both the beginning and end of any journey OR STRIFE." B.E.Wood

 

[TallPine]

Well, heck - all those soldiers (and soldierettes) have to have something to do after they come home from Iraqnam.

 

[gc70]

This is the answer to all of the people who whined that the President should have "done more" after Katrina. Be careful what you wish for ....

 

[mons meg]

Wait...is this a bill, or a law?

 

[beerslurpy]

Uh, 2007 hasnt happened yet, so I'm pretty sure this isnt law.

This seems like another step towards tyranny, should it be passed. Clearly some people think the only thing wrong with the Waco Seige was that it wasnt large scale enough.

I dont need the government's help protecting my possessions from rioters, thank you very much.

 

[gc70]

HR 5122 was the funding bill for the Department of Defense for Fiscal Year 2007. The federal government's fiscal year 2007 runs from October 1, 2006 through September 30, 2007.

HR 5122 was passed September 30, 2006 and was signed by the President and became Public Law 109-364 on October 17, 2006.

 

[pictoblu]

From what I was told, this is now Public Law 109-364, and was signed by our Pres. on Oct. 17th in a private ceremony in the Oval Office, the very same day that he signed the Military Commissions Act of 2006. The two laws appear to complement one another, the latter allowing torture and detention abroad, and the former intending to enforce submission at home. Stepping stones to the placement of matial law here, it appears.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s109-2766

To find the specific section having to do with the new powers, go to the above web page above, click on "Edit" at top of page, then click on "Find in this page" and type in "Emergencies" (w/o the quotation marks) in the search box, then hit "Find Next" four times -- until it gets to that section in the bill having to do with "emergencies" and use of the military to act as police enforcement in the United States and U.S. territories.


I just really am astounded by all this. And right here at election time.

 

[oldfart]

I started a thread titled "Are we ready for a King?" that had to do with this very thing. Only I linked a discussion over at 'The Claire Files' that no one wanted to read. Instead, they found reasons to bash Libertarians, the two-party system, paranoids and... indirectly... me.

Now: With an ill-defined fine line between who can or cannot be classified an "Enemy Combatant" and thus deported to Gitmo, and this little bomb, just how long does anyone think it will be before some internet bulletin board is called a 'nest of conspirators,' shut down by the feds and the owner, together with several of his moderators and major posters, will disappear?
Well, probably not this year or even during this Presidency, but what about the next President, or the next? As Olberman said the other day, "We have written a blank check drawn against our freedom."