Is Senator Tom Cotton Correct ???

People are still arguing over an op-ed piece written by Senator Tom Cotton. You can read about it here:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/tom-cotton-op-ed.html

And you can find the op-ed piece itself here [subscription may be required]:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/03/opinion/tom-cotton-protests-military.html

I believe a VERY important aspect of the issue is not being fully addressed - namely, what the Posse Comitatus Act actually says. Here is the text of the act in its current form:

18 U.S. Code § 1385.Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus

Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

(Added Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, § 18(a), 70A Stat. 626; amended Pub. L. 86–70, § 17(d), June 25, 1959, 73 Stat. 144; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)


So, what cases and circumstances are "expressly authorized by the Constitution"? There appears to be only one, and it seems to be addressed by these two clauses:

Article I, Section 8
[The Congress shall have Power] 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Article II, Section 2
1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

And what cases and circumstances have been "expressly authorized by Act of Congress"? There is at least one I know of, as spelled out in the Insurrection Act:

10 U.S. Code § 252 - Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority

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.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 15, § 332; Pub. L. 109–163, div. A, title X, § 1057(a)(2), Jan. 6, 2006, 119 Stat. 3440; renumbered § 252, Pub. L. 114–328, div. A, title XII, § 1241(a)(2), Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2497.)

How about that? The President ALREADY has the authority to use our armed forces against rebels and insurrectionists.

I agree with Senator Cotton - Armed insurrection and rebellion should be suppressed, using our armed forces if necessary.

I also agree with those who think our armed forces should not be used against peaceful protestors.

But those who may argue that no armed insurrection or rebellion is in process are delusional. Facts on the ground prove otherwise, with the CHAZ in Seattle being a prime example.

In a way, we're back to one of the original problems Trump has had to cope with - The President has the legal and constitutional authority to do lots of things his opponents don't want him to do. Why are they fabricating arguments apparently designed to undermine that authority, when they didn't have the spine or inclination to do so under previous administrations? Do they REALLY care about We the People, or are they motivated by some other agenda?

Who the hell knows any more?