The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Insurrection Act of 1807 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the
Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:
|
Reading this article it isnt clear at all what version of this act is law. what was repealed in 2008, the changes made in 2007, or the original amendment from 2006?
can we have one section devoted to the actual present day content, and move everything else to a historical subsection? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snarfbottle ( talk • contribs) 16:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree - I can't determine from this article what is currently in the Insurrection Act. It seems the whole article is about repealed changes, plus a reference to the Posse Comitatus Act. Kbk ( talk) 16:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
In the third paragraph, it's unbelievably vague what is meant by "As part of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, these provisions have since been amended." Which provisions? As it seems, it would not make sense for the aspect of the law mentioned in the previous sentence to be those provisions, as the Posse Comitatus was attempting to accomplish the opposite of the effects that such revocation would have. JackSitilides ( talk) 14:36, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
The now-repealed 2006 amendments take up over 3/4 of the article space. I appreciate the depth of detail which went into the section's writing, but shouldn't this be moved to 'historic'? Aerowolf ( talk) 21:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Can anyone find and update a list of instances in which the act was used by the President. For example I know of two instances, the LA Riots and the deploying of troops by President Kennedy to force desegregation. Also I think that the Whiskey Rebellion was probably the reason this was enacted but I am not sure. Can anyone find any research articles that lead to more information. Plus their should be some background as to the Constitutionality of this act. The Constitution itself gives the legislature authority to declare war but the President has broad authority over the use of the armed forces as commander in chief and there is a struggle here by Congress to rein in the power of the President by specifically authorizing his use of the powers with this act. Need to find good articles on this issue to cite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.199.122.237 ( talk) 19:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I think that copying this to wikisource is a good idea, but I also think that the encyclopedic comment at the top should be expanded and retained as an article. What do other people think? -- Apyule 13:20, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
When did the Insurrection Act become law? The Posse Comitatus Act dates from 1878... 66.146.62.19 04:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
The part of the Insurrection Act most affected by the 2006 changes -- 10 U.S.C. 333 -- was enacted in 1871 as part of the Ku Klux Klan Act, which authorized the President to declare martial law and suspend habeas corpus, among other measures, to enforce civil rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. 70.174.147.104 03:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
In this section, there is a lot of point of view information, and information that is patently incorrect. Examples:
- Calling the inclusion of changes "quiet", as if they were somehow secret
- "clearly a significant and controversial change" - To who? The blogosphere?
- The insinuation that it's abnormal for a statute to be updated as a part of another bill, including a defense appropriations bill
- The assertion that this violates, weakens, ignores, etc., the Posse Comitatus Act, when the Posse Comitatus Act specifically doesn't apply, since both the original Insurrection Act and the appropriations bill that modifies it are both an "Act of Congress", which is specifically exempted by the Posse Comitatus Act. The Posse Comitatus Act was designed to prevent against the arbitrary use of the military as a domestic police force, but it is allowable when allowed by an Act of Congress.
How can we get this corrected without starting some kind of edit war? -- Dave Schroeder, das@doit.wisc.edu
Why was there such an overwhelming majority for the changes to the act in congress and passed unanimously in the senate and then a year later it was completely repealed? Is this not kind of spectacular? Noteworthy? Nunamiut ( talk) 04:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Did I just read "and so Donald Trump can start a civil war" in a wikipedia article? Give me a break, comrade, you don't have much experience with checks and balances in your 'bot' land, or so it seems.
Doesn't anybody else find it somewhat unbalanced that the very first section of this article is about "recent changes"? I mean, this is an article about a 200 year old document, but at least 90% of the article is devoted to the last two years of its existence! -- JianLi 23:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
YES! It's terrible as written. A reasonable structure would be the normal Wiki one of Introduction: Brief History of the Act: The Act Itself Explained : Controversy surrounding the Act. I came here to read about the act, not about failed attempts to modify it (modify what? can't tell from reading this article) in 2006. Lets fix this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.230.162.189 ( talk) 17:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Similar to events that led to the Enabling Act of 1933 in Germany, critics contend that the federal government is taking steps to quietly increase the power of the federal authority over the regions while simultaneously increasing executive control specifically for policing the domestic population through legal use of the military. Doesn't bringing Nazi's into this risk making this article look bias? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pete bot ( talk • contribs) 13:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Please don't use Wikipedia articles as a slate for debating or commenting on the merits of something. Opinions, for or against, should be specifically cited to a reliable source Gazpacho 22:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Could someone write up a section that details under what context and for what reason the Insurrection Act was passed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.211.160.121 ( talk) 21:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
In light of the repeal of the amendments, might it be worth abridging the section? The section is now quite lengthy and includes a table and flow chart detailing the changes, which is appropriate for a current even, and perhaps for the law as it stands currently, but the relevance of the amendments had definitely declined, I think. Is it an idea to shrink down the section to something more succinct? Posse Comitatus Act has a much briefer section on similar changes. Knight of Truth ( talk) 11:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Insurrection Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Insurrection Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
This article needs to be edit-protected immediately due to current events.
Agreed. The act has not been invoked at this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rarshonsky ( talk • contribs) 23:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
With the act now in the news right now, the article keeps being vandalized. It should definitely be protected. KeybladeSpyMaster ( talk) 23:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. Vandals are already causing problems on it. Halyonix ( talk) 23:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. Especially because it will be the source of information for thousands. Would be worth it to add more information about the law, it’s rather sparse. Ashley ( talk) 23:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Of course protection is needed. And regarding the sparseness of the article: earlier today a very large section was deleted, I don't know if it was necessary or if there is a start for expansion. Eissink ( talk) 23:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC).
Can anyone find materials to offer context as to why this act was created? I've spent a few minutes searching online without success. Thank you, WikiWikiHigh ( talk) 00:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Where is the original text? The USC is fine for whatever, but it is not the law as passed in 1807. We should be able to see the original and any amendments! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.90.75.20 ( talk)
This
edit request to
Insurrection Act has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
To be added to the list of invocations of the Insurrection Act:
1932 Bonus Army incident, whereby US Army was used to rebel a march of WW1 veterans in Washington DC. 1992 LA Riots, whereby US Army was called in to quell the riots 1990 Operation Green Sweep, whereby US Army took part in a series of domestic drug raids 65.35.103.58 ( talk) 00:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
This text appears a little above the table:
"The Insurrection Act has been invoked infrequently throughout American history, most recently following looting in the aftermath of Hurricane Hugo in 1989 and during the 1992 Los Angeles riots. [3][4]"
HOWEVER, these two recent invocations of the Act are not included in the table, which caption asks for updates! I am not competent to mess with a Wiki table, so appeal to someone capable of updating it.LarryWiki115 00:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larry11565 ( talk • contribs)
The table also lists the incorrect president for the 1992 invocation. George HW Bush, was president, not George W Bush. This should be fixed.
This
edit request to
Insurrection Act has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
George W Bush was not president in 1992. 73.164.209.76 ( talk) 01:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Insurrection Act has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
. Donald Trump activates it on June 1st often threatening to do so 72.66.65.4 ( talk) 01:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Insurrection Act has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Currently the article reads "On June 1, 2020, President Donald Trump threatened to invoke the Act in response to the nationwide George Floyd protests following his death in police custody." If read literally the his is modifying Donald Trump. While it would be nice if he dies in policy custody that's not what has happened. Clearer wording would be something along the lines of:
"On June 1, 2020, President Donald Trump threatened to invoke the Act in response to the nationwide protests following George Floyd's murder by police." Billarkansaw ( talk) 03:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Insurrection Act has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
please change the last paragraph in 'Application' from
"On June 1, 2020, President Donald Trump threatened to invoke the Act in response to the nationwide George Floyd protests following his death in police custody.[8][9]"
to something like
"On June 1, 2020, President Donald Trump threatened to invoke the Act in response to the arson, looting, rioting, and vandalism in many of the nationwide George Floyd protests following Floyd's death in police custody.[8][9]" 96.32.9.112 ( talk) 03:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Insurrection Act has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change, "On June 1, 2020, President Donald Trump threatened to invoke the Act ..." to "On June 1, 2020, President Donald Trump invoked the Act ...".
While the current text is consistent with Trump's message in the Rose Garden speech, he had already deployed U.S. Army military police and (just after 7:00 pm) at least one U.S. Army helicopter from Ft. Bragg, NC to disperse protesters. See e.g., [1], [2]. CWinDC ( talk) 16:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Insurrection Act has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The insurrection act does NOT need approval from the governor of a state or it's legislation. The act allows a governor or legislative to request assistance and grants the president the power to provide military, if requested.
US Code 10 (§252), further expands the president's power:
"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." 68.35.219.101 ( talk) 05:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Many of the invocations in the table have primary documents, either in the relevant category on Wikisource or now linked in External Links. Should we just move them into the table? Seems like a logical place to put them, assuming each table entry still has a citation to a secondary/tertiary source. Thoughts? — Luis ( talk) 05:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The application section by President Trump is inaccurate and reflects bias. It is not true that President Trump asserted an intention to invoke the 1807 Act in response to "nationwide protests", as you well know. The assertion was specifically related to the riots, looting, destruction of private property (arson), and injury of innocent people that are either occurring without check by state and local officials or where local police are overwhelmed. The rioters burned down two police stations and a fire department. If this is not insurrection, I am not sure what is. Please correct the page to at least accurately state that the intention to invoke the 1807 act is related to riots and looting (not "protests"). 96.82.86.201 ( talk) 17:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
The article should have more details about the background of the act and its predecessor document. An "insurrection act" signed into law by the author of the Declaration of Independence could use a little explaining. (Hm...would the American Revolution been lawful under something like the Insurrection Act?) Count Robert of Paris ( talk) 15:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
98.115.164.70 ( talk) 16:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Please check Was the Insurrection Act of 1807 invoked in 1932 against the Bonus Army (aka Bonus Marchers) in Washington D.C.?
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Text that should be removed: The Insurrection Act of 1807 is a United States federal law (10 U.S.C. §§ 251–255; prior to 2016, 10 U.S.C. §§ 331–335) that empowers the president of the United States to deploy U.S. military and federalized National Guard troops within the United States in particular circumstances, such as to suppress civil disorder, insurrection and rebellion.
Text that should replace it: The Insurrection Act of 1807 was amended in 2006 and the name changed to Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order. It is a United States federal law (10 U.S.C. 15 §§ 331-336) that empowers the president of the United States to deploy U.S. military and federalized National Guard troops within the United States in particular circumstances, such as to suppress civil disorder, insurrection and rebellion.
Sources:
https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCODE-2006-title10/USCODE-2006-title10-subtitleA-partI-chap15 (official U. S. government website)
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22266.pdf (Congressional Research Service, The Use of Federal Troops for Disaster Assistance: Legal Issues, Page 2) Aspinwall ( talk) 20:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I rescind my above proposed edit, as Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order was repealed on January 28, 2008 and the previous Insurrection Act was restored. (Homeland Security Digital Library, https://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&did=10686) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspinwall ( talk • contribs) 11:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Insurrection Act Table.
Add line for John Brown's Raid at Harper's Ferry, Maryland, October 17-18, 1859. Federal U.S. Marines and Army troops under the command of Colonel Robert E. Lee put down the rebellion. 173.69.146.70 ( talk) 18:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
An earlier version of the article contained this following very surprising claim:
A secret amendment was made to the Insurrection Act by an unknown Congressional sponsor, allowing such intervention against the will of state governors.
I thought this seemed unlikely (“What is a ‘secret amendment’?”, I asked), but there was a reliable-seeming source, and when I checked it, it did actually say that. I improved the citation and added a short quotation from the source:
Hoffmeister, Thaddeus (2010). "An Insurrection Act for the Twenty-First Century". Stetson Law Review. 39: 898.
Once finalized, the Enforcement Act was quietly tucked into a large defense authorization bill: the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007. Very few people, including many members of Congress who voted on the larger defense bill, actually knew they were also voting to modify the Insurrection Act. The secrecy surrounding the Enforcement Act was so pervasive that the actual sponsor of the new legislation remains unknown to this day.
Despite this, not long afterward, another editor replaced the claim with a much less interesting version. The new wording is:
An amendment was made to the Insurrection Act by the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 to explicitly allow any emergency hindering the enforcement of laws, regardless of state consent, to be a cause for use of the military.
This does not mention the extreme secrecy with which the amendment was introduced, or that members of Congress might have inadvertently voted for the amendment. No explanation for the change was given in the edit summary.
I think the circumstances around this amendment are unusual and noteworthy. They are supported by a reliable source. I am going to restore this information unless there is a good reason not to. — Mark Dominus ( talk) 20:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
The March to Montgomery should be included in the table. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.63.112 ( talk) 05:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Due to recent events, and given how this article may be used to weaponize information to misinform the public on current events, it may be prudent to place this article under some form of protection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:281:D480:1040:9992:1BFD:304E:23F9 ( talk) 12:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I wonder if any else finds the opening two paragraphs to be a bit odd in the phrasing.
Specifically, the article opens by naming the Insurrection Act of 1807 but then goes on, in the second paragraph, to say that, "The act provides a 'statutory exception' to the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878" which is a confusing non-sequitur, seeming to suggest that the 1807 act was created as a type of amendment to the subsequent 1878 act that it predates.
Rewording perhaps along the lines of "The act itself became a 'statutory exception' to the later Posse Comitatus Act of 1878"?
Not a huge big deal but it made me re-read the paragraphs twice over and caused me to think which kinda hurt a little. : )
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Insurrection Act of 1807 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the
Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:
|
Reading this article it isnt clear at all what version of this act is law. what was repealed in 2008, the changes made in 2007, or the original amendment from 2006?
can we have one section devoted to the actual present day content, and move everything else to a historical subsection? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snarfbottle ( talk • contribs) 16:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree - I can't determine from this article what is currently in the Insurrection Act. It seems the whole article is about repealed changes, plus a reference to the Posse Comitatus Act. Kbk ( talk) 16:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
In the third paragraph, it's unbelievably vague what is meant by "As part of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, these provisions have since been amended." Which provisions? As it seems, it would not make sense for the aspect of the law mentioned in the previous sentence to be those provisions, as the Posse Comitatus was attempting to accomplish the opposite of the effects that such revocation would have. JackSitilides ( talk) 14:36, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
The now-repealed 2006 amendments take up over 3/4 of the article space. I appreciate the depth of detail which went into the section's writing, but shouldn't this be moved to 'historic'? Aerowolf ( talk) 21:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Can anyone find and update a list of instances in which the act was used by the President. For example I know of two instances, the LA Riots and the deploying of troops by President Kennedy to force desegregation. Also I think that the Whiskey Rebellion was probably the reason this was enacted but I am not sure. Can anyone find any research articles that lead to more information. Plus their should be some background as to the Constitutionality of this act. The Constitution itself gives the legislature authority to declare war but the President has broad authority over the use of the armed forces as commander in chief and there is a struggle here by Congress to rein in the power of the President by specifically authorizing his use of the powers with this act. Need to find good articles on this issue to cite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.199.122.237 ( talk) 19:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I think that copying this to wikisource is a good idea, but I also think that the encyclopedic comment at the top should be expanded and retained as an article. What do other people think? -- Apyule 13:20, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
When did the Insurrection Act become law? The Posse Comitatus Act dates from 1878... 66.146.62.19 04:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
The part of the Insurrection Act most affected by the 2006 changes -- 10 U.S.C. 333 -- was enacted in 1871 as part of the Ku Klux Klan Act, which authorized the President to declare martial law and suspend habeas corpus, among other measures, to enforce civil rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. 70.174.147.104 03:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
In this section, there is a lot of point of view information, and information that is patently incorrect. Examples:
- Calling the inclusion of changes "quiet", as if they were somehow secret
- "clearly a significant and controversial change" - To who? The blogosphere?
- The insinuation that it's abnormal for a statute to be updated as a part of another bill, including a defense appropriations bill
- The assertion that this violates, weakens, ignores, etc., the Posse Comitatus Act, when the Posse Comitatus Act specifically doesn't apply, since both the original Insurrection Act and the appropriations bill that modifies it are both an "Act of Congress", which is specifically exempted by the Posse Comitatus Act. The Posse Comitatus Act was designed to prevent against the arbitrary use of the military as a domestic police force, but it is allowable when allowed by an Act of Congress.
How can we get this corrected without starting some kind of edit war? -- Dave Schroeder, das@doit.wisc.edu
Why was there such an overwhelming majority for the changes to the act in congress and passed unanimously in the senate and then a year later it was completely repealed? Is this not kind of spectacular? Noteworthy? Nunamiut ( talk) 04:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Did I just read "and so Donald Trump can start a civil war" in a wikipedia article? Give me a break, comrade, you don't have much experience with checks and balances in your 'bot' land, or so it seems.
Doesn't anybody else find it somewhat unbalanced that the very first section of this article is about "recent changes"? I mean, this is an article about a 200 year old document, but at least 90% of the article is devoted to the last two years of its existence! -- JianLi 23:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
YES! It's terrible as written. A reasonable structure would be the normal Wiki one of Introduction: Brief History of the Act: The Act Itself Explained : Controversy surrounding the Act. I came here to read about the act, not about failed attempts to modify it (modify what? can't tell from reading this article) in 2006. Lets fix this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.230.162.189 ( talk) 17:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Similar to events that led to the Enabling Act of 1933 in Germany, critics contend that the federal government is taking steps to quietly increase the power of the federal authority over the regions while simultaneously increasing executive control specifically for policing the domestic population through legal use of the military. Doesn't bringing Nazi's into this risk making this article look bias? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pete bot ( talk • contribs) 13:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Please don't use Wikipedia articles as a slate for debating or commenting on the merits of something. Opinions, for or against, should be specifically cited to a reliable source Gazpacho 22:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Could someone write up a section that details under what context and for what reason the Insurrection Act was passed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.211.160.121 ( talk) 21:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
In light of the repeal of the amendments, might it be worth abridging the section? The section is now quite lengthy and includes a table and flow chart detailing the changes, which is appropriate for a current even, and perhaps for the law as it stands currently, but the relevance of the amendments had definitely declined, I think. Is it an idea to shrink down the section to something more succinct? Posse Comitatus Act has a much briefer section on similar changes. Knight of Truth ( talk) 11:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Insurrection Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Insurrection Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
This article needs to be edit-protected immediately due to current events.
Agreed. The act has not been invoked at this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rarshonsky ( talk • contribs) 23:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
With the act now in the news right now, the article keeps being vandalized. It should definitely be protected. KeybladeSpyMaster ( talk) 23:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. Vandals are already causing problems on it. Halyonix ( talk) 23:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. Especially because it will be the source of information for thousands. Would be worth it to add more information about the law, it’s rather sparse. Ashley ( talk) 23:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Of course protection is needed. And regarding the sparseness of the article: earlier today a very large section was deleted, I don't know if it was necessary or if there is a start for expansion. Eissink ( talk) 23:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC).
Can anyone find materials to offer context as to why this act was created? I've spent a few minutes searching online without success. Thank you, WikiWikiHigh ( talk) 00:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Where is the original text? The USC is fine for whatever, but it is not the law as passed in 1807. We should be able to see the original and any amendments! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.90.75.20 ( talk)
This
edit request to
Insurrection Act has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
To be added to the list of invocations of the Insurrection Act:
1932 Bonus Army incident, whereby US Army was used to rebel a march of WW1 veterans in Washington DC. 1992 LA Riots, whereby US Army was called in to quell the riots 1990 Operation Green Sweep, whereby US Army took part in a series of domestic drug raids 65.35.103.58 ( talk) 00:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
This text appears a little above the table:
"The Insurrection Act has been invoked infrequently throughout American history, most recently following looting in the aftermath of Hurricane Hugo in 1989 and during the 1992 Los Angeles riots. [3][4]"
HOWEVER, these two recent invocations of the Act are not included in the table, which caption asks for updates! I am not competent to mess with a Wiki table, so appeal to someone capable of updating it.LarryWiki115 00:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larry11565 ( talk • contribs)
The table also lists the incorrect president for the 1992 invocation. George HW Bush, was president, not George W Bush. This should be fixed.
This
edit request to
Insurrection Act has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
George W Bush was not president in 1992. 73.164.209.76 ( talk) 01:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Insurrection Act has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
. Donald Trump activates it on June 1st often threatening to do so 72.66.65.4 ( talk) 01:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Insurrection Act has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Currently the article reads "On June 1, 2020, President Donald Trump threatened to invoke the Act in response to the nationwide George Floyd protests following his death in police custody." If read literally the his is modifying Donald Trump. While it would be nice if he dies in policy custody that's not what has happened. Clearer wording would be something along the lines of:
"On June 1, 2020, President Donald Trump threatened to invoke the Act in response to the nationwide protests following George Floyd's murder by police." Billarkansaw ( talk) 03:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Insurrection Act has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
please change the last paragraph in 'Application' from
"On June 1, 2020, President Donald Trump threatened to invoke the Act in response to the nationwide George Floyd protests following his death in police custody.[8][9]"
to something like
"On June 1, 2020, President Donald Trump threatened to invoke the Act in response to the arson, looting, rioting, and vandalism in many of the nationwide George Floyd protests following Floyd's death in police custody.[8][9]" 96.32.9.112 ( talk) 03:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Insurrection Act has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change, "On June 1, 2020, President Donald Trump threatened to invoke the Act ..." to "On June 1, 2020, President Donald Trump invoked the Act ...".
While the current text is consistent with Trump's message in the Rose Garden speech, he had already deployed U.S. Army military police and (just after 7:00 pm) at least one U.S. Army helicopter from Ft. Bragg, NC to disperse protesters. See e.g., [1], [2]. CWinDC ( talk) 16:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Insurrection Act has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The insurrection act does NOT need approval from the governor of a state or it's legislation. The act allows a governor or legislative to request assistance and grants the president the power to provide military, if requested.
US Code 10 (§252), further expands the president's power:
"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." 68.35.219.101 ( talk) 05:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Many of the invocations in the table have primary documents, either in the relevant category on Wikisource or now linked in External Links. Should we just move them into the table? Seems like a logical place to put them, assuming each table entry still has a citation to a secondary/tertiary source. Thoughts? — Luis ( talk) 05:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The application section by President Trump is inaccurate and reflects bias. It is not true that President Trump asserted an intention to invoke the 1807 Act in response to "nationwide protests", as you well know. The assertion was specifically related to the riots, looting, destruction of private property (arson), and injury of innocent people that are either occurring without check by state and local officials or where local police are overwhelmed. The rioters burned down two police stations and a fire department. If this is not insurrection, I am not sure what is. Please correct the page to at least accurately state that the intention to invoke the 1807 act is related to riots and looting (not "protests"). 96.82.86.201 ( talk) 17:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
The article should have more details about the background of the act and its predecessor document. An "insurrection act" signed into law by the author of the Declaration of Independence could use a little explaining. (Hm...would the American Revolution been lawful under something like the Insurrection Act?) Count Robert of Paris ( talk) 15:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
98.115.164.70 ( talk) 16:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Please check Was the Insurrection Act of 1807 invoked in 1932 against the Bonus Army (aka Bonus Marchers) in Washington D.C.?
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Text that should be removed: The Insurrection Act of 1807 is a United States federal law (10 U.S.C. §§ 251–255; prior to 2016, 10 U.S.C. §§ 331–335) that empowers the president of the United States to deploy U.S. military and federalized National Guard troops within the United States in particular circumstances, such as to suppress civil disorder, insurrection and rebellion.
Text that should replace it: The Insurrection Act of 1807 was amended in 2006 and the name changed to Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order. It is a United States federal law (10 U.S.C. 15 §§ 331-336) that empowers the president of the United States to deploy U.S. military and federalized National Guard troops within the United States in particular circumstances, such as to suppress civil disorder, insurrection and rebellion.
Sources:
https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCODE-2006-title10/USCODE-2006-title10-subtitleA-partI-chap15 (official U. S. government website)
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22266.pdf (Congressional Research Service, The Use of Federal Troops for Disaster Assistance: Legal Issues, Page 2) Aspinwall ( talk) 20:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I rescind my above proposed edit, as Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order was repealed on January 28, 2008 and the previous Insurrection Act was restored. (Homeland Security Digital Library, https://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&did=10686) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspinwall ( talk • contribs) 11:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Insurrection Act Table.
Add line for John Brown's Raid at Harper's Ferry, Maryland, October 17-18, 1859. Federal U.S. Marines and Army troops under the command of Colonel Robert E. Lee put down the rebellion. 173.69.146.70 ( talk) 18:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
An earlier version of the article contained this following very surprising claim:
A secret amendment was made to the Insurrection Act by an unknown Congressional sponsor, allowing such intervention against the will of state governors.
I thought this seemed unlikely (“What is a ‘secret amendment’?”, I asked), but there was a reliable-seeming source, and when I checked it, it did actually say that. I improved the citation and added a short quotation from the source:
Hoffmeister, Thaddeus (2010). "An Insurrection Act for the Twenty-First Century". Stetson Law Review. 39: 898.
Once finalized, the Enforcement Act was quietly tucked into a large defense authorization bill: the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007. Very few people, including many members of Congress who voted on the larger defense bill, actually knew they were also voting to modify the Insurrection Act. The secrecy surrounding the Enforcement Act was so pervasive that the actual sponsor of the new legislation remains unknown to this day.
Despite this, not long afterward, another editor replaced the claim with a much less interesting version. The new wording is:
An amendment was made to the Insurrection Act by the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 to explicitly allow any emergency hindering the enforcement of laws, regardless of state consent, to be a cause for use of the military.
This does not mention the extreme secrecy with which the amendment was introduced, or that members of Congress might have inadvertently voted for the amendment. No explanation for the change was given in the edit summary.
I think the circumstances around this amendment are unusual and noteworthy. They are supported by a reliable source. I am going to restore this information unless there is a good reason not to. — Mark Dominus ( talk) 20:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
The March to Montgomery should be included in the table. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.63.112 ( talk) 05:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Due to recent events, and given how this article may be used to weaponize information to misinform the public on current events, it may be prudent to place this article under some form of protection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:281:D480:1040:9992:1BFD:304E:23F9 ( talk) 12:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I wonder if any else finds the opening two paragraphs to be a bit odd in the phrasing.
Specifically, the article opens by naming the Insurrection Act of 1807 but then goes on, in the second paragraph, to say that, "The act provides a 'statutory exception' to the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878" which is a confusing non-sequitur, seeming to suggest that the 1807 act was created as a type of amendment to the subsequent 1878 act that it predates.
Rewording perhaps along the lines of "The act itself became a 'statutory exception' to the later Posse Comitatus Act of 1878"?
Not a huge big deal but it made me re-read the paragraphs twice over and caused me to think which kinda hurt a little. : )