Reply #2: Proof again that you shouldn't accept what you read on the Internet without question [View All]

[onenote]

I don't completely fault DUers for being taken in by what they read on some website, but before posting, they might try checking the facts.

Yes, in 2006, Congress passed, and the president signed, legislation (called the Defense Authorization Act for 2007) containing a provision that amended to Insurrection Act to expand the listed circumstances in which the president could order US military forces deployed within the USA. (More on exactly what the bill did later). BUT...the 2006 amendment was REPEALED by the recently enacted Defense AUthorization Act for 2008. The law is back to what it was before the amendments that have everyone responding to the OP up in arms. In fact, the repeal of the 2006 amendments is one of the specific reasons that chimpy is trying, through the back door, to veto the 2007 bill.

Now, as to how bad the 2006 amendments really were. Admittedly, before the amendments, the Insurrection Act only came into play in cases of "insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy" while the amended version (the one Congress repealed) adds "natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident or other condition" to the list. Clearly the new law is broader and that in and of itself is a source of concern and reason to support its repeal. But let's not pretend that the existing law (which dates back to the beginning of th3e 19th century) is all that narrow. After all, "conspiracy" and "unlawful combination" are pretty ambiguous terms. Also, under both the new and old versions, the law only applied if, in connection with one of the listed occurences, domestic violence was occurring to such an extent that state-level authorities are incapable of maintaining public order AND such violence so hinders the execution of state or federal law that any part or class of the state's citizenry is deprived of a constitutional right, privilege, immunity or protection.

Again I'm happy that the changes from 2006 are being repealed (and hope Congress sticks to its guns in the face of chimpy's veto effort.