According to the
article the author quotes:
Quote:
|
Under present law, which initially stemmed from bad feelings about Reconstruction, the military’s domestic role is highly circumscribed.
|
We've already got credibility problems here. The Insurrection Act wasn't a piece of Reconstruction legislation; it was written in 1807. Furthermore, the idea has nothing to do with "bad feelings" as it does the Founders' suspicion of standing armies.
Quote:
|
Activists remove the chief of police and either disarm local police and county sheriff departments or discourage them from interfering. In truth, this is hardly necessary. Many law enforcement officials already are sympathetic to the tea party’s agenda, know many of the people involved, and have made clear they will not challenge the takeover. The militia members are organized and have a relatively well thought-out plan of action.
|
If that's the case, then there would be some real questions about the will of the local people, and we'd have an interesting 10th Amendment case study. It doesn't automatically entail a military response.
The idea that "Tea Party" keeps getting mentioned as opposed to a generic insurrection scenario is somewhat telling.