Civil War-again?

[Bootstrap]

I don't think a civil war is likely. I think a return to the kind of political violence we had in the 1960s is much more likely. It was not a civil war, there were no clear boundaries, but there was way too much violence and killing and fear. Politically motivated assassinations, bombings by extremist groups, riots, clashes between police and protesters. Most people were not directly affected by the violence, but everyone was affected by the fear.

But there were not clear battle lines. There were no military objectives.

Like the 1960s, we now have deep ideological polarization, widespread distrust of institutions, deep identity-based grievances, and an information environment that fuels outrage.

Militarized responses to protest were not helpful in the 1960s. They just poured gas on the fire. Think Kent State, Detroit, Chicago ... soldiers are not trained in crowd psychology, negotiation, or community-based peacekeeping.

[Valerie]

Actually the very topic of illegal orders to the military demonstrates the division being talked about. Note, I am not expressing my position on that topic per se, just observing.

On the one hand, since the military is not to execute illegal orders one can argue nothing is wrong with saying that.
On the other hand, having high ranking politicians say that implies the President either has or is about to issue illegal orders.

Several courts have now said that some of these deployments are illegal. Congress and the courts are supposed to be the powers that balance the executive branch. I think it's pretty clear that these members of Congress also believe that he is issuing illegal orders or may be about to do so.

The Posse Comitatus Act says that federal active-duty military cannot conduct arrests, enforce criminal law, do crowd control, search property, investigate crimes, patrol streetss, guard detention sites, assist police in routine law enforcement, or serve arrest warrants on American soil. The National Guard is different, but even there, they are normally under state control, and only special circumstances allow the president to federalize them. I think we have heard public announcements that the military would be used for these purposes. That seems like a good reason to suspect that the military may receive the kind of orders we are being promised.

The Founders were deeply afraid of a president who could command a personal or politicized standing army. This fear shaped the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and our entire legal history. As George Mason said, “No nation ever lost its liberty but by the force of its standing army.”

Or, last I checked, only Congress has the power to declare war. I guess the dead in Vietnam, Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq did not know just what is or is not illegal.

Violating the Constitution in one way does not justify violating the Constitution in another. Two wrongs do not make a right. I agree that we should not be fighting undeclared wars. But that does not make it more acceptable to do so on American soil. And American military have the opportunity to refuse illegal orders off the coast of Venezuela too.

I find it funny and sad folks argue what the constitution says about this or that. A nation that cannot realize we have broken it already over something so clear cut as declarations of war, has little hope resolving more complex disputes

For most of my life, conservatives consistently opposed military deployment at home. Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater, Pat Buchanon, George Bush, Dick Cheney ... the Tea Party was alarmed when even non-military federal agencies got tactical gear.

And I agree with them.

So what changed?

What’s changed? Too many innocent people in cities are getting killed. Too much sex trafficking. Too much drug cartel getting through to contribute to deaths in enormous numbers. Too much car jacking.
TOO LITTLE done about it. Too many let out time and time again in these blue cities that are soft on crime. Only two kill again.
What’s changed? A President who cares. A president who wants to make these cities safe.

I remember back in the 60s it seemed like it was mostly the younger people that were anti-establishment. Now we have our own government that could easily create a violent situation.

[temporal1]

boot:
.. soldiers are not trained in crowd psychology, negotiation, or community-based peacekeeping.

Much has changed in law enforcement in 60 years. Self-restraint and professionalism have increased. A lot.
Probably more degreed officers. Many in military are there for education goals. GI Bill benefits.
Also, very mixed race, throughout.

[Bootstrap]

For most of my life, conservatives consistently opposed military deployment at home. Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater, Pat Buchanon, George Bush, Dick Cheney ... the Tea Party was alarmed when even non-military federal agencies got tactical gear.

And I agree with them.

So what changed?

What’s changed? Too many innocent people in cities are getting killed. Too much sex trafficking. Too much drug cartel getting through to contribute to deaths in enormous numbers. Too much car jacking.
TOO LITTLE done about it. Too many let out time and time again in these blue cities that are soft on crime. Only two kill again.
What’s changed? A President who cares. A president who wants to make these cities safe.

I don't think that's it.

Many red-state cities like Memphis, Birmingham, St. Louis, New Orleans, Jackson, Little Rock, Shreveport, Baton Rouge, Kansas City, and Tallahassee have consistently higher violent-crime rates than LA, NYC, Boston, San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington DC. Troops are not being sent to the cities with the highest violent crime rates.

And if you look at the trends, homicide rates have actually been going down in most major cities, including DC, after a temporary pandemic spike. Violent crime overall is down. Property crime is down. The data doesn’t match the narrative of “skyrocketing violence.”

Even if crime were rising, troops are not the solution. They are not trained to solve homicides, investigate drug networks, dismantle trafficking rings, run informants, do undercover work, build prosecutable cases, or provide addiction and mental health treatment.

I am seeing cuts to many of the programs that actually reduce trafficking and drug deaths, while the political energy goes into militarized “solutions” that don’t address the causes and won’t make cities safer. Given all the political noise around sex trafficking, it's particularly ironic to see so little attention paid to taking it on, and how hard it was to get the Epstein files released.

I remember back in the 60s it seemed like it was mostly the younger people that were anti-establishment. Now we have our own government that could easily create a violent situation.

I agree. And ironically, the government is the establishment. If you want to limit the power of the establishment, that means limiting what it can do with the military on American soil. The new establishment needs all the same safeguards that earlier establishments needed.

During most of my lifetime, that was one of the major things conservatives believed.

So ... has something else changed?

[ken_sylvania]

The Founders were deeply afraid of a president who could command a personal or politicized standing army. This fear shaped the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and our entire legal history. As George Mason said, “No nation ever lost its liberty but by the force of its standing army.”
....
So what changed?

To think that the Founders were all of one mind on the question of an army seems quite naive. And if you would read the Constitution and the Federalist papers you would learn that it wasn't just the idea of a "personal or politicized" standing army that concerned some of the Founders. Their concern had to do with any standing army at all - some felt there should be no national army, and some felt only a small national army would be appropriate, but I don't think it's intellectually honest to imply that their primary concern was the president being in direct control of an army that would do what he said.

It's interesting to consider that the Founders apparently didn't feel that using Federal troops for domestic law enforcement would be a bad thing - at least they didn't bother to prohibit it.

[Bootstrap]

The Founders were deeply afraid of a president who could command a personal or politicized standing army. This fear shaped the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and our entire legal history. As George Mason said, “No nation ever lost its liberty but by the force of its standing army.”
....
So what changed?

To think that the Founders were all of one mind on the question of an army seems quite naive. And if you would read the Constitution and the Federalist papers you would learn that it wasn't just the idea of a "personal or politicized" standing army that concerned some of the Founders. Their concern had to do with any standing army at all - some felt there should be no national army, and some felt only a small national army would be appropriate, but I don't think it's intellectually honest to imply that their primary concern was the president being in direct control of an army that would do what he said.

I think the simplest place to start is with what actually won at the Constitutional Convention. The Founders disagreed about almost everything, including armies, but the Constitution and Bill of Rights represent the winning arguments.

In these debates, the fear of an executive with a personal or politically loyal army was real enough that they built several layers of guardrails against it. Congress raises and funds the army, not the President. Army appropriations expire every two years. The militia remains under state control unless Congress calls it forth. The President commands only the forces Congress creates. There was no standing army - though of course, that has changed in a big way now.

It's interesting to consider that the Founders apparently didn't feel that using Federal troops for domestic law enforcement would be a bad thing - at least they didn't bother to prohibit it.

I think the Constitution suggests something a little different. The Founders did care about domestic use of force, and they didn’t leave it to the President’s discretion.

Congress was given the exclusive power “to call forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions.”

That’s a deliberate guardrail. The President can’t simply decide to send troops into a state to enforce ordinary law. He can only command the forces that Congress has already called into federal service.

Because some of the founders clearly DID fear this. And that's why state militias were considered a safeguard against federal invasion. Many of them said so explicitly. Here are a few clear examples:

George Mason (Virginia Ratifying Convention, 1788)

“No nation ever lost its liberty but by the force of a standing army, kept up by the government.
When they wish to destroy the liberty of the people, they begin by destroying the militia…
The militia is our ultimate safety.”
(June 14, 1788)

“When once a standing army is established in any country, the people lose their liberty.
If we raise and support a standing army, the President will possess absolute power.”

James Madison (Debate in the First Congress, 1789):

“A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive, will not long be safe companions to liberty.”

Luther Martin (Genuine Information, 1788)

“The command of the army and navy are in the President. If ever he should wish to establish a tyranny, the army is in his hands to effect it.”

Elbridge Gerry (Constitutional Convention, 1787)

“Standing armies in time of peace are inconsistent with the principles of republican governments.”

Samuel Adams (Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788)

“A standing army in time of peace is dangerous to liberty and has often been destructive to the rights of the people.”

Patrick Henry (Virginia Ratifying Convention, 1788)

“The President may easily become king. The army is in his hands, and if he chooses to make himself master of the people, there is an end of liberty.”

“Your President may easily become a tyrant…
If Congress be imprudent enough to raise a standing army, the President may use it to accomplish his purposes.”

Thomas Jefferson (Letter to David Humphreys, 1789)

“I am for a government rigorously frugal and simple, not for increasing the standing army.”

The Anti-Federalist Papers (Brutus No. 8, 1788)

“The President, as commander in chief, has the command of the army and navy…
If a single man is vested with the command of the military, liberty is in danger.”

“The liberties of a people are in danger from a large standing army
not only because the rulers may employ them for their own purposes…
but because they often drag the people into needless wars.”

Federalist No. 29 (Alexander Hamilton)

“When a government is to be administered by men over men, the greatest caution must be used
to moderate the power of the government…
In military matters, that caution is particularly necessary.”

I don’t think they were being naïve or intellectually dishonest. And given how often the Founders warned about exactly this danger, I think their concerns deserve to be taken seriously.

[Ernie]

Many cities like Memphis, Birmingham, St. Louis, New Orleans, Jackson, Little Rock, Shreveport, Baton Rouge, Kansas City, and Tallahassee have consistently higher violent-crime rates than LA, NYC, Boston, San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington DC. Troops are not being sent to the cities with the highest violent crime rates.

I wonder if the history books will note this, or whether there is so much happening that this will get lost in the weeds.

[Ernie]

It's interesting to consider that the Founders apparently didn't feel that using Federal troops for domestic law enforcement would be a bad thing - at least they didn't bother to prohibit it.

Did they have a reference for this in Great Britain?

[JohnH]

Several courts have now said that some of these deployments are illegal. Congress and the courts are supposed to be the powers that balance the executive branch.

Lower courts have said lots of things are illegal, and then seem to get consistently overturned on appeal, sometimes at a lower appellate court and sometimes at the Supreme Court level.

I think it's pretty clear that these members of Congress also believe that he is issuing illegal orders or may be about to do so.

Congress can stop any of these things anytime it wants to. So far, Congress has decided not to do so. That's part of the "balance of power": Congress, the Supreme Court, and the lower courts. So far, apparently most of this is (a) OK with Congress and (b) ultimately found lawful by the courts.

The Posse Comitatus Act says that federal active-duty military cannot conduct arrests, enforce criminal law, do crowd control, search property, investigate crimes, patrol streetss, guard detention sites, assist police in routine law enforcement, or serve arrest warrants on American soil.

Has federal active-duty military been deployed to do any of those things?

The National Guard is different, but even there, they are normally under state control, and only special circumstances allow the president to federalize them. I think we have heard public announcements that the military would be used for these purposes. That seems like a good reason to suspect that the military may receive the kind of orders we are being promised.

Right, the National Guard does have the authority to do those things. Which is why the National Guard has been being deployed.

Violating the Constitution in one way does not justify violating the Constitution in another. Two wrongs do not make a right. I agree that we should not be fighting undeclared wars. But that does not make it more acceptable to do so on American soil. And American military have the opportunity to refuse illegal orders off the coast of Venezuela too.

... can you please describe these "illegal orders" that you want soldiers to start to mutiny over?

Please be detailed.

It is entirely lawful for the military to be involved in anti-terrorist operations. Frankly, I don't understand why so terrorists and drug traffickers suddenly have so many sympathizers in a certain political wing.

Many red-state cities like Memphis, Birmingham, St. Louis, New Orleans, Jackson, Little Rock, Shreveport, Baton Rouge, Kansas City, and Tallahassee have consistently higher violent-crime rates than LA, NYC, Boston, San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington DC.

Could you perhaps speculate on some reasons the violent crime in Memphis is higher than (for example) Seattle?

[Bootstrap]

The Posse Comitatus Act says that federal active-duty military cannot conduct arrests, enforce criminal law, do crowd control, search property, investigate crimes, patrol streetss, guard detention sites, assist police in routine law enforcement, or serve arrest warrants on American soil.

Has federal active-duty military been deployed to do any of those things?

Trump has repeatedly claimed he could deploy “Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines” into US cities if necessary. During the George Floyd protests, he threatened to “deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem” if local authorities didn’t “defend the life and property” of residents. In 2025, he has ordered and overseen deployments of a federalized U.S. National Guard and proposed deploying active-duty troops in cities he describes as “troubled.” He has publicly said he may invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807 (or similar authority) to authorize military or militarized deployments domestically when he judges local law enforcement insufficient or when civil unrest “gets out of control.”

Has he actually done so? According to some reports, some of the troops sent to Los Angeles were Marines. In fact, Trump bragged in public about sending active-duty Marines to Los Angeles, so I think that is probably true.

I think this is a good example of an illegal order. I think most of us have heard him say these things on the news or seen reports of it.