Instapundit Glenn Harlan Reynolds also writes a Substack column of longer essays and he is a law professor at UTenn. He is a busy fellow.
Today he writes at Substack about the Insurrection Act and quotes this relevant part.
§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.
To which, Reynolds provides interpretation.
So first, it’s discretionary to employ: “Whenever the President considers.” This language leaves no room for judicial review, by design; it’s up to the President to determine when the predicates for invoking the Act apply. Second, this phrase, “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,” seems to fit perfectly with what’s going on in places like Portland or Chicago.
I am forced to conclude President Trump has been unwilling to declare the existence of a "insurrection" as liberally defined in the act. The plain wording of the act would almost require him to do so.
One possibility is that Trump is loath to muddy his budding reputation as a peacemaker by formally accusing certain of his own cities of insurrection.
