Fascism on the march is hard to stop

 Especially when you have a Supreme Court that favors fascists.

Posse Comitatus can be broken with the express will of Congress, or in order to defend an expressed provision of the Constitution. The Insurrection Act of 1807 can also trigger the suspension of the Posse Comitatus Act and allows the president to deploy the military domestically in cases of, well, insurrection, invasion, or rebellion. Should the South ever “rise again,” the president could deploy the military to stop them, again.

Technically, the current situation meets none of these criteria. Los Angeles is not in rebellion against the federal government. It’s not being invaded by Mexico. California Governor Gavin Newsom has not requested the assistance of the National Guard. And Trump has not (yet) invoked the Insurrection Act to support his use of military force. All this arguably puts him in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act.

But that doesn’t mean Trump won’t get away with it. The Posse Comitatus Act has enough holes to drive a tank through, and Trump is already using rhetoric designed to help him do just that.

For one thing, Posse Comitatus prevents the military from participating in law enforcement actions. Those actions are commonly thought to be things like collecting taxes, apprehending criminals, and, from the perspective of Southern white folks, enforcing the Voting Rights Act. Trump will argue that securing a Home Depot is not a “law enforcement” action. Ditto defending a government building or generally “protecting” the peace. That’s not a great argument, but it is a plausible one, as long as the National Guard isn’t being used to abduct immigrants.

[...]

We don’t see Marines deployed all the time, but Trump says they’re only providing “support” functions—as if they’re being sent in like the Army Corps of Engineers, but instead of supporting bridge reconstruction they’re supporting stomping on faces. I assume everything out of his mouth is a lie, but the reason he’s telling this one is that “support” functions probably don’t include “law enforcement” functions, and saying they’re just there for support will help Trump’s judges greenlight his military actions.

As for Trump’s failure to get Newsom’s go-ahead or invoke the Insurrection Act, Trump’s trying to get around those hurdles by invoking 10 USC 12406. This law allows the president to deploy the National Guard whenever there is a “danger” of rebellion or insurrection.

  The Nation

What I'm learning from Trump's time in office is that we have an urgent need to reform and shore up our laws.

Newsom, in addition to giving a speech, has sued the Trump administration for its use of force, saying that Trump has far exceeded his authority under this law. Newsom is certainly right. There is no credible argument that LA is “in danger” of rebellion or insurrection. And, even if there were, the law refers only to the National Guard; it says nothing about using active-duty Marines.

But the law has never been tested in court, which means the Supreme Court has never weighed in on how remote the “danger” of rebellion can be.

[...]

Everything I know about the current crop of monarchy aficionados running the Supreme Court tells me that Newsom’s lawsuit will fail [even if it succeeds in the lower courts]. [...] No precedent will be set that could allow a future president to deploy National Guard troops and US Marines to force Georgia to let Black people vote, same as it ever was.

[...]

The law will not force Trump to remove his jackboots from California. The law won’t even force him to use the right law (the Insurrection Act) to try to do this thing that he shouldn’t be able to do.