We Need to Fix The INsurrection act

§ 251. Federal aid for State governments  

Whenever there is an insurrection in any State against its government, the President may, upon the request of its legislature or of its governor if the legislature cannot be convened, call into Federal service such of the militia of the other States, in the number requested by that State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to suppress the insurrection.

This is a good  idea: Federal troops can be deployed when state officials -- the governor or the legislature -- ask the federal government for help.

§ 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. 

The underlined language is a real problem. It's not that federal troops should not be available to restore order in truly extreme situations.  It's that under the law as it now exists, there are no standards for when a President should act, or restraints on when a President can act.  

A President can send in the troops "whenever" he or she "considers" it to be necessary, and can make whatever "use" of them that is "considered necessary."  

Anybody can see why this could be a problem.  A President might be misinformed. Or scared. Or trigger-happy. Or trying to be a bully. Or trying to punish a state's governor.  Or a mayor.  Or the people of a state that voted for someone else. Or who he just doesn't like.

Nothing in the law today would keep a President from using the military for those reasons.

§ 253. Interference with State and Federal law 

The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures  as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it— 

(1)  so hinders the execution of the laws of that State and of the United States within the States,  that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege,  immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law,  and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
 

(2)  opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
 

In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.

This language is a real problem.

The basic idea isn't bad: If things get so out of hand that a state (or part of a state) has become effectively lawless, the President can send troops in to restore order. 

The problem is that the law doesn't have any definitions or standards or limitations laying out when things count as bad enough to justify using the military.  

Instead, it says that the President can use the military, or "any other means," to "take such measures" as the President "considers necessary" to suppress any "domestic violence."

So what does it take?  A bar fight?  Someone throwing a rock?  An afternoon of rioting in one part of a city?  Even if local police have it under control, or are getting there?

That's too much power, and too much unbridled discretion, to give to any President.

§ 254. Proclamation to disperse

 Whenever the President considers it necessary to use the militia or the  armed forces under this chapter, he shall, by proclamation, immediately  order the insurgents to disperse and retire peaceably to their abodes within a limited time. 

This section reflects a good idea: Before using troops, the President first has to tell the rioters (the "insurgents") to go home.  (You can tell this law was written a long time ago - nobody today would tell people to "retire peaceably to their abodes.")  But the obligation to give reasonable public notice of a planned use of troops needs to be updated to reflect modern times.