President And Military Law: Who's Really In Command?

The US President is the Commander-in-Chief of the US military and has the power to deploy troops domestically and internationally. However, the President's authority to use the military is limited by the Constitution and various laws, including the Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act. While the Posse Comitatus Act generally prohibits the use of the military in civilian law enforcement, the Insurrection Act allows the President to deploy troops to suppress rebellions or enforce federal laws in certain situations. Despite these laws, there are concerns about the lack of concrete legal protections against presidential abuse of power, particularly regarding the vague wording of the Insurrection Act. Ultimately, the President's ability to impose martial law is restricted, and any use of the military must be within the bounds of the Constitution and subject to judicial review.

The Posse Comitatus Act

The act's name comes from the legal concept of posse comitatus, which refers to the authority of a county sheriff or other law officer to conscript any able-bodied person to assist in keeping the peace. In British and American law, a posse comitatus is a group of people mobilised by the sheriff to suppress lawlessness in the county. The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the use of soldiers instead of civilians for this purpose.

There are statutory exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act, including the Insurrection Act, which allows the president to deploy the military to suppress an insurrection or enforce federal law in a state. However, the act does not provide for any constitutional exceptions, and no part of the Constitution expressly empowers the president to use the military to execute the law. The Department of Defense has claimed that the Constitution implicitly gives military commanders "emergency authority" to use federal troops to quell large-scale civil disturbances without prior authorisation from the president, but these claimed authorities have never been tested in court.

While the Posse Comitatus Act generally prevents the president from using the military as a domestic police force, recent events have revealed dangerous gaps in the law's coverage that Congress must address. The act reflects an American tradition that views military interference in civilian affairs as a threat to democracy and personal liberty.

The Insurrection Act

While the Insurrection Act grants the President significant power to decide when and where to deploy the military domestically, it has been criticised for its lack of clear definitions and limitations. The Act fails to define key terms such as "insurrection," "rebellion," and "domestic violence," leaving the interpretation up to the President's discretion. This ambiguity has raised concerns about the potential for abuse and the need for a major overhaul of the Act to ensure it is used only in crises beyond the capacity of civilian authorities.

In recent years, there have been debates about invoking the Insurrection Act to address issues such as illegal immigration and border security. However, critics worry that doing so would consolidate federal power and give the President more leeway to use the military for domestic law enforcement, potentially leading to authoritarian tendencies.

Martial law

In the United States, the President does not have the authority to declare martial law. While the President has been granted considerable power by Congress to use troops domestically to assist in civilian law enforcement activities, this does not include the power to impose martial law. The Posse Comitatus Act, which is over 140 years old, bars federal troops from participating in civilian law enforcement unless expressly authorized by law. The Insurrection Act is one such exception, allowing the President to deploy the military to assist civilian authorities with law enforcement, such as enforcing a federal court order or suppressing an uprising. However, the Act does not grant the President the power to impose martial law.

The Constitution’s drafters “made no express provision for the exercise of extraordinary authority because of a crisis,” and the Supreme Court has not conclusively decided that the federal government is constitutionally empowered to declare martial law. While the state martial law power is more clearly established, there are still significant limits, and federal laws and the Constitution will constrain states' conduct under the declaration.

While martial law has not been officially declared in the United States, there have been instances where it has been implemented in practice. For example, Hawaii was under martial law after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, and the military police arrested a stockbroker named Harry White for embezzlement of funds, which was a violation of civilian law. Additionally, Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy relied on the Insurrection Act to deploy troops to desegregate schools in the South after the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision.

The Commander-in-Chief Clause

However, this interpretation has been challenged, with some arguing that the President's powers as Commander-in-Chief are more constrained and akin to those of a general or admiral. Eighteenth-century commanders-in-chief did not have sole or supreme authority over the military, and early Presidents did not object to congressional bills that sought to regulate military operations. The Constitution explicitly vested control over war-related questions of international law with Congress, not the President. The Commander-in-Chief Clause can be seen as an institutional limit on the President's authority during times of war and emergency, holding the President accountable for military operations.

The Insurrection Act, enacted in 1792, grants the President the authority to deploy the US military domestically and use it against Americans under certain conditions, such as suppressing rebellion or enforcing the law. This Act has been criticised as being overly broad and ripe for abuse, with concerns raised about the President's significant power to decide when and where to deploy the military domestically. The Posse Comitatus Act, on the other hand, generally prevents the President from using the military as a domestic police force, reflecting the traditional view that military interference in civilian government is a threat to liberty.

While the President has considerable authority to use troops domestically, they lack the power to impose martial law. The President cannot unilaterally declare martial law, and even with Congressional authorisation, the Supreme Court has not conclusively decided that the federal government can constitutionally declare it.

The Calling Forth Clause

The "Calling Forth Clause" is a provision in the US Constitution that grants Congress the authority to "provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions". This clause, found in Article I, has been historically significant in understanding the separation of emergency powers and the limitations on the domestic use of the military.

The significance of the Calling Forth Clause lies in its potential to limit the President's power to deploy military force domestically. While the Insurrection Act grants the President the authority to deploy the military domestically under certain conditions, the Calling Forth Clause reinforces the understanding that Congress can restrict this power. This conclusion has important implications for debates over executive authority, particularly in the context of the war on terrorism.

In conclusion, the Calling Forth Clause, as explored by Stephen I. Vladeck and others, highlights the complex nature of the US government's domestic crisis authority. While it may not directly apply to the military in its modern form, the clause underscores the importance of congressional and judicial involvement in decisions regarding the domestic use of military force.

Frequently asked questions