[KDD]

It appears that I have been laboring under a misunderstanding of the term "declaration" as it is constitutionally applied. You have put that mis-apprehension to rest...thank you.

Upon further reading, this section...§ 1181.

But the dangers from abroad are not alone those, which are to be guarded against in the structure of the national government. Cases may occur, and indeed are contemplated by the constitution itself to occur, in which military force may be indispensable to enforce the laws, or to suppress domestic insurrections.

Where the resistance is confined to a few insurgents, the suppression may be ordinarily, and safely confided to the militia. But where it is extensive, and especially if it should pervade one, or more states, it may become important and even necessary to employ regular troops, as at once the most effective, and the most economical force.

43 Without the power to employ such a force in time of peace for domestic purposes, it is plain, that the government might be in danger of being overthrown by the combinations of a single faction.

In light of the interpretation put forward by Judge Story...what do you think of the potential of Executive abuse of the "Patriot Act"? Does the Executive have exclusive power to determine who fits under the term "terrorist" and therefore which people or groups constitute a threat to the U.S.?

Or is this power only reserved for incidents like the L.A. riots? And if that is true, could you point me to any statutory limitation.

[mrsmith]

"§ 1486. ... But if his assuming the actual command depended upon the assent of congress, what was to be done, when an invasion, or insurrection took place during the recess of congress? Besides; the very power of restraint might be so employed, as to cripple the executive department, when filled by a man of extraordinary military genius. The power of the president, too, might well be deemed safe; since he could not, of himself, declare war, raise armies, or call forth the militia, or appropriate money for the purpose; for these powers all belonged to congress.2...
2 3 Elliot's Debates, 103."
He comes mighty close to addresssing the point here but doesn't, unless it be addressed in the debate in the footnote.

But I think the Patriot Act is more of a straight 'public safety- police power' type of law- not particularly relevent to insurrection

The danger of Executive abuse is always present- given any law, or absent any law.

I too, though I seem to always be defending the Patriot Act against Lew Rockwell type crap about it, believe there are fourth amendment violations possible in it which should be corrected, and that it should be more limited in it's scope anyway.
"Sandy" has really impressed me with her posts on that act, though I often think her too hard on it.