I quoted where you said that. Or are you suggesting that Trump would leave the courts and Congress running but just ignore them?
As to your second point, Trump has evidence that you and I aren't privy to.
Of course he does. So why not have his Justice Department indicting people and bringing them to trial? As the Constitution mandates? Why the need for martial law and suspending the Constitution?
To be clear: If the President decides that a conspiracy has deprived people of a right and believes that authorities fail or refuse to protect the right, he can send in the troops.
So you're saying that any president can at any time without any retrictions call out the military and declare martial law? What if the courts say no?
2. Another hypothetical question. But "If the President decides that a conspiracy has deprived people of a right and believes that authorities fail or refuse to protect the right, he can send in the troops." If that's not good enough for you, then you'll have to go ask Trump himself.
3. Again, you're playing word games. You're trying to get me to agree with your hypotheticals, when I never said such a thing.
The authority is vested solely in the President. He does not need the invitation of state governors to intervene, nor does he need the approval of the Supreme Court. Older provisions of the Insurrection Act required either a governor or a judicial proceeding to authorize its use, but these limits were purposefully removed by Congress in § 253.
Stop putting words in my mouth. If you don't like my answers to your questions, then that's just too bad. Not once have you come up with a solution yourself. Only to counteract what the newly re-written Insurrection Act provides. If you don't agree with that, then take it up with the Congress because they are the ones who bestowed the authorities and responsibilities onto the president.
That's it for me tonight.