I keep this handy, describes when US military can be used in the country.
https://policy.defense.gov/portals/11/documents/hdasa/references/insurrection_act.pdf
Insurrection Act
10 U.S.C. §§ 331-335
Sec. 331. Federal aid for State governments
Whenever there is an insurrections 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.
Sec. 332. 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.
Sec. 333. 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 State, 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.
Sec. 334. 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 or those
obstructing the enforcement of the laws to disperse and retire peaceably to their abodes
within a limited time.
The history of the Insurrection Act dates back all the way to 1797, and the legislative record is so long and tortured that it’s woeful to contemplate. Suffice to say that in the 21st century, the Insurrection Act has been pleasantly re-titled “The Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order Act” and codified in four sections of the US Code:
10 USC § 251 Federal Aid for State Governments
10 USC § 252 Use of Militia and Armed Forces to Enforce Federal Authority
10 USC § 253 Interference with State and Federal Law
10 USC § 254 Proclamation to Disperse
Of the four provisions, the most recent and the most powerful is 10 USC § 253, which was written in 2006. This is the one that liberal pundits always forget to mention when they blab about Posse Comitatus and governors. It reads:
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-so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, 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 opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
That’s powerful language! Consider:
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.
There is no time limit on the President’s activities. Older versions of the Insurrection Act limited the use of force to brief periods of time and then required legislative approval. Those limits, too, are also gone.
The President is allowed to use any means that he (and again, he needs no one else) considers necessary. This includes using the armed forces (which enables him to bypass the Posse Comitatus Act) and using the militia (which we’ll discuss in more detail below).
The President’s ability to use force isn’t restricted to actual rebellion or insurgency. He can act against merely unlawful combinations and conspiracies. 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.
In blunt terms, Congress has given the power to President Trump to proclaim:
“I, President Trump, have determined that a conspiracy has deprived 70 million Americans of their right to vote and that the other authorities are refusing to protect this right. I therefore order the suppression of this conspiracy by any means necessary.”
More at: https://macris.substack.com/p/trump-at-the-rubicon
Excerpt from a very informative link posted below:
Protecting a state against invasion may also help to preserve republican government for the state and forestall domestic violence within its territory. But the obligation of the federal government to protect against invasion is separate, distinct and independent from the other obligations contained in the conjunctive list set forth in Article IV, Section 4. The federal government is obligated to protect each state against invasion in every case, whenever a state is invaded in fact, or threatened with invasion. The duty is unconditional.
The Guarantee Against Invasion Is Fundamental
From the first, the Founders clearly saw that protection against external threats of invasion is a fundamental responsibility of government. Indeed, one of the most important reasons they formed our government was to provide a protective common defense against invasion. As they stated in Article III of the Articles of Confederation:
“The said [thirteen] States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever. (Article III)
Under the Articles of Confederation, the U.S. Congress had the “right and power of determining on peace and war,” and hence the obligation to protect each of the states from invasion. (Article IX, paragraph 1.) The Articles were signed in 1777 and ratified in 1781. It soon became apparent that, for a variety of reasons, the form of government established by the Articles of Confederation was insufficiently vigorous to effectively protect the interests of the United States and the rights of its citizens.
In 1787, the Founders returned to Philadelphia to “form a more perfect union” under a new Constitution that was designed to provide a more effective system of government for the nation than the one provided by the Articles of Confederation, a Constitution that, according to its Preamble, could better “insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty,” a constitutional government that could, among other things, more effectively protect the states against invasion.
The Guarantee Covers All Invasions
“Without some indication to the contrary, general words (like all words, general or not) [that are contained in any legal instrument] are to be accorded their full and fair scope. They are not to be arbitrarily limited.” (Scalia & Garner, at 101.) The full and fair scope of the general word “invasion” in Section 4 of Article IV includes any unwanted unlawful entry that harms or threatens to harm the interests of the state or states invaded and the citizens therein. Section 4 contains no indication to the contrary, i.e., it contains no
———-
I’d ask how are they going to protect USA from invasion, if not for the military. Too many laws and policies are blinding the People in regards to using their OWN military.
Problem is we are up against a lawless govt. that interprets everything how they want,legal or not. No telling what they will do when or if they will even tell anyone.
Very good. Thanks for posting.