But there is difference between "rebellion and insurrection" and the current situation. And simply declaring "martial law" shouldn't be sufficient proof that a rebellion or insurrection is happening.
Obviously in a time when the civil authority is unable to protect us, we need the ability to let the military do so.
But in this case the National Guard is under civilian authority, the local authority is still in charge of New Orleans, and nobody is rebelling or insurrecting against anything.
If the michigan militia was wandering around new orleans, I might be persuaded that the NG had to start taking weapons.
Instead, at the moment I'm kind of thinking the people of New Orleans need the Michigan Militia to protect them from the Blanco Brigade.
So I guess my argument isn't that there are no conditions under which the constitutional protections may be suspended, just that it can't be simply a declaration from a mayor or governor for the convenience of taking control of personal property.
That's what courts are for, to make sure that our government doesn't overstep it's authority.
Courts are a BRANCH of government. I'd rephrase your sentence to: "That's what GUNS (in the hands of sensible people) are for, to make sure that our government doesn't overstep it's authority."