What make the 1957 case different?
What distinguishes the 1957 case is Eisenhower was enforcing an order of a Federal court. Ike was assisting the Federal court marshals, or making believe and using that as a fig leaf for legality. In any case, there was no lengthy involvement for the airborne unit.
The primary law for domestic violence is the Federal Constitution, Article 4, Section 4,
The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.
There has been no application by a state legislature. Recall George W. Bush delaying entry into Louisiana after Katrina, waiting on the State invite. There is no Federal law or Federal court order involved. While the President sees that the laws are enforced, that is in reference to the Federal laws. Lincoln purported to act because enforcement of the Federal tax laws were being interfered with by combinations of persons, not a state or municipality. As soon as Federal troops are inserted, lawsuits will be filed.
Trump moved in the District of Columbia where he did not need a State invitation.
There is also the consideration that the Dems want to goad Trump into sending in troops to create an election issue. They want to use the troops as props. Tey will keep them there until election day if they could. The lads in Northern Ireland kept the British soldiers busy for years. As a political matter, it is better for now to let the people see what a Dem-led future might look like.
When Trump just just stationed some troops in the area around D.C., the general took away their hardhats, guns and ammo. I would not want to go anywhere as a military presence except with a show of overwhelming force; such that nobody would be stupid enough to start a fight. I would not want any part of that good will ambassador crap. If the troops are deployed, they must be able to use force.
One thing for sure — we are in strange times. I have never before witnessed this particular crazy.
That was my point in citing a federal law, the Force Act of 1871. It was passed by Congress, and it specified the penalty of fines and/or prison time for people convicted of violated it. Are not today's rioters "preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State from giving or securing to all persons within such State the equal protection of the laws" as the 1871 Force Act specified? President Grant used these and other laws to protect blacks, but the wording of the Act also refers to "any person or any class of persons."
However, I just discovered this morning the following:
The U.S. Supreme Court in two rulings also undermined the Acts. In United States v. Reese et al. 1876 and the United States v. Cruikshank 1876 opponents of the Enforcement Acts challenged their constitutionality. The Court agreed with the plaintiffs and concluded that voting rights are best-regulated by state authorities without federal intervention.
Didn't know that until now. I though what was restraining Trump from using those old laws was the thought that the Democrats could then cite the requirement of the 1807 Insurrection Act that the governor or legislature must request the president's aid in stopping the insurrection or riots.
To do so without the request of a governor or legislature might result in a second impeachment bill against Trump. I thought for a while that might be holding Trump back.
I also found the following analysis:
Lynne Rambo, professor emerita at the Texas A&M University School of Law, said a president can invoke the Insurrection Act under five circumstances.
First, if there is a fear of action to overthrow a state, the president can send in troops if a state legislature asks him to. Second, the president can do so at the request of the state’s governor if the legislature cannot convene. In the third circumstance, if there is a threat of federal law being broken, the president could also deploy the military. Rambo said this section was used by Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy against Arkansas, Mississippi and twice in Alabama when the states refused to desegregate schools.
Under the fourth and fifth circumstances, Rambo said the president can invoke the act if there is domestic violence that threatens the rights of any “part or class of the people,” and the “constituted authorities of that state are unable, fail, or refuse to protect” rights, privileges or immunity, or if the domestic violence opposes or obstructs the execution of federal law.
So without the request of a state legislature or governor, would Trump be able to send federal troops into a city or state?
Rambo said the president might also say that state authorities are refusing or failing to protect the rights of a class of people.
“There you would look for him to invoke the rights of anyone whose property is being damaged, but he would also have to be prepared to say that the states were refusing or failing to protect the rights of those owners, a rather controversial declaration,” she said.