I seems that I agree with several people here including Shark.If only this were so easy. The “insurrection act” came from the “Calling forth act” in the 1780s I believe. The Calling forth act came after something referred to as the Shay rebellion. A bunch of folks led by a guy name Shay refused to pay their taxes and generally wreaked havoc locally. Before the Calling forth act could be used some rich guys hired some rent a cops of sorts. They apparently kicked the crap out of everybody and the insurrection was stopped.
The US Army discussed amending the insurrection act in 1971 to give a broader ability to react to domestic issues but that failed. The insurrection act was amended by the “enforcement act“ in 2006 or so as a direct result of the New Orleans/Hurricane Katrina debate when the governor did not want any federal help.
The enforcement act was repealed after so many governors complained. The part they didn’t like was the ability of the feds to send in troops when the governor didn’t want them.
The insurrection act has been used a few times like mentioned above by President Kennedy. It was used basically to enforce federal court orders regarding desegregation and the subsequent race riots.
The Posse Comitatus act prohibits the use of federal troops to enforce local laws. I think that’s what caused Mark Esper our secretary of defense to risk Trump firing him when he took a strong stand that our military should never be used against our own population. That was significant because Esper was known as a yes man and his nickname in government circles was “Mark Yesper“
Judge Napolitano is correct that the actions of the feds in Portland was unconstitutional. There is a pending lawsuit filed by the attorney general of Oregon I believe and it includes a description of what happened to one of the persons seized by the feds. The guy was reported to have been walking home in the wee hours after having demonstrated. He saw guys jump out of a mini van and come running at him in military uniforms, heavily armed. He testified that he didn’t know if they were “right wingers“ or military or law-enforcement since many times they all wear the same outfits.
The guys snatched him up, refused to identify themselves, cuffed him and threw him in the back of the minivan. He continued to ask who they were and they continued to refuse. They read him his Miranda rights and attempted to question him. He refused and asked for a lawyer and was denied and he was held in a cell in the federal courthouse. After a while, they released him with no explanation, no paperwork or any sort of written explanation of what they did or why they had grabbed him.
I’m about as pro law-enforcement as they come but that was just wrong. I think it’s very basic and constitutionally guaranteed that you have a right to know who you’re being grabbed by. That’s why police officers wear badges and have badge numbers as well as names on their uniforms. Anonymity breeds additional violence both on the part of the enforcer and rioters or demonstrators.
As to the argument of "would you want a liberal president to do this?",neither a conservative nor liberal president would ever do this. This is very simply a "Trump" issue.