A model to handle constant insurrection by Democrats/leftists/liberals/socialists

 Constitutional Minimal‑State Stability Model (CMS2)

Principles

• Natural rights first: protect speech, association, self‑defense, property, due process.
• Content neutrality: enforce the law against conduct, never viewpoints.
• Limited government: minimal, narrowly tailored actions with clear legal authority.
• Federalism and subsidiarity: handle issues at the most local competent level.
• Transparency and accountability: independent oversight and after‑action reporting.
• Anti‑force: prioritize de‑escalation and nonviolent resolution.

Core Pillars

1. Clear legal thresholds

• Peaceful protest is protected; violence, arson, assault, looting, and critical‑infrastructure sabotage are not.
• Publish charging standards and crowd‑management rules in advance; use objective, conduct‑based criteria.

2. Prevention through liberty and civil society

• Reduce flashpoints by easing unnecessary restrictions on assembly permitting, parade routes, and spontaneous demonstrations.
• Strengthen private‑sector and community partnerships (business districts, faith groups, volunteer marshals) for nonviolent stewarding of large events.

3. Policing for liberty

• Train to separate unlawful actors from peaceful crowds; target individuals committing crimes, not groups.
• Use the least‑restrictive tools first (communication, negotiated management, targeted arrests) before any force.
• Require body‑worn cameras, clear ID, and real‑time rights advisories for detainees.

4. Neutral, speedy justice

• Fast‑track arraignments with counsel; charge only provable conduct; no guilt‑by‑association.
• Prioritize restitution for victims and diversion for nonviolent first‑time offenders; felony charges for serious violence.
• Independent prosecutors or special masters for high‑salience cases to avoid political influence.

5. Information integrity

• Daily, facts‑only briefings during unrest; publish arrest stats, use‑of‑force numbers, property damage estimates, and video evidence where lawful.
• Open data portals for complaints and outcomes; protect privacy.

6. Institutional resilience

• Clear, narrow emergency powers with automatic sunsets and legislative review.
• Protect critical infrastructure with layered private security and local law enforcement before any state/federal activation.
• Keep the military out of routine policing; any activation must be lawful, last‑resort, and time‑limited.

7. Oversight and redress

• Independent civil‑liberties board to audit actions; whistleblower protections.
• After‑action reports with measurable corrective actions, published within 60–90 days.

How to “run” the model in a hypothetical weekend scenario

• 72 hours prior: City publishes protest routes and conduct thresholds; police meet organizers; businesses coordinate voluntary property protection.
• Day 0: Peaceful demonstrations proceed with liaison officers. Small groups begin property damage at dusk; targeted teams make arrests based on observed crimes; crowds are not kettled.
• Night 0: Public briefing releases neutral stats and body‑cam clips; detainees processed within hours; legal aid available.
• Day 1: Visible restitution pathways announced; damaged corridor gets expedited cleanup with private‑public funds; emergency measures auto‑sunset unless renewed by council/legislature.
• Day 30: After‑action report publishes force metrics, complaints, dispositions, and reforms.

Metrics to stay limited and effective

• Rights metrics: zero viewpoint‑based arrests; protest‑to‑arrest ratio; time‑to‑counsel.
• Safety metrics: injuries to civilians/officers; response times; property damage trend.
• Accountability metrics: complaint resolution time; sustained findings; release of footage within set deadlines.
• Sunset compliance: emergency orders expired or renewed via vote within stated windows.

Safeguards

• No mass surveillance of lawful political activity; no ideological designations.
• No prior restraint on speech; no blanket curfews except in narrowly defined hotspots with strict time limits.
• Individualized suspicion required for searches and arrests; no predictive enforcement against associations.

This approach is consistent with limited government and natural rights: it punishes actual aggression, protects peaceful dissent, minimizes state force, and relies on transparency, localism, and civil society to keep the peace.

In addition:

 Here are deeper, practical details you can use to operationalize a limited‑government, rights‑first stability model while remaining content‑neutral and anti‑force.

Legal touchstones (to stay within natural‑rights limits)

• First Amendment: Ward v. Rock Against Racism (content‑neutral time/place/manner), Brandenburg v. Ohio (incitement = intent + imminence + likelihood), NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware (no guilt by association for others’ violence), Gregory v. Chicago (protect peaceful protest despite hostile audiences).
• Fourth Amendment: Terry v. Ohio (specific, articulable suspicion), Riley v. California (phone searches need a warrant), Carpenter v. United States (cell‑site data generally needs a warrant).
• Federal constraints: Posse Comitatus (keep military out of policing), Insurrection Act as extreme last resort; use with strict sunsets and legislative oversight if ever invoked.
• Caution statutes: 18 U.S.C. § 2101 (Anti‑Riot) and § 231 (Civil Disorder) can be used, but avoid viewpoint or speech‑based applications; charge conduct with clear evidence.

Implementation blueprint (first 100 days)

• Policy and law
  • Publish protest management policy: definitions, conduct thresholds, arrest standards, force continuum, transparency timelines.
  • Adopt an Emergency Powers Limitation rule: auto‑sunset (72 hours local, 7 days state), mandatory public reporting, rapid judicial review.
  • Mutual aid MOUs: pre‑negotiated, with civil‑liberties clauses and unified command rules.
• Training and staffing
  • Train all patrol on First Amendment basics and de‑escalation; certify Mobile Field Force teams for targeted arrests.
  • Stand up Protest Liaison Officers for organizer comms; recruit volunteer marshals via civil society.
• Technology with civil‑liberties guardrails
  • Body‑worn cameras on by default; publish critical footage within set windows when lawful.
  • Strict limits or prohibition on facial recognition for protest contexts; written approvals and audit logs for any exceptions.
  • Drones: policy requires visible markings, defined purposes (scene awareness), retention limits, and public reporting.
• Prosecutorial coordination
  • Vertical prosecution unit for event‑related cases; charge only provable conduct.
  • Fast arraignment, counsel at first appearance, diversion for nonviolent first‑timers; restitution prioritized for victims of violence/property destruction.
• Transparency and oversight
  • Daily stats during events: arrests by offense category, force incidents, injuries, property damage estimates.
  • Independent after‑action within 60–90 days; publish corrective actions.

Intelligence and information integrity (liberty‑respecting)

• OSINT limited to credible threats and planned unlawful conduct; no monitoring of ideology or attendance lists.
• Clear minimization/retention schedule; purge non‑evidentiary data quickly.
• Geofence/location warrants only with probable cause and narrow scope.
• Rumor control page: debunk false claims with verified facts and video when possible.

Operational playbooks (conduct‑based, not viewpoint‑based)

• Freeway blockade
  • Pre‑announced rule: roads are not public‑forum spaces; warn, designate nearby lawful protest area, then targeted arrests; keep lanes for EMS.
• Courthouse or hospital blockade
  • Higher protection; layered barriers; rapid liaison contact; time‑limited dispersal if ingress/egress is blocked; video‑document every step.
• Port/rail disruption
  • Coordinate with operators’ private security first; establish buffer zones; targeted arrests of trespass/sabotage; protect critical infrastructure without sweeping zones.
• Campus encampment on public university grounds
  • Protect speech; enforce neutral rules (quiet hours, building access, fire codes). Provide off‑hours assembly zones; if rules are persistently violated and safety risks emerge, give clear notices, offer amnesty off‑ramps, then conduct recorded, targeted removals.
• Mixed crowds with violent fringe
  • Extractors focus on individuals committing violence; no kettling of peaceful majority; evidence teams (video/logs) support prosecutions.

Rights‑preserving force policy (anti‑force bias)

• Sequence: communicate → facilitate → isolate violent actors → arrest targeted offenders → minimal force only if necessary.
• Bans or strict controls: CS/OC on crowds, kinetic impact projectiles, LRAD tones; if authorized, require supervisor sign‑off, medical teams, and automatic review.

Community and private‑sector partnership (limited‑state leverage)

• Organizer agreements: voluntary codes of conduct, mutual de‑escalation contacts, and hotline to liaisons.
• Business districts and property owners: improve lighting, removable barriers, private security coordination; prioritize insurance and private remediation over public subsidies.
• Volunteer marshals/stewards: trained by civil‑society groups to keep events peaceful.

Metrics dashboard (to keep government narrow and accountable)

• Liberty: zero viewpoint‑based arrests; average time‑to‑counsel; protest‑to‑arrest ratio.
• Safety: injuries (civilians/officers), property damage trend, response times.
• Accountability: force incidents per 1,000 participants; complaint resolution times; percentage of footage released on time.
• Sunset discipline: emergency orders expired/renewed by vote on schedule.

Sample conduct‑neutral ordinance skeleton (high level)

• Purpose: safeguard speech and public safety; content‑neutral.
• Time/place/manner: clear, narrowly tailored rules for blocking roads, access to critical facilities, use of amplified sound after certain hours.
• Notice and liaison: city will publish routes and provide protest liaisons; spontaneous protests accommodated with flexible permitting.
• Enforcement: warnings, opportunities to comply, targeted arrests for defined offenses; reporting and footage release timelines.
• Sunset and review: annual independent audit; automatic expiry unless re‑adopted.

Risk controls and red flags

• No mass data collection on lawful protest attendees; no “group designation” enforcement.
• Avoid “contempt of cop” arrests; require supervisor approval for failure‑to‑disperse charges.
• Guard against agent provocateurs; document undercover use with tight approvals and post‑event audits.
• Keep National Guard as absolute last resort; if used, support roles only, time‑limited, and under civilian law‑enforcement command.

Two quick “run it” scenarios

• Port blockade: City posts neutral rules; liaisons offer adjacent protest zone; when rail spiking attempt is observed, arrest those individuals with video evidence. Daily briefing publishes counts, injuries (if any), and property damage. Charges: trespass, attempted sabotage, not “extremism.” Emergency orders auto‑sunset in 72 hours unless council renews.
• Downtown march with evening vandalism: Daytime peaceful; at dusk, small group breaks windows. Targeted arrest team moves on specific offenders; no kettling. Nightly briefing releases body‑cam clips and arrest categories. Next morning, city facilitates private cleanup, announces restitution process; diversion for first‑time nonviolent offenders.

Finally:

When should the Insurrection Act be called, and when should the government force be used?

Only as a last resort, on neutral, conduct-based grounds, when ordinary law enforcement (including state-controlled National Guard) cannot restore order or protect constitutional rights, and with strict limits, transparency, and a fast exit.

What the Insurrection Act allows

• State request (10 U.S.C. § 251): President may assist when a state’s governor/legislature asks for help to suppress insurrection/violence beyond state capacity.
• Enforce federal law (10 U.S.C. § 252): When unlawful obstructions make it impracticable to enforce federal law through the courts.
• Protect civil rights (10 U.S.C. § 253): When part of a state deprives people of equal protection and state authorities can’t or won’t protect them.

When it should be considered (objective thresholds)

• Scale and severity: Widespread, organized violence causing deaths/serious injuries or disabling critical infrastructure, courts, or elections.
• Impracticability: Courts can’t operate, juries can’t be empaneled, and federal law cannot be executed by normal means.
• Exhausted alternatives: Local/state police surges, mutual aid, targeted federal law-enforcement tasking (FBI/USMS), and state-controlled Guard (Title 32/State Active Duty) have been tried or are clearly insufficient.
• Federal interests at risk: Sustained attacks on federal facilities/personnel or systematic denial of constitutional rights.
• Conduct-only basis: Triggered by criminal acts, not viewpoints or group identities.

When it should not be used

• To suppress peaceful protest, unpopular speech, or political opposition.
• For routine unrest that can be handled by local/state resources or the Guard under state control.
• Without clear evidence, narrow objectives, and a short timeline.

Required guardrails and process

• Written findings: Fact-based determination that a statutory trigger is met; cite specific incidents and why normal enforcement is impracticable.
• Consultations: Attorney General and Secretary of Defense legal review; consult affected governors unless impossible.
• Proclamation to disperse: Issue the required public notice and lawful orders before deployments.
• Narrow mission and rules: Define geography, tasks (support to civil authorities, protection of specific sites), and rules for use of force grounded in necessity and proportionality.
• Civilian lead, minimal force: Military supports law enforcement; arrests focus on specific criminal conduct with probable cause; body-worn cameras for civilian officers; incident logging.
• Time limits and oversight: Automatic sunsets, daily public metrics (arrests by offense, injuries, use-of-force incidents), congressional notification, and independent after-action report within 60–90 days.
• Exit criteria set in advance: Courts operating, violent incidents back to baseline, critical sites secured by civilian authorities, and state capacity restored.

Historical touchpoints (illustrative, not prescriptive)

• 1957 Little Rock; 1962 Oxford, MS; 1967 Detroit; 1968 post-assassination riots; 1992 Los Angeles (at state request). Common threads: large-scale violence or civil-rights enforcement with local capacity exceeded or unwilling.

Practical decision checklist

• Is there sustained, organized violence or rights denial of a scale that normal policing cannot manage?
• Have state-controlled Guard, mutual aid, and targeted federal law-enforcement options been used or deemed clearly inadequate?
• Do written findings show why courts/law enforcement can’t function normally?
• Are mission, area, timelines, and exit criteria narrowly drawn?
• Are transparency, oversight, and civil-liberties protections in place?

Conservative, limited-government bottom line

• Prefer localism, private security, mutual aid, and state Guard first.
• If invocation is necessary, make it brief, bounded, and conduct-focused—punish aggression, protect rights, and get back to normal civilian lead quickly.

If a governor won’t activate the Guard, the law still provides a stepped, rights‑respecting path—use local and federal law‑enforcement tools first; if violence or rights deprivations overwhelm civilian capacity and normal law enforcement can’t function, the President can federalize the state Guard and/or deploy active‑duty forces under the Insurrection Act as a last resort, with narrow aims, transparency, and a fast exit.

Practical sequence (limited‑government, conduct‑focused)

1. Max out civilian options inside the state

• Local mutual aid: Cities/counties share officers under existing compacts; county sheriffs (independently elected in most states) can surge deputies and cross‑deputize with neighboring counties.
• State police/highway patrol: Increase deployments, Mobile Field Force, critical‑infrastructure protection.
• Private/civil society: Property owners secure sites; event organizers provide volunteer marshals; focus on deterrence and de‑escalation.

2. Federal law‑enforcement support (no military)

• DOJ surge: U.S. Marshals Service to protect courts and transport detainees; Special Deputy U.S. Marshal deputations for local officers tied to federal cases; FBI/ATF task forces for arson, explosives, firearms, organized violence; targeted use of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2101 (Anti‑Riot), 231 (Civil Disorder), 844(i) (arson), Hobbs Act, etc.
• DHS Federal Protective Service for federal buildings; coordinated protection of critical federal facilities.
• Federal court remedies: DOJ Civil Rights Division can seek injunctions to keep courts open and protect equal protection; judges can order state actors to take steps necessary to safeguard constitutional rights and access to the courts.

3. What’s not available without the governor

• EMAC (interstate Guard aid) and Title 32 Guard missions require governor approval; a refusing governor blocks those avenues.

4. Federalize the Guard or invoke the Insurrection Act (last resort)

• Triggers: 10 U.S.C. §§ 251–253 (Insurrection Act) allow action when (a) a state requests aid (§251), (b) unlawful obstructions make enforcing federal law through the courts impracticable (§252), or (c) people are being denied equal protection and the state can’t or won’t protect them (§253).
• Federalizing Guard: 10 U.S.C. §12406 authorizes the President to call a state’s Guard into federal service to suppress insurrection/obstruction—removing the governor’s control.
• Required steps and guardrails:
  • Written findings and a public proclamation to disperse.
  • Narrow mission, limited geography, and clear exit criteria (e.g., courts open, violence back to baseline, civilian capacity restored).
  • Military supports law enforcement; conduct‑based arrests by civilian officers wherever possible; necessity/proportionality for any force.
  • Daily transparency metrics (arrests by offense, injuries, use‑of‑force), congressional notice, and an after‑action review.

5. Historical compass points

• Little Rock (1957) and Ole Miss (1962): Governors resisted; presidents federalized Guard and used active‑duty troops to enforce federal court orders and protect civil rights.
• LA (1992): Governor requested; Guard and federal troops deployed at scale—illustrates the preference for state‑led solutions when possible.

Decision checklist

• Are violence/rights deprivations so severe that normal law enforcement and courts can’t operate?
• Have in‑state mutual aid, state police surges, and federal law‑enforcement support been used or shown inadequate?
• Do written, content‑neutral findings show statutory triggers under §§ 252/253 or §12406 are met?
• Is there a narrow mission, strict oversight, and a short, defined path back to purely civilian lead?

Conservative, limited‑state bottom line

• Prefer localism, private security, and targeted federal law‑enforcement first.
• If a governor refuses Guard activation and civilian tools can’t restore order or protect constitutional rights, the lawful backstop is federalization under §12406 and/or the Insurrection Act—used briefly, bounded tightly, focused on stopping aggression and protecting equal rights, not suppressing viewpoints.

Here is more information about how to

“federalize the Guard and/or invoke the Insurrection Act” step, here’s deeper, practical detail on how to do it lawfully, narrowly, and with fast off‑ramps.

What the authorities do (and how they differ)

• 10 U.S.C. §12406 (federalizing the Guard): President brings a state’s National Guard into federal (Title 10) status to suppress insurrection/obstruction. Governor no longer controls those forces.
• 10 U.S.C. §§ 252–253 (Insurrection Act): Authorizes use of armed forces for domestic law‑enforcement support when (a) enforcing federal law is impracticable through normal means (§252), or (b) people are being deprived of equal protection and the state can’t or won’t protect them (§253).
• 10 U.S.C. §254 (proclamation): Before using troops, the President must issue a public proclamation to disperse.
• Relationship between them: You can federalize the Guard without employing them for law‑enforcement tasks; you can also invoke §§252/253 to authorize Title 10 forces (active duty and/or federalized Guard) to perform limited law‑enforcement functions. In practice they’re often paired.

Decision record and legal reviews

• Evidentiary package: Specific incidents showing scale/severity, why courts/law enforcement can’t function normally, and why state remedies are unavailable or inadequate. Include sworn statements, video, court closures, casualty/property data.
• Findings memo (President): Cites statutory trigger(s), facts, why alternatives are exhausted or insufficient, the narrow mission, geographic scope, and exit criteria.
• Consultations: Attorney General and DoD General Counsel legal review; SecDef concurrence; notify congressional leadership and affected delegation. Consult the governor if feasible.
• Civil‑liberties review: Attach a rights impact assessment, data‑minimization plan, and transparency commitments.

Required steps, in order

• Draft the proclamation to disperse (10 U.S.C. §254) and the executive order specifying the forces, area, mission, and rules for use of force (RUF).
• Issue the proclamation publicly (press, web, social, emergency alert if appropriate).
• Publish the executive order and transmit notices to Congress; stand up a Joint Task Force (JTF) under a Title 10 commander.
• Deploy only the forces needed; stage out of sight when possible; insert small, task‑organized elements in support of civilian law enforcement.

Command and control (C2)

• Chain of command: President → SecDef → combatant commander/service component (usually U.S. Northern Command) → JTF commander. No dual‑status commander if the governor refuses; all forces are Title 10.
• Integration: Embed liaison officers with state police, major city PDs, and U.S. Attorney’s Offices. Establish a unified coordination group for deconfliction, not command over locals.
• Mission command: Clear, written tasking orders with measurable objectives; daily fragmentary orders (FRAGOs) adjust tasks as conditions improve.

Mission design (keep it narrow)

• Typical authorized tasks: Protect federal facilities and critical infrastructure; perimeter security; route security for EMS; logistics; reconnaissance/overwatch; quick‑reaction force in extremis; detention support when unavoidable.
• Prefer civilian lead for arrests: When practicable, local/state/federal officers make arrests; Title 10 troops provide security and custody transfer. If immediate danger, Title 10 may detain, then expeditiously transfer to civilian authority.
• Explicit prohibitions: No viewpoint‑based actions; no mass stops; no general curfews except narrowly drawn and time‑limited; no intelligence collection on lawful political activity.

Rules for use of force (RUF) and detention

• Standing rules: Necessity, proportionality, and last resort. Deadly force only to prevent death or serious bodily harm. Property defense limited to critical infrastructure where loss risks mass casualties or essential services.
• Crowd‑control tools: Tight approvals for chemical irritants or kinetic impact projectiles; medical support on scene; automatic incident review.
• Detainee handling: Document probable cause; body‑worn camera or contemporaneous notes; immediate medical screening; transfer to civilian custody ASAP; preserve evidence chain; provide access to counsel.
• Evidence teams: Mixed civilian‑military teams record scenes, collect video, and maintain logs to support conduct‑based prosecutions.

Transparency and oversight

• Daily public metrics: Arrests by offense category, injuries, use‑of‑force incidents, property damage estimates, and footage releases when lawful.
• Privacy guardrails: Minimize retention of non‑evidentiary data; prohibit facial recognition for protest contexts absent case‑by‑case approvals and audits.
• Independent review: Commit to a public after‑action report within 60–90 days with corrective actions and sunsetting of any emergency measures.

Courts and litigation posture

• Expect emergency litigation (TROs/preliminary injunctions). Government should be prepared to show: statutory trigger met; proclamation issued; normal enforcement impracticable; measures are narrowly tailored and time‑limited.
• Habeas and detention: Ensure prompt presentment to a magistrate judge; USMS coordinates transport and custody; avoid any military detention beyond brief, necessary transfer periods.
• Civil‑rights compliance: Maintain content neutrality; follow Claiborne/Brandenburg standards on speech; charge conduct, not association.

Timeline playbook (example)

• T‑24 to T‑6 hours: Finalize findings, proclamation, EO, RUF; identify JTF HQ; alert forces; coordinate with U.S. Attorneys and USMS on intake capacity.
• T‑0: Issue proclamation; publish EO; notify Congress and public; stand up JTF; open public dashboard.
• T+6 to T+48: Focus on securing critical nodes and enabling courts and hospitals to operate; surge federal law‑enforcement task forces on violent actors; begin drawdown where stabilized.
• T+72+: Transition back to civilian lead entirely; revoke or let authorities lapse; publish preliminary metrics and set after‑action timeline.

Exit criteria (set upfront)

• Courts open and functioning; EMS unobstructed; violent incidents return to baseline; critical infrastructure secured by civilian authorities; local/state capacity demonstrably restored.

Common pitfalls to avoid

• Mission creep: Resist expanding from protecting life/critical infrastructure into general order maintenance once civilians can manage.
• Blurred roles: Keep military from routine patrol/arrest whenever civilian officers are available.
• Overbroad zones and curfews: Use narrowly drawn, time‑limited measures with clear rationale and maps.
• Information vacuum: Silence breeds rumor; provide rapid, factual updates with video where lawful.

Templates you can adapt

Outline: Presidential findings memo

• Statutory basis: 10 U.S.C. §§ 252/253 and, if applicable, §12406.
• Factual findings: Specific incidents, casualties, facility disruptions, court closures, failed/insufficient alternatives.
• Impracticability: Why normal enforcement cannot currently function.
• Mission and scope: Geographic area, tasks authorized, tasks prohibited, duration, exit criteria.
• Civil‑liberties safeguards: Content neutrality, minimization, oversight, transparency plan.
• Coordination: Agencies, JTF structure, prosecutorial alignment.
• Reporting: Congressional notification plan, public metrics, after‑action commitment.

Outline: Proclamation to disperse (10 U.S.C. §254)

• Recitals: Cite statutory authority and summarize conditions.
• Order: Direct persons unlawfully obstructing the execution of the laws to disperse and retire peaceably within a specified, reasonable time.
• Notice: How the proclamation is being disseminated (press, web, social, emergency alert).
• Assurances: Peaceful protest remains protected; enforcement will be content‑neutral, necessary, and proportionate.

Conservative, limited‑government bottom line

• Use these powers only when civilian law enforcement truly cannot protect life, property, and equal rights.
• Keep the mission conduct‑based, geographically narrow, and time‑limited; prioritize transparency and rapid transition back to normal civilian control. If you want, I can draft a concise executive‑order template or a one‑page JTF checklist.