The Founders warned us. We did not listen.

———

Thomas Jefferson swore upon the altar of God “eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” That oath, chiseled into the marble of his memorial, has never been more relevant—or more endangered.

For thirty-three years, the Insurrection Act of 1807 has slumbered. Not since federal troops rolled into Los Angeles during the 1992 riots has any president invoked this extraordinary authority. That streak may end within days. And when it does, Americans will confront a constitutional crisis the Founders predicted but could not prevent.

What happens in Minnesota will not stay in Minnesota. The precedent established there will echo through generations, reshaping the relationship between federal power and state sovereignty, between the executive and the people, between the military and civilian life. We stand at a threshold. Once crossed, there may be no returning.

———

The Founders Knew This Danger

The men who created the American republic understood military power’s seductive corruption better than we do. They had lived under British occupation, watched redcoats patrol their streets, felt “the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament.” Their debates over the Constitution—the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers—returned obsessively to one question: How do we prevent the military from becoming an instrument of domestic oppression?

Patrick Henry thundered at the Virginia Ratifying Convention in 1788: “A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny: And how are you to punish them?” He warned that an ambitious president with military force at his disposal could easily “render himself absolute.” The army, in such hands, would become not the protector of the people but their master.

Alexander Hamilton, no enemy of executive power, nevertheless acknowledged in Federalist No. 8 that standing armies pose grave dangers to liberty. He wrote that citizens subjected to military presence “are unavoidably subjected to frequent infringements on their rights, which serve to weaken their sense of those rights.” Over time, people “brought to consider the soldiery not only as their protectors, but as their superiors.” The transition from seeing soldiers as superiors to accepting them as masters, Hamilton warned, “is neither remote nor difficult.”

Even the Federalists, who defended the Constitution’s military provisions, did not dispute this fundamental premise. They argued only that proper checks—congressional control of appropriations, the two-year funding limit, separation of powers—would prevent abuse. James Madison calculated in Federalist No. 46 that a federal standing army should never exceed 30,000 troops, a force that state militias could resist if federal power turned tyrannical.

Those checks assumed good faith. They assumed presidents would not fabricate emergencies. They assumed Congress would guard its prerogatives jealously. They assumed the military would refuse manifestly improper orders.

What happens when those assumptions fail?

———

The Birth of Unchecked Power

The Insurrection Act emerged from a specific crisis—Aaron Burr’s alleged conspiracy to carve out a personal empire in the American West. When Jefferson discovered the plot in late 1806, he found himself constitutionally hamstrung. Existing laws allowed the president to call up state militias, but using federal regular troops domestically lacked clear legal mechanism.

Jefferson went to Congress with an urgent request. Three months later, on March 3, 1807, he signed the Insurrection Act into law. The irony: by that point, Burr was already in custody. The new power was unnecessary for its intended purpose.

What Congress created was something considerably broader than an anti-Burr provision. They granted the executive branch extraordinary power with minimal procedural constraints. The only requirement before deploying troops? Issue a proclamation telling the insurgents to disperse. If they refuse, send in the military.

Jefferson himself—the very author of the Declaration of Independence, the champion of limited government—now possessed authority to send soldiers against American citizens. Even he, in later correspondence with John Adams during their reconciliation between 1812 and 1826, reflected on power’s corrupting nature. Adams wrote to Jefferson in 1814 that “Despotism will Still Struggle for domination” and that even democracy, when it gains the upper hand, “will be revengefull bloody and cruel.”

The Founders trusted that presidents possessing such power would exercise restraint. For two centuries, that trust was largely vindicated. But trust is not law. Custom is not Constitution. And norms, once broken, cannot be unbroken.

———

The Thinness of Our Protections

The Insurrection Act’s most alarming feature is what it does not say. The statute never defines “insurrection.” Never defines “rebellion” or “domestic violence” or “unlawful combination.” These terms carry intuitive meaning—we know an insurrection when we see one—but the law leaves their application entirely to presidential judgment.

The Supreme Court addressed this in 1827. In Martin v. Mott, the Court held that the president’s determination of whether an emergency exists is “conclusive upon all others.” Courts will not second-guess the factual predicate for deployment. If the president says an insurrection is occurring, the law accepts his word.

This doctrine made sense when insurrections looked like armed rebellions—Shays’ followers marching on arsenals, Whiskey rebels attacking tax collectors. The president needed authority to respond without waiting for judges to deliberate.

But the doctrine creates obvious potential for abuse. A president inclined to characterize political opposition as insurrection faces no effective legal barrier. The proclamation requirement offers no meaningful constraint when “insurgent” is defined by the executive himself.

Patrick Henry foresaw this. “My great objection to this government,” he declared, “is that it does not leave us the means of defending our rights, or of waging war against tyrants.” He asked his fellow Virginians whether liberty had been “destroyed most often by the licentiousness of the people, or by the tyranny of rulers.” The balance, he insisted, fell heavily on the side of tyranny.

History has vindicated his warning. The Anti-Federalist Brutus, writing in 1788, drew lessons from Rome and Britain. Julius Caesar, “appointed to the command by the constitutional authority of that commonwealth,” used his army to destroy the republic and establish “the most absolute despotism.” In Britain, the same army that vindicated the people’s liberties against a tyrant king then “assisted Cromwell, their General, in wresting from the people that liberty they had so dearly earned.”

The pattern repeats because power, once concentrated, seeks its own expansion. The constraints we imagine will hold are always weaker than we believe.

———

Minnesota: The Testing Ground

The current confrontation represents something more troubling than a policy dispute over immigration enforcement. It exposes the structural vulnerability the Founders could not eliminate.

When an ICE agent shot and killed Renee Nicole Good—a U.S. citizen with no criminal record—during an immigration arrest, protests erupted. Governor Tim Walz characterized federal operations as “organized brutality.” The Trump administration responded by labeling the governor and Minneapolis’s mayor “terrorists.”

This is not a governor requesting federal assistance. This is not federal enforcement of court-ordered desegregation against a defiant state—the model of Little Rock and Selma, where federal power defended constitutional rights the states refused to protect. This is a president threatening military deployment to enforce immigration policy against a state government that vehemently opposes his methods.

The administration’s rhetoric—calling protesters “insurrectionists,” labeling elected officials “terrorists”—is not accidental. It lays groundwork for invoking the Insurrection Act. If successful, it transforms the statute from an emergency measure into a political weapon.

Consider what this means. A president could declare any sustained protest an “insurrection.” Any state that refuses to assist federal enforcement could be deemed complicit in “unlawful obstruction.” Any governor who criticizes federal tactics could be labeled a “terrorist.” The definitions belong entirely to the executive. And the courts have said they will not intervene.

———

What Comes After Minnesota

If troops deploy to Minnesota over the state’s objection, the immediate effects will be dramatic enough—soldiers on street corners, military vehicles in residential neighborhoods, curfews enforced at gunpoint.

But the long-term consequences matter more.

Every state with policies the administration dislikes will wonder if they face similar treatment. Sanctuary cities. States that legalized marijuana. States that expanded voting access. States that protected reproductive rights. The implicit threat—comply or face occupation—will reshape federal-state relations in ways difficult to reverse.

Future presidents of any party will inherit this precedent. The expansion of executive power never contracts voluntarily. What Trump claims today, his successors will claim tomorrow. The ratchet turns only one direction.

Moreover, once the military enters domestic policing, extracting it becomes nearly impossible. The presence justifies itself. Disorder continues? The troops must stay. Disorder subsides? The troops succeeded and must remain to prevent recurrence. Either way, the occupation extends.

Hamilton warned that citizens subjected to prolonged military presence lose their sense of their own rights. They accommodate. They adapt. They forget what civilian life felt like. This is not speculation—it is the recorded experience of republics that became empires, of free peoples who traded liberty for the illusion of security.

———

The Question Before Us

John Adams, reflecting on governance in his twilight correspondence with Jefferson, observed that “power always sees itself as being in the right.” He believed “governmental checks and balances consequently might be the only defense against tyranny.”

But the Insurrection Act contains no meaningful checks. The president decides the emergency exists. The president issues the proclamation. The president deploys the troops. Congress can defund the operation—eventually. Courts can review abuses—after the fact. States can protest—but cannot resist.

The Founders knew that paper barriers—constitutional provisions, statutory requirements, procedural safeguards—ultimately depend on the character of those who hold power. Madison wrote that if angels governed, no government would be necessary. But angels do not govern. Ambitious men do. Frightened men do. Vengeful men do.

The Insurrection Act gambled that presidents wielding its authority would exercise restraint because they understood the difference between capability and authorization, between legal permission and moral license. For 219 years, that gamble paid off. The Act was invoked sparingly. Even its most controversial uses occurred in contexts subsequent generations recognized as genuine crises.

What happens when a president lacks that understanding? What happens when a president views the law as a tool rather than a trust? What happens when the guardrails that kept us safe turn out to have been nothing but shared assumptions—assumptions no longer shared?

———

A Republic, If We Can Keep It

Benjamin Franklin, leaving the Constitutional Convention in 1787, was asked what form of government the delegates had created. “A republic,” he reportedly answered, “if you can keep it.”

That conditional haunts us now. Keeping a republic requires more than institutions. It requires citizens who understand that some powers, once exercised, corrupt everything they touch. It requires leaders who recognize that authority and restraint must travel together. It requires a collective memory of how free peoples have lost their freedom—not in a single dramatic moment, but through incremental surrenders, each seeming reasonable at the time.

The Anti-Federalists lost the ratification debate. But they were not wrong about the dangers. They were wrong only about timing. They imagined tyranny arriving quickly, within a generation. Instead it has taken two centuries of slow erosion—the standing army they feared grown to global empire, the executive power they warned against expanded beyond recognition, the states’ sovereignty they sought to protect diminished to administrative convenience.

Minnesota may be the moment their fears finally materialize. Or it may be another near-miss, another test the Republic narrowly passes. We will not know until it happens.

But this much is certain: if the Insurrection Act is invoked to suppress political opposition in a state that committed no crime except disagreeing with federal policy, the Republic the Founders built will have fundamentally changed.

 

The precedent will stand. The wound will not heal. And every American who cherishes liberty will live thereafter under the shadow of a power their ancestors feared above all others—a standing army, turned inward, executing the commands of a president who has discovered he can define insurrection however he wishes.

Jefferson swore eternal hostility to tyranny. The question now is whether enough Americans share that oath—and whether we will act on it before the soldiers arrive.

———

If this analysis resonates—or troubles you—share it. The conversation about executive power and constitutional limits cannot remain confined to scholars and policymakers. It belongs to every citizen who values the Republic we inherited and wishes to pass it on intact.

Copyright © 2026 by Charles Cranston Jett

All Rights Reserved