We’ve spent centuries navigating the perilous silence of our Constitution. That silence, born often of urgent compromise, has too often become a dangerous loophole. A casually agreed upon gentleman’s agreement that is really a gaping chasm through which executive power can surge unchecked. This is particularly true when it comes to the ultimate, most dangerous power: domestic military force.
We saw it in past eras, when “paramount necessity” was invoked to suspend civil liberties and domestic tranquility. We’ve seen it in our current events. Vague statutes and novel legal theories trying to justify deploying federal forces against our own citizens. Actions that bypass state authority and threatened the very foundations of civilian rule. For what? False pretext and political points?
We’ve learned a hard lesson: Implied protections are no protection at all when faced with explicit ambition. Sometimes you need a law to explicitly restrict actions. This stops the “there’s no law against it” argument. I know it wouldn’t be legal, you know it wouldn’t be legal. But when someone actually tries to do the thing and it’s not expressly illegal? Gentleman’s agreements don’t work in a court of law and they don’t bind unscrupulous actors or would be authoritarians.
This is why the Domestic Tranquility and Military Constraint Act (DTMCA) isn’t just another piece of legislation. It’s an unbreakable constitutional wall. Designed explicitly to fill the dangerous silences the constitution leaves to gentleman’s agreements. Finally enshrining these agreements as legally binding laws. Ensuring the military remains exactly where it belongs: defending the nation from external threats, not policing its citizens.
Building the Wall: What the DTMCA Does
The DTMCA operates as the vital Third Pillar in our broader Restoration of the Republic framework. Ensuring that the “Circuit Breaker” we’ve designed is never bypassed by a manufactured military or financial Impoundment crisis.
- No More “Invasion” Pox on Our House:
- The Problem: The term “invasion” has been weaponized, stretched to cover everything from humanitarian migration to criminal activity. This loose interpretation is a dangerous pretext for deploying the military domestically.
- The Solution: The DTMCA provides a razor-sharp, legally binding definition of “Invasion”: a sustained, armed physical incursion. Recognized only if the incursion is performed by the organized military forces of a foreign nation-state. Full stop. No wiggle room for political opportunism. It explicitly excludes all other scenarios.
- “Insurrection” Requires Actual Collapse, Not Just Disagreement:
- The Problem: The Insurrection Act’s vague language allows the military to be called in for “unlawful assemblages.” This is a dangerous ambiguity. It invites political exploitation at the expense of Americans civil liberties.
- The Solution: The DTMCA raises the bar dramatically. An “Insurrection” now requires the total physical closure and sustained non-functionality of civilian courts and law enforcement. This is not about managing protest; it’s about a complete breakdown of civil society. The only scenario where military intervention is truly justifiable.
- The “Milligan” Rule: No Martial Law Where Courts Are Open:
- The Problem: The U.S. Constitution does not specify who can declare martial law. This omission creates a dangerous legal gray area that’s been abused in the past.
- The Solution: The DTMCA codifies the timeless principle of Ex parte Milligan. There is no Martial Law where civilian courts are open and functioning. It’s a bright-line rule. Any “continuity of government” deployment of the military is limited to 72 hours. Congress must explicitly grant a 2/3 supermajority extension for it to continue.
- Protecting Those Who Say “No”:
- The Problem: When an executive issues an illegal order: brave individuals down the chain of command carry the burden to refuse it. Often at great personal risk. This is not the linchpin great democracies should rely upon.
- The Solution: The DTMCA legally formalizes that orders defying these new constraints are “Manifestly Unlawful Orders.” Importantly, it protects any service member, officer, or federal agent. If they refuse to execute such an order, they are shielded from punishment or retaliation. Their oath is to the Constitution, and this Act gives them the legal backing to uphold it.
Why This Act Matters for the Next 250 Years
This isn’t about curbing the legitimate power of the presidency; it’s about safeguarding the very definition of a free republic. By leaving the most dangerous powers undefined, we invite their abuse. The DTMCA meticulously defines and restricts the domestic use of military force. It ensures that the ultimate power—the power of the uniform—is never turned against the very citizens it is sworn to protect.
This Act works in perfect concert with our Independent AG, our OLC reforms, and our 72-hour Circuit Breaker. It means that when the alarm sounds, the military is legally bound to stay in its barracks. Unless an actual, undeniable, existential threat to the civilian government makes it absolutely unavoidable.
We are closing the loopholes. We are filling the silences. We are building the wall. Not against people, but against the specter of tyranny that lurks in unchecked power. Something every American should support regardless of party politics.
Read the legal framework for the DTMCA Here
Pillar I: Executive Accountability and Rule of Law Act
Pillar II: Presidential Circuit Breaker
View All Project 2029: Restoration of the Republic Proposals Here
