Following Orders

Donald Trump has said that during his presidency he was dissuaded from using the military to quell violence in Democratic-controlled cities and states.  This was a source of frustration to him.

And while he has been coy about how he might use the military during a second term, Trump's surrogates have suggested his administration would have wide latitude to deploy the military within the country's borders.

I'm not suggesting that heavy armor will be rolling down main streets across America; but it is a fair question to ask how the military will be used domestically in a second Trump administration. 

The Posse Comitatus Act generally prohibits the use of the military for domestic law enforcement; nevertheless, Trump's musings have given rise to concerns over a possible invocation of the 1792 Insurrection Act.  What are the implications for executive power, administration appointees and military oaths?

While it is true that a president can give illegal orders; he cannot execute them unilaterally.  Donald Trump has learned from his first term that in a second term it is imperative he surround himself with individuals who are loyal - not to the constitution - but to him, personally.

Trump has accused former Joint Chiefs Chairman General Mark Milley of treason and deserving of execution.  There will not be a Mark Milley in a second Trump administration.  Instead there will be pliant sycophants which means the execution of sketchy orders will fall to the next line of senior military officers.

Ponder that.