Would you obey an order to restrict Congress to DC until they increase defense spending?

SPC Jeff Daley, PhD, I assume you are referring to the fact that D.C. is a federal district and one of the established exceptions to the Act is "protection of Federal property and functions". However, the district doesn't fall under that designation, particularly since the passage of the DC Home Rule Act forty years ago.

Congress and the courts have long held that DC comes under the applicability of Posse Comitatus, just like all states, territories and federal properties, and DoD has specifically called out the applicability of the Act to the District of Columbia in previous directives (DoDD 5030.46, now superseded by DoDI 3025.21).

SPC Jeff Daley, PhD, I assume you are referring to the fact that D.C. is a federal district and one of the established exceptions to the Act is "protection of Federal property and functions". However, the district doesn't fall under that designation, particularly since the passage of the DC Home Rule Act forty years ago.

Congress and the courts have long held that DC comes under the applicability of Posse Comitatus, just like all states, territories and federal properties, and DoD has specifically called out the applicability of the Act to the District of Columbia in previous directives (DoDD 5030.46, now superseded by DoDI 3025.21).

Argh! Talk about a hiccup on the internet....

SPC Jeff Daley, PhD, actually the emergency exception (as well as the other five exceptions to the Act) predates the DoDI and has been part of the CFR (32 CFR 215.4) for many, many years.

What's really shocking is that a constitutional law professor doesn't know this and paints it as a recent power grab by the military.

As I stated in my post it is a direct violation of The Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C. § 1385) Sec. 15. From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress ; and no money appropriated by this act shall be used to pay any of the expenses incurred in the employment of any troops in violation of this section and any person willfully violating the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction thereof shall be punished by fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars or imprisonment not exceeding two years or by both such fine and imprisonment[6] Officers are specifically commissioned to uphold the law and therefore responsible to not follow unlawful orders. Unlisted are also not bound under the UCMJ to follow unlawful orders.

It sounds like a wonderful idea in the abstract but it likely is illegal and impossible. Both Democrat and Republican leaders have referred to trying to get representatives and senators to do anything as an exercise in "herding cats."

LCDR (Join to see) Absolutely! But more so than a specific law, it violates the Constitution itself. Members of Congress shall be free from Arrest while in session. So not only would this be an unlawful order, it would be a direct breach of our oath to follow it even if posse comitatus didn't exist (or didn't apply, like with the USCG).

Yes I agree while the Act was passed in post Civil war America to appease the south that they would not be occupied by northern troops most of the laws passed by the Legislative branch are there to compliment a Constitutional guiding principle and at the least have to be constitutional or the Judicial Branch will nullify them.