The Federalists Reloaded | No. 8

The Domestic Deployment Doctrine: Live, Laugh, Liberty

Hamilton was many things, but soft and squishy on military power? Not exactly. Still, in Federalist No. 8, he saw something that should still make us sit up straight: when you bring soldiers into civilian life to “keep the peace,” you may end up losing the very freedom they’re supposed to protect.

Sound familiar?

In 2025, thousands of National Guard troops, taken over by the federal government, marched through the streets of Los Angeles during mass protests.

Governor Newsom said, “We’ve got this.” The President said, “No, you don’t,” and took over anyway. The Guard, backed by Marines, arrested at least one protester. No formal emergency. No declaration of insurrection. Just a memo, some vague legal rationale, and boots on the pavement.

That’s not some hypothetical scenario out of a dystopian movie. That’s what actually happened.

And it wasn’t a one-off. It’s part of a pattern: the steady creep of military force into places where democracy should do the work. Hamilton saw it coming. So did his critics. And now we’re left with the very thing they feared: a system that talks like a republic but acts like an empire.

Hamilton’s Warning: Security Eats Liberty

Hamilton’s basic argument in Federalist No. 8 was this: If the states remained divided or weakly connected, they’d constantly fight or fear fighting. And fear breeds armies. Armies breed hierarchy. And hierarchy doesn’t like freedom.

Here’s how he put it: “The continual necessity for their [soldiers’] services enhances the importance of the soldier, and proportionably degrades the condition of the citizen.”

That sentence doesn’t need much translation. The more you rely on military muscle, the more you forget how to govern through law, persuasion, and consent. Force becomes the face of the state. The citizen fades into the background.

Hamilton wasn’t saying the military is evil. He was saying it’s dangerous to make it central to our domestic security. A free society, he argued, doesn’t just lose liberty from foreign invaders. It loses it from within, when fear takes over and people stop asking questions.

He hoped a strong federal system would prevent the states from fighting each other and avoid the need for armies altogether. But he also knew the real danger came when people forgot that freedom doesn’t stick around on autopilot.

The Anti-Federalist Paranoia: It Aged Pretty Well

While Hamilton wanted to build something stronger, the Anti-Federalists were pacing in the back of the room, deeply unconvinced. To them, giving the federal government the power to raise armies and suppress uprisings sounded like painting a big target on the Constitution.

Brutus warned that the federal government would use troops “to stifle the first struggles of freedom.” They didn’t believe that liberty and standing armies could coexist. To him, that wasn’t theory or paranoia. That was a reminder of British troops arriving in colonial towns and reminding everyone who was in charge.

The Anti-Federalists didn’t hate security. They just believed real security came from people, not presidents. From state militias, not standing armies. Their answer was local control. Their backup plan was citizen resistance, not federal firepower.

This idea helped shape the Second Amendment. But more than that, it showed a deep worry that the government wouldn’t use military power to protect liberty. It would use it to control people in the name of order.

And if you fast forward to today, that fear seems pretty legitimate.

When the Law Is a Loophole: Posse Comitatus and Its Skeleton Key

The idea of local law enforcement traces its roots back to the reign of Alfred the Great in the 9th century. Posse comitatus translates to “power of the county” in English. Alfred figured out that he could maintain order by empowering local sheriffs rather than raising an army.

Alfred the Great, who brought us the power of Posse Comitatus

After the Civil War and the messy aftermath of Reconstruction, Congress enacted the Posse Comitatus Act in 1878. The idea was simple: the U.S. military doesn’t get to be your local police. Army tanks don’t belong on Main Street. Period.

It worked for a while. However, it now has more holes than Swiss cheese.

First, the law only applies when troops are under federal control. But the President can flip a switch, take over the National Guard from a state, and suddenly Posse Comitatus doesn’t matter.

Second, the President can invoke the Insurrection Act, which basically gives them the right to send troops anywhere, anytime, as long as they claim there’s some threat to law and order. They don’t need a judge’s permission or congressional authorization. They don’t even need the state’s approval.

In short, the protections that were supposed to keep the military out of civilian life have become weakened. And presidents from both parties have learned how to game the system.

The Battle for Los Angeles - A Warning Shot

In 2025, protests broke out in Los Angeles over federal immigration raids. The Governor said the state could handle it. The President didn’t agree. So he took control of the state’s National Guard, sent them into the streets, and added Marines to the mix.

One protester was arrested. There were no charges. No clear explanation. But the point had been made: federal troops were now involved in local law enforcement.

That’s a big deal. Not just legally, but symbolically. When soldiers take over a role that should belong to civilian police, even temporarily, it sends a message. Not just about who’s in charge, but about how we resolve conflict in a democracy.

Governor Newsom sued. A district court said he had a case. However, the Ninth Circuit allowed the federalization to stand. Once the Ninth Circuit rules, the case will most likely be appealed to the Supreme Court. In the meantime, the door is wide open for this to happen again, anywhere.

Congress and the Courts: Missing in Action

Congress passed the War Powers Resolution in 1973 after the Vietnam War to make sure no president could launch wars without approval. It was supposed to give Congress its voice back. It failed. The exceptions were in cases where we have been attacked or an attack is imminent.

Nixon’s expanded use of the military in Southeast Asia led to enactment of the War Powers Act.

Presidents have bombed, invaded, and occupied countries without ever asking for permission. And when Congress tries to push back, they get ignored. Or worse, they just fold. We’ve seen this dance in Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Kosovo, Libya, Syria, and most recently, Iran.

Courts won’t intervene because they call it a “political question.” And Congress won’t intervene because no one wants to be blamed for “losing” a conflict they never authorized in the first place. We have laws that say one thing, and a reality that says something else. And nobody is working to fix the gap.

The Courts: Occasionally Brave, Mostly Absent

There’s a legal paper trail here. And it’s a mixed bag.

• In Ex parte Milligan (1866), the Court ruled that military tribunals can’t try civilians if the courts are open. That’s a win for civil liberty.

• In Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952), the Court slapped Truman’s hand for trying to seize steel mills during the Korean War. Another win.

• But in Perpich v. DoD (1990), they let the federal government train and deploy National Guard units over a governor’s objections. Not great.

• And in Doe v. Bush (2003), they refused to even review the legality of the Iraq War. Political question. Out of sight, out of mind.

The courts know how to push back. They just don’t seem interested in doing it when military power is involved.

The Danger of Normalization

This isn’t just about laws and court cases. It’s about how easily we get used to the abnormal.

You see troops in tactical gear on the streets of a major city, and helicopters overhead. Curfews. Surveillance drones. You hear it’s “just for safety.” And maybe it is, this time.

But what about next time? What happens when that becomes the default? When protest equals threat, and dissent equals disorder?

The line between a free society and a managed society isn’t always obvious. Sometimes, it’s whether the guy telling you to get off the street is wearing a badge or a flak jacket.

Here’s What We Can Do About It

Look, this isn’t about being anti-military. We need a strong national defense. But a country where freedom is guarded by fear and armored vehicles is not what the founders had in mind. If we want to live in a republic, not just pretend to, we have to take this seriously.

So here’s a list of things that need to happen. None of them radical, all of them long overdue.

1. Give the War Powers Act real teeth. Right now, if a president sends troops into conflict, Congress has 60 days to approve the action, or the mission should stop. Except it never stops. So let’s change that. If Congress doesn’t approve the action, funding is automatically cut off. No loopholes. No excuses.

   Additionally, the courts should review these cases. If presidents are going to claim war powers, someone besides their lawyers should get a say.

2. Close the military-policing loopholes. If National Guard units are acting under federal direction, they should be covered by the same rules as the regular military. No more hiding behind technicalities. The law should protect people, not help the government duck responsibility.

3. Rein in the Insurrection Act. Right now, the President can use it without anyone’s permission. That needs to change. Either the governor of the affected state must agree, or a federal court must declare a genuine emergency. No more vague claims about “threats” or “disturbances.”

4. Let states defend their own authority. If the federal government takes over a state’s troops, the state should be able to challenge that in court, fast. There should be a clear and fair process to resolve those disputes before they escalate on the ground.

5. Make it harder to use military power at home. Pass a law that says federal troops can’t arrest civilians, spy on them, or patrol their neighborhoods unless there’s an officially declared emergency. And if they’re deployed, the public should know why, for how long, and under what authority. That information should be shared with Congress and made public. No more secret legal memos.

6. Build a culture that understands what’s at stake. This is something I write almost every time. An intelligent and engaged populace is the backbone of a free society. It is why I write this series.

   This won’t get fixed by law alone. People need to care. That starts with education: teaching students what the Constitution actually says, why civilian control of the military is important, and how easily hard-won freedoms can be lost. The media needs to stop treating troop deployments as just another Tuesday. And citizens need to hold their elected officials accountable when they look the other way.

Liberty Doesn’t Lose All at Once

Hamilton was right to fear what happens when we trade liberty for safety. The Anti-Federalists were right to fear what happens when military power becomes convenient. And we’re now stuck in the overlap.

This country has always walked a line between force and freedom. What’s changed is how quietly we’ve crossed it. It’s time to walk it back.

We can start by remembering that the Constitution wasn’t written to make war easy. It was written to make liberty hard to lose.

We need leaders who respect the line between civilian life and military force. We need laws that are not just written, but also followed. And we need citizens who aren’t afraid to say, “This isn’t how it’s supposed to work.”

This was probably one place where all the founders agreed. Ben Franklin once said, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Because if we forget the difference between a free country and a controlled one, we’ll find out the hard way what it feels like to live without the former.

And once that line is crossed, history tells us it doesn’t get uncrossed easily.