You would argue that the protests shutting down highways in California, "protesting" against President Trump's enforcement of immigration law, are also an insurrection. In refusing to disperse, they are revolting against civil authority.

What can and should President Trump do?

See Related: WATCH: Pro-Illegal Protesters Completely Shut Down Major Freeway in Downtown LA--With No Police in Sight

WATCH: On Los Angeles' Second Night of Violent Anti-ICE Protests, Mayor Bass Again Refuses to Arrest

Here are the powers given to the President by the 1807 Insurrection Act, as modified in 2006:

(1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to–

(A) restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that–

(i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order; and

(ii) such violence results in a condition described in paragraph (2); or

(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2).

This law, I am given to understand, provides a statutory exemption to the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which prohibits the use of the armed forces in civil law enforcement. In other words, President Trump would seem to have a tool here, if he chooses to use it. The Posse Comitatus Act also specifically states “…except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress…” This means that suppression of domestic insurrection is specifically exempted, as an Act of Congress – the Insurrection Act – allows the use of the military.

Now, I’m not generally in favor of the government, at any level, using force unless met first by force. But dip me in... something unpleasant if the events of the last few days ain’t been different. There is an organized, armed, destructive rebellion going on against civil authority. The protesters are blocking the public roadways, interfering with the law-abiding citizenry’s right to go about their daily business unimpeded, and possibly endangering lives by impeding the passage of emergency vehicles.

If the president won’t authorize the use of soldiers and Marines to quell the burning, rioting, and looting, then the only recourse is for private citizens to arm themselves in response and to use deadly force themselves in defense of the life, limb, and property of themselves and their neighbors. This has happened before – see the famous Rooftop Koreans.

The president would seem to have the legal authority to declare an insurrection in the Los Angeles area and send in the Army or Marines to disperse the crowds by force, if necessary. Nobody would want to see a Napoleonic "whiff of grapeshot," but the armed services certainly have assets that civil law enforcement does not, such as armored vehicles.

Of course, it makes California's leading politicians, from Governor Gavin Newsom down to the inept and feckless Los Angeles Mayor Bass, look all the more ineffective if the protests continue. And the more ineffective they look, the more likely the voters of California are to think about alternatives. I hate to think that such a cynical calculation may be in order here, but honestly, what's it going to take to flip California back to some semblance of sanity?

Imagine the hue and cry from the legacy media if these were Republicans blocking major highways to protest, say abortion, or any of many other left-wing acts; the legacy media and Democrats would be howling for blood. Principles, not principals - that's always the way with the left. In time, voters may start to see that, too.

So, yes, the president has some tools to deal with these protests, if things get bad enough. But it's likely, for the time being, he's going to continue the "you made your bed, now you lie in it" approach.