GEOFF BENNETT: A bipartisan group of former senior government officials is urging lawmakers on Capitol Hill to rein in a president's ability to deploy the U.S. military within the country.

Called the Insurrection Act, the centuries-old provision allows any president to use emergency powers to send U.S. troops into American cities.

One of the leaders of these proposed reforms is Jack Goldsmith of Harvard Law School and former assistant attorney general in the George W. Bush administration.

He joins us now.

Thanks so much for being with us.

JACK GOLDSMITH, Harvard Law School: Thank you for having me.

GEOFF BENNETT: And although these proposed reforms would apply to any future president, it was former President Donald Trump who considered invoking the Insurrection Act to put down protests after the murder of George Floyd and who has since vowed to send U.S. troops into Democratic cities if he is reelected.

We should note, though, that you co-wrote an opinion piece for The New York Times where you say: "This focus on Mr. Trump is understandable, but inadequate in capturing the compelling case for reform."

In what ways?

JACK GOLDSMITH: The Insurrection Act, as it's currently written, is a blank check for any president to bring the military into the domestic realm.

It has extremely vague triggers for its use.

It has no time limit on its use.

It's just a blank check for any president.

And so it's an opportunity for abuse for any president.

And there have been reform proposals for the Insurrection Act going back decades.

So, if -- the time to do it is now, and the reason to do it is that no president should have this authority.

GEOFF BENNETT: So what are some of the proposed changes to this, as you say, ill-defined Insurrection Act?

JACK GOLDSMITH: There are essentially two, two core changes.

The first is that the statute has very antiquated language and very vague triggers for when the president can invoke it to bring the military into the domestic realm.

It talks about assemblages and combinations.

And it's the mere possibility -- the mere possibility of domestic violence of any sort is enough under the statute.

So our group proposed tightening up and narrowing the circumstances in which the president can use it.

The second and in many ways the most important reform is to bring Congress back into the use of the statute.

The president derives his authority to invoke the statute only because Congress gave it to him in the Insurrection Act.

And we think that the president should have to consult with Congress, should have to make findings to Congress about why he's using the act and, most importantly, that the president be limited, time-limited, in his use of the act.

So, the authority to invoke the act, to bring the military into the domestic realm should be limited.

We propose no more than 30 days.

GEOFF BENNETT: There will be those who question the wisdom of placing limits on presidential power.

There will be people who think that these reforms benefit one party over the other, to which you say what?

JACK GOLDSMITH: Well, as I said, they don't benefit one party over the other.

This statute can be evoked by any president.

There was discussion.

President Biden was urged by members of his party to federalize the National Guard down in Texas, given the standoff with the governor of Texas over the border.

And any president can use this authority.

I should add that there's a need for presidents to have this authority.

It's an important authority for extreme cases.

But any president can use it, and any president can abuse it.

GEOFF BENNETT: How would you get these changes through this Congress?

JACK GOLDSMITH: Well, we hope to convince members of Congress that this is a reform that needs to be done.

There's actually a consensus in Congress right now, a longstanding several-year consensus, represented in several bills, for broader emergency powers reform.

The president has an array of emergency powers that he can invoke endlessly, and there's actually bipartisan support to rein those powers in.

And there are bills moving through the Congress on that.

And we think that the argument for this statute is very similar and should be attractive to both sides.

GEOFF BENNETT: In just the past week, we have seen the Biden administration announce a new rule making it harder to fire federal workers in an effort to prevent Donald Trump from gutting the federal work force if he's reelected.

We have seen changes to the Electoral Count Act to prevent another January 6.

There's now this proposal to change the Insurrection Act.

In your view, is Washington taking seriously enough and moving quickly enough to shore up the weaknesses in our laws and in our system that might be open to exploitation and abuse?

JACK GOLDSMITH: We have learned since Watergate that presidents -- that the norms and laws that were put in place in Watergate, their effectiveness has diminished.

They were diminishing before President Trump came into office, and their weaknesses were apparent when President Trump was in office.

And these weaknesses were well-known going back a long time, and Congress has actually done very little to address these problems.

The Electoral Account Reform Act that you mentioned to improve the process in the period in December and January in which the president is selected by -- in the Electoral College, that was a very important reform.

But, beyond that, Congress really hasn't done much, and there's a whole array of things it should be doing.

But the Insurrection Act should be at the top of the list.

GEOFF BENNETT: That is Jack Goldsmith of Harvard Law School, former assistant attorney general in the George W. Bush administration.

Thanks so much for your time and for your insights.

We appreciate it.

JACK GOLDSMITH: Thank you very much.