posse commitatus
wicks
Lonnie Courtney Clay
> Is putting NG troops in airport security a violation of posse comitatus?
"Posse comitatus" anagram for "Is comatose puts". America is waking up
in spite of "lawyers", "doctors" and others of their ilk.
LCC - just the facts ma! = Jest clutch fat scam!
Jeff Schwartz
I would doubt it....
Let's look at it another way -
If the 'attackers' were coming by ship, would putting the NG on the docks be
in violation?
Joe Breher
I reread the posse comitatus act today. See
http://www.dojgov.net/posse_comitatus_act.htm I was surprised to learn that:
a) it is statutory, not constitutional in nature
b) it specifically allows the legislature, at any time, to specify
circumstances under which the military can become involved in law
enforcement
So, no, regardless of what I believe this says about totalitarianism, as
long as the legislature was involved in the decision, it is NOT a violation
of posse comitatus.
Is there a constitutional rallying cry we can employ for this purpose? I
dunno. I hope so.
Joe
NRA, GOA, JPFO, RMGO, SAF, SAS (auxillary), CSSA, TRT, '65 Park JTM 45, '67
SR, '72 PR, '64 Silvertone Twin Twelve 100, '74 Ampeg V2, too many other
amps to mention!
Strabo
Of course not. But the borders are still open. The illegals are
still here. Wonder why that is?
The domestic government actions are directed toward the American
people and their freedom.
There is no declaration of war and so there is no war. There is
just another administration and Congress laying the foundation
for years of continuing propaganda and more controls over the
people.
Strabo
Joe Breher wrote:
>
> "wicks" <wi...@ttc-cmc.net> wrote in message
> news:bTVs7.4632$fy2.2...@e420r-atl1.usenetserver.com...
> > Is putting NG troops in airport security a violation of posse comitatus?
>
> I reread the posse comitatus act today. See
> http://www.dojgov.net/posse_comitatus_act.htm I was surprised to learn that:
>
> a) it is statutory, not constitutional in nature
>
> b) it specifically allows the legislature, at any time, to specify
> circumstances under which the military can become involved in law
> enforcement
This act merely consolidates the potential Constitutional
uses of the military and it clearly states that the Congress
must authorize its use and that any legislative use of the
act must comply with the Constitution.
>
> So, no, regardless of what I believe this says about totalitarianism, as
> long as the legislature was involved in the decision, it is NOT a violation
> of posse comitatus.
>
> Is there a constitutional rallying cry we can employ for this purpose? I
> dunno. I hope so.
>
> Joe
There has been no Congressional declaration of war and every
long term act of war under executive orders is against the
posse comitatus act and is unconstitutional.
David M. Miller
-long term act of war under executive orders is against the
-posse comitatus act and is unconstitutional.
No, acts of war longer than 90 days without Congressional support are
against the War Powers Act, and are illegal, not unconstitutional.
--
D M Miller
Delete DELETE in address to reply-anti-spam
"... The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?"
-- W.B. Yeats, The Second Coming
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.6.2
mQENAzui528AAAEH/2D9OihKUQH0uwkUWN1RBk/mcBr7C6ePgeEwa2DP6nAB9u5n
2LOl3YYMDn4FRZyqKGeatWahxWDBitM1ecs/Xz7a+doHPZERC1w5sm28tKWg9bFZ
klDt8puSMvNdp74fZLEgdyiJO8esR/9SaonGjWWzDf4rfPhe7CcEHNk6pW64JmwP
pFZ8JTtiFml29L5GV/ZYY89rEBA8x3QwqvzL82gA3PH1Dc/nF83ZUcI+lw/NEinB
KhuJH1eXoT+hfngYLVe4SztEeN/8KLIe8bUjEbKgDhp4+ZpEMaBD79K+0g9yLpSy
nU3xLqbPojp/DR0Iuzp4rhN8GGP/RKyb1Fcnub0ABRG0JkRhdmlkIE0uIE1pbGxl
cjxkbW1pbGxlckBhZGVscGhpYS5uZXQ+
=NMXA
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Strabo <str...@flashnet.com> wrote in article
<3BB4D92C...@flashnet.com>...
Rick Bowen
<dmmille...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>-There has been no Congressional declaration of war and every
>-long term act of war under executive orders is against the
>-posse comitatus act and is unconstitutional.
>
>
>No, acts of war longer than 90 days without Congressional support are
>against the War Powers Act, and are illegal, not unconstitutional.
I thought we were still under "emergency war powers act" from WWII and
Roosevelt.
Rick Bowen
Ecclesiastes 3.3 & 3.8
It is time.
TSRA Life Member
NRA Member
westonotto
the president didn't "order" the national guard, he has "asked" the state
governors to implement this and then the feds will reimburse the states for
the salaries. Since the national guard cannot be ordered to war by a
governor, only used in civil actions I don't believe this is a technical
violation. The troops are still under state control.
Strabo
"David M. Miller" wrote:
>
> -There has been no Congressional declaration of war and every
> -long term act of war under executive orders is against the
> -posse comitatus act and is unconstitutional.
>
> No, acts of war longer than 90 days without Congressional support are
> against the War Powers Act, and are illegal, not unconstitutional.
If an executive action looks like war, talks like war,
and walks like war, then the executive is trying to
start a war. Unlike Korea and Nam, he has had little
success in identifying an enemy.
The Congress, ever eager to avoid responsibility and make
a decision, made up the inane "War Powers Act" in 1973.
----------------
Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is
required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever
is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of Untied
States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was
submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress
(1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization
for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended
by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to
meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States.
Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an
additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies
to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity
respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the
continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing
about a prompt removal of such forces.
----------------
From the Constitution...
"To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules
concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use
shall be for a longer term than two years;"
So, if we go along with Congress's official denial of the obvious,
it still must either declare or not declare after 90 days.
It probably won't and Bush will continue his political
"police action" which will be illegal and unconstitutional.
Just another example of foreign diplomacy at the point of
a gun and why the US is shown no respect.
Joe Breher
"Strabo" <str...@flashnet.com> wrote in message
news:3BB4D92C...@flashnet.com...
>
>
> Joe Breher wrote:
> >
> > "wicks" <wi...@ttc-cmc.net> wrote in message
> > news:bTVs7.4632$fy2.2...@e420r-atl1.usenetserver.com...
> > > Is putting NG troops in airport security a violation of posse
comitatus?
> >
> > I reread the posse comitatus act today. See
> > http://www.dojgov.net/posse_comitatus_act.htm I was surprised to learn
that:
...
>
> There has been no Congressional declaration of war and every
> long term act of war under executive orders is against the
> posse comitatus act and is unconstitutional.
Is it your assertion that "putting NG troops in airport security [is] a
violation of posse comitatus"? Or, are your remarks only tangentially
related? I am unclear whether you are asserting that it is unconstitutional,
as it is an act of war, or whatever else you may mean.
Joe
Strabo
Joe Breher wrote:
>
> "Strabo" <str...@flashnet.com> wrote in message
> news:3BB4D92C...@flashnet.com...
> >
> >
> > Joe Breher wrote:
> > >
> > > "wicks" <wi...@ttc-cmc.net> wrote in message
> > > news:bTVs7.4632$fy2.2...@e420r-atl1.usenetserver.com...
> > > > Is putting NG troops in airport security a violation of posse
> comitatus?
> > >
> > > I reread the posse comitatus act today. See
> > > http://www.dojgov.net/posse_comitatus_act.htm I was surprised to learn
> that:
>
> ...
>
> >
> > There has been no Congressional declaration of war and every
> > long term act of war under executive orders is against the
> > posse comitatus act and is unconstitutional.
>
> Is it your assertion that "putting NG troops in airport security [is] a
> violation of posse comitatus"? Or, are your remarks only tangentially
> related? I am unclear whether you are asserting that it is unconstitutional,
> as it is an act of war, or whatever else you may mean.
No. Airports are under federal control. The NG is federalized.
My comments were directed toward the original post, a legal
opinion concerning posse comitatus, which the opinion said
is no longer a valid stopguard to the federal government's
use of the military to intervene in civil affairs.
JW
national guard has been nationalized. Only a few thousand. The
President ask for the Goveners to send National Guard troops to the
Airports. If they had been nationalized he would not have had to ask
the governers to send the troops. The National Guard while under state
controll can be used in a law inforcement type roll.ie: riot control,
flood relief. etc. Federal troops can not be used in this way with out
violating Posse Comitatus, but National Guard can untill they are
nationalized. Also the Airports are not under the controall of the
national goverment most of they are controlled by local officals.
Strabo <str...@flashnet.com> wrote in message news:<3BBBFCE5...@flashnet.com>...
Strabo
JW wrote:
>
> It is not a violation of the Posse comitatus act. First not all of the
> national guard has been nationalized. Only a few thousand. The
> President ask for the Goveners to send National Guard troops to the
> Airports. If they had been nationalized he would not have had to ask
> the governers to send the troops. The National Guard while under state
> controll can be used in a law inforcement type roll.ie: riot control,
> flood relief. etc. Federal troops can not be used in this way with out
> violating Posse Comitatus, but National Guard can untill they are
> nationalized. Also the Airports are not under the controall of the
> national goverment most of they are controlled by local officals.
Between the FAA and the because they are international free trade
zones, the commercial airports are already federally controlled.
Feds call all the operational shots they want to.
They already control the planes themselves, the aircraft
controllers, customs, and the real estate, so next it will be
the handlers, etc., and the pilots. Commercial aviation is now a
write off. But, lots of billions of dollars at stake. Politicians
are under intense pressure to keep everyone flying no matter
what they have to do. For those that enjoy the look and feel
of a war zone they will really like what happens next.
Close the borders, deport ALL illegals, everbody so inclined goes
armed. That's the start of a real solution.
Joe Breher
"JW" <TS...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
news:7b7d1a83.01100...@posting.google.com...
> The National Guard while under state
> controll can be used in a law inforcement type roll.ie: riot control,
> flood relief. etc. Federal troops can not be used in this way with out
> violating Posse Comitatus,
Umm, yes, federal troops _can_ be used in this way without violating Posse
Comitatus. As long as the legislature approves it. See
http://www.dojgov.net/posse_comitatus_act.htm for the precise text.
Hey, I don't like it -- I'm just calling it as I see it.