Trump Deploys U.S. Military To Southern Border

[Wallet]

Martial law pertains to actions on US soil or an occupied territory where the Military takes over the actions of government. That's not happening here.

Posse Comitatus, imo, prevents Trump from replacing Border Agents with Military personnel or acting in that capacity by themselves.

But nothing would prevent him from placing troops to assist. Which has been done before by prior administrations, already discussed here.

However it appears the Trump is going to greater levels than what has been seen in the past. Which as long as they stay inside the lines, working with Local/State/Federal Authorities, there's squat nada anything anyone can do to stop it.

The media will scream, but quietly the majority of Americans will applaud.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

Martial law pertains to actions on US soil or an occupied territory where the Military takes over the actions of government. That's not happening here.

Posse Comitatus, imo, prevents Trump from replacing Border Agents with Military personnel or acting in that capacity by themselves.

But nothing would prevent him from placing troops to assist. Which has been done before by prior administrations, already discussed here.

However it appears the Trump is going to greater levels than what has been seen in the past. Which as long as they stay inside the lines, working with Local/State/Federal Authorities, there's squat nada anything anyone can do to stop it.

The media will scream, but quietly the majority of Americans will applaud.

And if there are any constitutional or statutory requirements that get in the way of Trump doing what he wants to do, maybe he will just announce an Executive Order saying that they have been "deferred." Worked for Obama. Maybe the posse comitus act would prevent him from doing something away from the border but he will just say "hey, I hear ya, but I have unilaterally decided to defer any requirement that I comply with that, and I had to do it because we all know that Congress should change the law but they haven't so you are lucky to have me taking care of business until Congress understands that their job is to agree with me." What's wrong with that?

 

[Wallet]

And if there are any constitutional or statutory requirements that get in the way of Trump doing what he wants to do, maybe he will just announce an Executive Order saying that they have been "deferred." Worked for Obama. Maybe the posse comitus act would prevent him from doing something away from the border but he will just say "hey, I hear ya, but I have unilaterally decided to defer any requirement that I comply with that, and I had to do it because we all know that Congress should change the law but they haven't so you are lucky to have me taking care of business until Congress understands that their job is to agree with me." What's wrong with that?

I'll agree that Obama stepped way over the lines, Constitutional Separation of Powers meant nothing to him. However that shouldn't be an invitation for Trump to follow in his footsteps.

Two, Three or more wrongs don't make it right. Each time we trample over the original limitations of the Constitution we dig ourselves a little deeper. Both sides of the aisle are just as guilty.

If we are going to turn this thing around, someone will have to be the bigger person and say enough.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

I'll agree that Obama stepped way over the lines, Constitutional Separation of Powers meant nothing to him. However that shouldn't be an invitation for Trump to follow in his footsteps.

Two, Three or more wrongs don't make it right. Each time we trample over the original limitations of the Constitution we dig ourselves a little deeper. Both sides of the aisle are just as guilty.

If we are going to turn this thing around, someone will have to be the bigger person and say enough.

Indeed. I was merely framing a scenario in a way that would help the lefties to see what their own actions or actions that they support would look like when the shoe is on the other foot, and satire was shamelessly used to make that point.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Interesting article. Among its major points:


The Posse Comitatus Act does not prohibit US Military on our borders.


US Military is allowed as authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress

This is from Carlton Meyer’s new book: The Spectrum of Future Warfare.
http://www.g2mil.com/border.htm

Myth #1 The US Constitution prohibits posting US troops on the border.

The US Constitution says no such thing. In fact, Article IV states:

Section 4.The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

So the US Constitution clearly requires the federal government to protect states from invasion. Almost a million aliens illegally pouring across the border into states each year is clearly an invasion.

Myth #2 The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits US troops from guarding US borders.

This 1878 act was enacted to prevent Union troops from continuing to enforce federal laws in the defeated South after the American Civil war. Here is the text as modified by Congress in recent years:

Sec. 1385. – Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus

Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

Guarding US borders from foreign invasion is not “law enforcement.”

The US Army exists to defend the US from foreign invasion, which is expressly authorized by the US Constitution. Guarding the Mexican border was the Army’s primary peacetime mission until 1940, and no one ever declared this was in violation of this 1878 act. The US Border Patrol wasn’t even formed until 1924, so claiming the intent of this law was to prevent US Army troops from guarding the border is absurd. The map at left shows US Army forts in Texas in the late 1880s when the entire US Army had fewer than 40,000 soldiers; it has 500,000 today. Clearly, defending the US border was a primary mission of the US Army for decades after this act was passed.

Some may argue that Section 375 of Title 10 US Code prevents military personnel from direct participation in law enforcement. However, defending US borders from foreign invaders is not law enforcement, it’s the basic purpose of the US military. While defending these United States from invasion, civilian law enforcement may be called upon to assist the US military. Does anyone believe the Border Patrol must operate fighter aircraft because the US Air Force can’t intercept aircraft crossing into the US because that’s “law enforcement”?

When you read about proposals in Congress to put US troops on the border, those are not proposals to allow US troops on the border, but proposals to force the President to put troops back on the border. However, recent Presidents have listened to their corporate advisors and their slogans and ignored the threat of unsecured US borders.

Myth #3 The National Guard should guard the border, not active duty troops.

The National Guard is an organized militia to deal with state and national emergencies. Guarding the US border is a full-time mission that the federal government is required to perform by Article IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution. The few states along the border shouldn’t be expected to defend the entire country from invasion. This myth is also spread by imperial minded Generals who prefer to rule an empire overseas than to defend their own citizens. Whenever citizens demand the Army protect their nation, Generals dodge this issue by stating that it may be a mission for the National Guard, so as not to waste resources of the US Army.

This is absurd; the primary mission of the US Army is to protect US citizens, and the US Constitution requires the federal government to protect states from invasion.

If there is a major war and the Army would like to deploy its border troops overseas, then National Guard troops from any state can be mobilized to guard the border until the war ends.

http://www.unitedpatriotsofamerica....-not-prohibit-us-military-on-our-borders.html

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

Interesting article. Among its major points:


The Posse Comitatus Act does not prohibit US Military on our borders.


US Military is allowed as authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress

This is from Carlton Meyer’s new book: The Spectrum of Future Warfare.
http://www.g2mil.com/border.htm

Myth #1 The US Constitution prohibits posting US troops on the border.

The US Constitution says no such thing. In fact, Article IV states:

Section 4.The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

So the US Constitution clearly requires the federal government to protect states from invasion. Almost a million aliens illegally pouring across the border into states each year is clearly an invasion.

Myth #2 The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits US troops from guarding US borders.

This 1878 act was enacted to prevent Union troops from continuing to enforce federal laws in the defeated South after the American Civil war. Here is the text as modified by Congress in recent years:

Sec. 1385. – Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus

Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

Guarding US borders from foreign invasion is not “law enforcement.”

The US Army exists to defend the US from foreign invasion, which is expressly authorized by the US Constitution. Guarding the Mexican border was the Army’s primary peacetime mission until 1940, and no one ever declared this was in violation of this 1878 act. The US Border Patrol wasn’t even formed until 1924, so claiming the intent of this law was to prevent US Army troops from guarding the border is absurd. The map at left shows US Army forts in Texas in the late 1880s when the entire US Army had fewer than 40,000 soldiers; it has 500,000 today. Clearly, defending the US border was a primary mission of the US Army for decades after this act was passed.

Some may argue that Section 375 of Title 10 US Code prevents military personnel from direct participation in law enforcement. However, defending US borders from foreign invaders is not law enforcement, it’s the basic purpose of the US military. While defending these United States from invasion, civilian law enforcement may be called upon to assist the US military. Does anyone believe the Border Patrol must operate fighter aircraft because the US Air Force can’t intercept aircraft crossing into the US because that’s “law enforcement”?

When you read about proposals in Congress to put US troops on the border, those are not proposals to allow US troops on the border, but proposals to force the President to put troops back on the border. However, recent Presidents have listened to their corporate advisors and their slogans and ignored the threat of unsecured US borders.

Myth #3 The National Guard should guard the border, not active duty troops.

The National Guard is an organized militia to deal with state and national emergencies. Guarding the US border is a full-time mission that the federal government is required to perform by Article IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution. The few states along the border shouldn’t be expected to defend the entire country from invasion. This myth is also spread by imperial minded Generals who prefer to rule an empire overseas than to defend their own citizens. Whenever citizens demand the Army protect their nation, Generals dodge this issue by stating that it may be a mission for the National Guard, so as not to waste resources of the US Army.

This is absurd; the primary mission of the US Army is to protect US citizens, and the US Constitution requires the federal government to protect states from invasion.

If there is a major war and the Army would like to deploy its border troops overseas, then National Guard troops from any state can be mobilized to guard the border until the war ends.

http://www.unitedpatriotsofamerica....-not-prohibit-us-military-on-our-borders.html

The President is required to take an oath of office that says he will "defend the country against all enemies foreign and domestic." The notion that he cannot use troops at the border as part of that is horsefeathers. When needed, that is not only a constitutionally allowed action, it is constitutionally required. ie. the President is required to protect.

This does not speak against the posse comitatus act or its purpose anyway, only against bogus interpretations. It has its place and purpose to prevent the citizenry from being encroached upon or overlorded by military forces when civilian government operations are in place- ie. the southerners wanted the military to go home and go away and let them return to civilian operations after the civil war. There have been updates since but it is in that spirit. Also, the Act says "except where the authorized by the constitution," thus clearly acknowledging that you cannot, for example, limit the power of the commander in chief to perform his duty to protect.

 

[Wallet]

Tis a very slippery slope here, on one hand it's obvious that there's a need for additional attention to securing the southern land border, if not for immigration controls then drug enforcement. No one questions the job of the Coast Guard on our coast lines, although they operate more under maritime law. However the thought of utilizing the military for a President's law enforcement agenda on US soil is like Pandoras Box. We already have federal agencys to deal with that. Tis why I believe posse comitatus exists, to prevent that type of activity from happening and escalating. Would you like the President to take an active part in stopping drunk driving by using the Army setting up road blocks/sobriety tests?

The question here is illegal immigration a true invasion force that needs repelling? Honestly to me, no. Does the border need additional funds/wall/protection? Absolutely yes. But do we really want to turn the military loose, acting independently? That's a scary precident to set imo.

Use them yes, just in cooperation enhancing the capabilities of our existing authorities.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

However the thought of utilizing the military for a President's law enforcement agenda on US soil is like Pandoras Box.

No one wants the military out patrolling the streets or enforcing federal court orders at bayonet point, like Eisenhower did. Guarding the borders is a totally different proposition however.

From the post I cited above:

Guarding the Mexican border was the Army’s primary peacetime mission until 1940, and no one ever declared this was in violation of this 1878 act. The US Border Patrol wasn’t even formed until 1924, so claiming the intent of this law was to prevent US Army troops from guarding the border is absurd. The map at left shows US Army forts in Texas in the late 1880s when the entire US Army had fewer than 40,000 soldiers; it has 500,000 today. Clearly, defending the US border was a primary mission of the US Army for decades after this act was passed.

 

[Wallet]

No one wants the military out patrolling the streets or enforcing federal court orders at bayonet point, like Eisenhower did. Guarding the borders is a totally different proposition however.

From the post I cited above:

Guarding the Mexican border was the Army’s primary peacetime mission until 1940, and no one ever declared this was in violation of this 1878 act. The US Border Patrol wasn’t even formed until 1924, so claiming the intent of this law was to prevent US Army troops from guarding the border is absurd. The map at left shows US Army forts in Texas in the late 1880s when the entire US Army had fewer than 40,000 soldiers; it has 500,000 today. Clearly, defending the US border was a primary mission of the US Army for decades after this act was passed.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for securing the borders. Anymore, I'm just overly cautious when testing the limits of constitutional authority as we've had the "what seemed at the time" necessary steps to ensure National safety turned and used against us.