Trump: We Will Guard Our Border With Our Military

a reply to: shooterbrody

A group of 1500 non state actors who make demands are a threat.

Not non-state actors. Foreign Nationals . That is what matters
I.E. A group of Foreign Nationals invading the country with "demands" . Demands that go against the Constitution of the US . That makes it an invasion by foreign nationals the exact instance one foot touches US Soil. You could say an "Act of War"
Technically , that is the way it works.

a reply to: shooterbrody

All that matters is that the POTUS deems them a threat to national security.

Mmm no it's a little more complex than that. He can't just declare them to be a threat to national security and do as he wishes.

(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). (2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that-- (A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that State or possession, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or (B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

Like I said, I think he could probably articulate things in a certain way to possibly justify sending federal troops to the border area, but I think it would be a pretty hard sell. Especially when he has to report to Congress every two weeks to keep the troops there.

Be far easier, and probably better, to use Guard units in the border states as has already been done more than once before.

a reply to: shooterbrody

There are specific laws that limit his ability to deploy troops on US soil.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

by all means present them

a reply to: eriktheawful

Very true, though I would take it a step further and say that it's "law enforcement, period" that they can't interfere with.

Providing support and intelligence is perfectly within the law. Patrols going out and stopping illegals and detaining them becomes a law enforcement action, I would think.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: shooterbrody

There are specific laws that limit his ability to deploy troops on US soil.

Well , not in the case of an invasion by foreign nationals. Then it is up to the US Military to defend The Constitution.

President Trump says that the Military will guard the U.S./Mexico border, until the WALL is built.
www.foxnews.com...

This move will save more innocent American lives and reduce the inflow of drugs that kill Americans.

Whoever is against this, is ______________________!

a reply to: eriktheawful

The issue is that the Founding Fathers stated the President should not deploy the military on US soil unless under very specific conditions. It has nothing to do with who they're being deployed against.

It should also be noted that the Coast Guard and Merchant Marines are not included in the Insurrection Act and its predecessors. That's why there is no issue with them patrolling our waters.

If we were in a thread about gun control and I would have made the I don't care if the constitution forbids it comment lots of people in this thread would have lost their # and it would be stars galore.
These guys are awfully silent about it and that says quite a lot.

And all that matter is what the president thinks????
Ok

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: shooterbrody

Then he can declare illegal immigrants to be enemy combatants and put us on war footing and then deploy federal troops.

I'm sure declaring all those women and children to be enemy combatants will work out great.

No , that is very incorrect and sounding like you are just slinging "stuff" out there.Hoping it sticks.

originally posted by: TinySickTears
If we were in a thread about gun control and I would have made the I don't care if the constitution forbids it comment lots of people in this thread would have lost their # and it would be stars galore.
These guys are awfully silent about it and that says quite a lot.

And all that matter is what the president thinks????
Ok

Please stop crying dude, ONE POSTER SAID IT, a poster who hardly post.

Jesus, you latch onto all the wrong things, chill out bruh

a reply to: shooterbrody

The Insurrection Act of 1807
The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878
The 2007 Defense Authorization Act

originally posted by: TheLotLizard
So people actually disapprove of the military doing something useful and what they are meant for?

Isn’t that just a shocker...

Yea, for real. If we can't use our military to protect our borders why even have em? My shocked face! Imagine if we could bring people from the past back from the dead who died fighting to protect their countries from being invaded and what they would think of how damned stupid we have become as a society?

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: eriktheawful

The issue is that the Founding Fathers stated the President should not deploy the military on US soil unless under very specific conditions. It has nothing to do with who they're being deployed against.

It should also be noted that the Coast Guard and Merchant Marines are not included in the Insurrection Act and its predecessors. That's why there is no issue with them patrolling our waters.

The issue is that the Founding Fathers stated the President should not deploy the military on US soil unless under very specific conditions. It has nothing to do with who they're being deployed against.

Well , dang , you just shot down your own debate.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Mmm no it's a little more complex than that. He can't just declare them to be a threat to national security and do as he wishes.

I disagree and I will quote from your link

or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident,

or (B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection,

or (B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

POTUS has MULTIPLE reasons to send troops to the southern border to repel the self identified group issuing demands to the united states of america.

This is no more than a modern day barbary pirates situation.
F their demands.

a reply to: Gothmog

Provide the applicable parts of the Constitution that allow the President to deploy the military on US soil in the event of an invasion.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: shooterbrody

The Insurrection Act of 1807
The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878
The 2007 Defense Authorization Act

In all honesty, its just terrible wording.

I'm assuming when said MILITARY, it was a blanket term.

Ironically, the Coast Guard does fall under Armed forces, but is in a quasi-position.

My take? National Guard.

originally posted by: Lurker1

I don't care if the Constitution forbids it. It needs to be done and he is doing it.

Possibly the worst comment that I've read on ATS in a long time.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

None of those stop the POTUS from deploying the military to stop an invasion of the usa by a foreign force.

a reply to: Arnie123

I will not.
You are one of the ones who would have dove all over it if it were me and you know it.
1 person said it and all the dudes like you that bring the constitution up all the #ing time in the gun control debates don't say # which like I said before, says a lot.

Just admit it man. You re all for this military # so # it but when it's about your guns it's a big deal