Originally posted by Skelkie3
It was called The Posse Comitatus Act.
Back in the good old days, before 1980, that was somewhat true. Posse Comitatus says, basically, you can't use federal troops to do police functions.
Note that the Guard are not federal troops, they're state troops that can be federalized. However, according to a member of the Judge Advocate
General writing for
Homeland Security:
But does the act present a major barrier at the National Command Authority level to use of military forces in the battle against terrorism? The
numerous exceptions and policy shifts carried out over the past 20 years strongly indicate that it does not. Could anyone seriously suggest that it is
appropriate to use the military to interdict drugs and illegal aliens but preclude the military from countering terrorist threats that employ weapons
of mass destruction? For two decades the military has been increasingly used as an auxiliary to civilian law enforcement when the capabilities of the
police have been exceeded. Under both the statutory and constitutional exceptions that have permitted the use of the military in law enforcement since
1980, the president has ample authority to employ the military in homeland defense against the threat of weapons of mass destruction in terrorist
hands.
So if it's okay for the Navy to play in the War against Drugs, it's okay for the Army to put down terrorists on US soil.
But, be aware that: It is illegal for the US to attack a nation that has not attacked it.
It is illegal, currently, because it goes against certain treaties and international law. Many people here will argue about international law
applying, and treaties can be revoked....
[quote
It is illigal in the US to appoint executive officers like the President, except by the popular vote ( tempered perhaps with the ' electoral vote '
).
Not 'tempered perhaps,' but solely based upon the electoral vote. The US is not a direct democracy, it is a representative one. You don't vote for
a President, you vote for people who promise to vote for one-and best of all, in some states, that promise isn't binding. The so-called popular vote
means nothing, legally.
It is illegal in the US to put the best interests of another nation first, or ( I think ) to be a dual citizen.
Dual citizenship is not illegal in the US, so long as you don't join another nation's military, or take a job in the government in a
'decision-making capacity.' And, presumably, in their espionage service.
It's illegal to do half the things our fearless leaders do...
Now, now, that's just inflammatory. If you really feel that's true, it is your right to bring suit against them....
[edit on 22-9-2008 by lostbug]
