Posted on 07/13/2010 11:42:56 AM PDT by Jeff Head
I'd be ecstatic -- beyond happy. :-)
“Also, she plans to use the National Guard in some capacity, with “clear mission and Rules of Engagement.” Such deployments are probably illegal, however, under the Posse Comitatus Act and other bothersome laws.”
First, if the National Guard can’t SECURE and DEFEND our borders then this country is gone. Totally gone.
The President can send regular military to secure our borders. He would give them a clear mission a rules of engagement.
It is called “Defending Our Country”.
Get a grip.
LOL! I'm just telling you about the law, son. It is illegal to mobilize the military for domestic law enforcement purposes, and has been so for over 130 years.
Congress can change that law, and/or specifically authorize the President to federalize and deploy National Guard units for this purpose. However, a president cannot unilaterally deploy troops for domestic law enforcement tasks.
Sometimes the rule of law is a real bitch, eh?
When federal will is lacking, you can pick one - anchor babies or slaves.
“2. Enact jail terms for anyone knowingly hiring an illegal.”
Where is that in effect?
I can’t believe some of these people. It’s like we have the opposite of the phenomenon that is Hussein Obama.... His supporters think he can walk on water despite the fact that he is a zero and water simply does not want to touch him. Palin could actually walk on water and these people would say, “But her ankles still got wet,” and “But why didn’t she run?”
(Welcome back, Jeff.)
How is defending the border domestic law enforcement? Is there no attack we can defend ourselves from?
Uh...not to butt in, but, defending the border is national law.
BINGO!! We got a winner. Sarah has supported amnesty 100 times, now she is back peddaling?
She is also supporting Juan Mc Lame?
Fool me once shame on you.
Fool me twice shame on me!!
The Border Patrol and other law enforcement agencies are already authorized to deal with illegal immigration.
It is an obvious fact that they're doing a very poor job ... but that amounts to a good reason for dealing with that failure by perhaps adding manpower and so on. There are also legislative approaches to make them more effective.
The fact that the existing organizations are not performing well does not constitute legal grounds for deploying the military to take over their job.
And it is illegal to do as Palin suggests. Here's the law in question:
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.
I'm just telling you what the law says. If you don't like the law, try to get the law changed. But be careful what you ask for....
I see you have most of the ankle biters here dissing what you put down. No worries mate, they're having their moment in the sun (or should I say darkness), a more inconsequential and petty bunch is hard to find.......
“Which is it?”
.
She’s running for office, and has to be careful about what she says. Why is that so hard to understand?
.
History
The original 1878 Posse Comitatus Act was indeed passed with the intent of removing the Army from domestic law enforcement. Posse comitatus means “the power of the county,” reflecting the inherent power of the old West county sheriff to call upon a posse of able-bodied men to supplement law enforcement assets and thereby maintain the peace. Following the Civil War, the Army had been used extensively throughout the South to maintain civil order, to enforce the policies of the Reconstruction era, and to ensure that any lingering sentiments of rebellion were crushed. However, in reaching those goals, the Army necessarily became involved in traditional police roles and in enforcing politically volatile Reconstruction-era policies. The stationing of federal troops at political events and polling places under the justification of maintaining domestic order became of increasing concern to Congress, which felt that the Army was becoming politicized and straying from its original national defense mission. The Posse Comitatus Act was passed to remove the Army from civilian law enforcement and to return it to its role of defending the borders of the United States.
http://www.homelandsecurity.org/journal/articles/trebilcock.htm
Read more at the link...
IF the National Guard and the regular military can’t defend the borders, who can?
Using the military to repel invaders at the border is unquestionably legal; that is their purpose (not running around the world quelling civil wars).
I would start by employing the law enforcement agencies that are already specifically authorized to do so.
But heck, I'm just being practical. I realize that's anathema where Palin and immigration threads converge....
No, actually, you're wrong on both counts.
We do, however, have civilian agencie who are already authorized to do the job.
Do you think it might be a good idea to figure out how to use them properly?
Ha—you beat me to posting the very same article!
I pinged the list to Jeff’s posting, period. It speaks for itself.
When she comes to an honest, strong and forthright position that squares with her larger politics and philosophy, she’ll be able to articulate it with her usual, refreshing integrity, directness and charm.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.