[A. Patriot]

I disagree; the reason for the Posse Commitatus Act is to give a false sense of security. After all, the Constitution SPECIFICALLY enumerates this power: (in Art I, Sec 8) — “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;”

I don't think it's that simple. When the Consitution was written, there was no "standing army". The founders were against standing armies in times of peace. A permanent professional military is NOT the militia. It is a different creature. That is what the Possse Commitatus Act applied to IMHO.

[Bokababe]

Sens. Paul, McCain clash over terrorist detainee amendment

[OneWingedShark]

>>I disagree; the reason for the Posse Commitatus Act is to give a false sense of security. After all, the Constitution SPECIFICALLY enumerates this power: (in Art I, Sec 8) — “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;”
>
>I don’t think it’s that simple. When the Consitution was written, there was no “standing army”. The founders were against standing armies in times of peace. A permanent professional military is NOT the militia. It is a different creature. That is what the Possse Commitatus Act applied to IMHO.

You bring up some good points. Though, I think the multitudinous “LEOs” we have are closer to the ‘standing army’ our founders feared than our regular Army — the two-year limit on funds for the Army is still in effect, though I agree that it is only lip-service to the intent.