Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: WayneS

Wasn’t the National Guard from the state used at Kent? National Guard is a different animal and controlled by the states. I believe our Army cannot get involved. This comes from the ancient Romans where the Legions could not enter Rome.


47 posted on 03/06/2009 9:02:57 AM PST by RC2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]


To: RC2

NATIONAL Guard. If you think they are ultimately controlled by the States you are dreaming.

Please post the applicable Article and Section of the Constitution which prohibits the use of the Army from being used to put down rebellion within the united States.

PS - Didn’t Pres. Lincoln and the U.S. Congress make use of the U.S. Army within the U.S. a while back? I think it was some time around 1861... ...give or take...


63 posted on 03/06/2009 9:08:11 AM PST by WayneS (Respect the 2nd Amendment; Repeal the 16th)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies ]

To: RC2
Bonus Army:
On 28 July, 1932, Attorney General Mitchell ordered the police evacuation of the Bonus Army veterans, who resisted; the police shot at them, and killed two. When told of the killings, President Hoover ordered the U.S. Army to effect the evacuation of the Bonus Army from Washington, D.C.
Then there is this:

Does the Posse Comitatus Act Still Exist?

Kim Lane Scheppele

I suspect that the Posse Comitatus Act has essentially disappeared since 9/11. We have good reason to believe that the president is operating on legal advice telling them that the Posse Comitatus Act cannot be a restriction on the president in fighting terrorism within the United States. How do we know? In the Torture Papers (edited by Karen Greenberg and Joshua Dratel), Item #13 is a memo written by Jay Bybee that references another memo at footnote 16 on p. 163. The footnote?

We recently opined that the Posse Comitatus Act, 18 U.S.C. s. 1385 (1994), which generally prohibits the use of the Armed Forces for law enforcement purposes absent constitutional or statutory authority to do so, does not forbid the use of military force for the military purpose of preventing and deterring terrorism within the United States. See Memorandum for Alberto R. Gonzales, Counsel to the President and William J. Haynes II, General Counsel, Department of Defense, from John C. Yoo, Deputy Assistant Attorney General and Robert J. Delahunty, Special Counsel, Office of Legal Counsel, Re: Authority for the Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities within the United States at 15-20 (Oct. 23, 2001).

73 posted on 03/06/2009 9:15:04 AM PST by Syncro (Play by the rules and you're gonna miss all the fun--Jacky Don Tucker (Toby Keith)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies ]

To: RC2

It’s called Posse Comitatus. It’s a reconstruction era federal law that prohibits the use of the Army against the citizenry.


130 posted on 03/06/2009 9:52:18 AM PST by USNBandit (sarcasm engaged at all times)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies ]

To: RC2
believe our Army cannot get involved

Explain that to the shade of President Ike, he sent the 101st Airborne into Little Rock to help integrate the high school. Right after federalizing the Arkansas Guard and ordering them to stop enforcing segregation.

197 posted on 03/06/2009 11:06:00 AM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson