Posted on 09/03/2009 12:58:54 PM PDT by kellynla
Sometimes the civilian authorities will put a "high risk" prisoner on a military base. How much higher risk could one get than someone with the gall to usurp the Presidency of the US?
And although he wouldn't deserve the protection, I'd be OK with it. Just to watch watch him get what he would so richly deserve. In a civilian federal court, temporarily sitting on a military base. There is a certain amount of "assistance" the military can lawfully give to the civil authorities you know, and think this scenario would fall within those limits.
You mean like Gitmo or the Charleston brig? If memory serves, those are all classified as 'enemy combatants' or some such thing. I cannot think of a single instance where a civilian prisoner was placed in military control, except maybe World War I and II. Federal law, in fact, severely restricts the use of military in law enforcement. If Obama is ever arrested for anything it'll be federal law enforcement that does it, not the military.
I did not say the military would be arresting, or even holding the usurper, I said they would be *protecting* him. I speculated that the *civilian* authorities might choose to hold the trial on a military base for security reasons. Military facilities are generally more isolated, and military bases are already "limited access* facilities. Even if someone did manage to get onto the base, the detention and trial facilities are often not directly adjacent, nor are the nearly as "cheek by jowl" with other facilities as might be the case for a federal courthouse.
The proceedings would be civilian controlled, with the military providing support and assistance.
Federal law, in fact, severely restricts the use of military in law enforcement.
Not nearly as strictly as most people think. There all sorts of exceptions. Back during the Clinton years, several of the members of my old reserve Intelligence detachment were "seconded" to the FBI, DEA and other federal law enforcement agencies. One then major in particular told me that as long as they didn't directly participate in an arrest, it was legal, and he is a lawyer.
Providing the sort of services I'm postulating would be well within the law, 18 USC 1385, which states:
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.
But you might take a look at 10 USC 333 which states in part:
The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to— ... 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).
One of the "conditions" allowing such use is:
That would fit the situation to a "T". There are other possibly applicable exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act above.
Oops,
one that
opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
“If someone is not technically the President of the United States how does the Legislative Branch remove him or her from the position? ‘Because the Commander in Chief would not technically exist and the Vice President wouldn’t be technically seated as the President, would the military be prohibited from executing any order to remove the usurper? And who would give that order?’” ...
Look at agency and ratification. If you have someone who is not an agent but who holds himself out to be so, or if you have someone who was an agent of a principal but takes acts that exceed his authority, the principal may ratify (or not) the acts of the agent.
Like it or not, the majority of the electorate voted for the Democratic candidate - that their candidate for president may have been ineligible (and at this point, that’s all we have) is inconvenient for them, but not impossible to address.
Section 3 of the 20th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that if, on Inauguration Day, the President-elect does not qualify for the presidency, the Vice President-elect acts as president until a president is chosen or a President-elect qualifies. Section 3 allows the Congress to provide by law for cases in which neither a President-elect nor a Vice President-elect is eligible or available to serve.
Thus far, I don’t think that anyone has found any basis on which Biden is ineligible (other than terminal foot-in-his-mouth disease). Therefore, under the Constitution, Biden would be the president - then, Congress could either confirm Biden as president and ratify or revoke acts taken by Obama while ineligible, or it could put Biden in as interim President and hold a new election. My guess is that Biden would hold the office until the next regular presidential election, due to cost.
Not too similar a situation happened recently in Detroit - Kwame Kilpatrick was removed (or resigned), and the next person in the line of succession held the office until a special election could be held; that person (Dave Bing) will hold the office until the next regular election for the office of mayor. The city’s charter specified that procedure; the U.S. Constitution doesn’t.
The $10K offer is nothing but showmanship or gamesmanship. All medical providers, including hospitals, are subject to the HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act). The fines are astronomical and would put the hospital out of business, especially in a high profile case like this.
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.