The lawlessness continues by the federal government as this anticipates a clear violation of The Posse Comitatus Act, United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152).
“The lawlessness continues by the federal government as this anticipates a clear violation of The Posse Comitatus Act, United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152).”
Depends on how it’s done.
If there is an “act of war” then no violation.
For example, get the illegals to protesting, marching, and rioting in the streets.
People, including a number here, will demand the governors of the states send in national guard to stop the rioting.
Then you have terrorist attacks from foreign terrorist.
Tie the two together.
What you end up with are act of war committed against the US.
With an act of war the Fed. govt. takes charge of the national guard troops which are already in the streets.
That’s pretty much right out of the Weather Underground playbook.
Notice how the same strategy was used at Benghazi.
“Spontaneous” protest followed by “spontaneous” terrorist attack.
Fact of the matter is every terrorist attack since 1993 has followed almost the exact same pattern.
Democrats orchestrate civil unrest, then there is a terrorist attack.
I agree it is questionable but I do not agree it is a clear violation:
Ҥ1385. Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus
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.”
http://uscode.house.gov/download/releasepoints/us/pl/113/120/pdf_usc18@113-120.zip
One might argue both sides of “uses any part” and its relation to funds. This is especially true given the law was written specifically to limit the use of federal troops to physically get involved in the maintenance of social order and doesn’t say anything about studying the subject.
So, one can argue both sides as ‘execut[ing] the laws’ clearly means troops endorsing laws as opposed to the studying of the breakdown of social order.