Pelosi, Schumer To Trump: "Let's Debate Border Funds in Private"

[Mike M (the other one)]

(02-18-2019, 06:38 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, on this whole border wall thing. Our military can't be used to enforce laws on our soil as they don't have police powers. The construction during a national emergency must be on projects that support the use of armed forces. So if our military cannot be used to enforce the laws at the border, then how would a wall support their use?

that's an opinion.

Pretty sure building the wall can be worked by falling under "Military Funded Projects."
Also he can use the military on US soil, they are just not allowed to enforce the law.
But we will have to wait and see how it plays out in court.

[Belsnickel]

(02-19-2019, 03:18 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: that's an opinion.

Pretty sure building the wall can be worked by falling under "Military Funded Projects."
Also he can use the military on US soil, they are just not allowed to enforce the law.
But we will have to wait and see how it plays out in court.

Well, it's not an opinion, it's a question. My two statements were statements of fact.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(02-19-2019, 05:28 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, it's not an opinion, it's a question. My two statements were statements of fact.

Only one was fact. The other is wide open to interpretation. Unless you wish to provide us a link stating otherwise.

[Belsnickel]

(02-19-2019, 06:30 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Only one was fact. The other is wide open to interpretation. Unless you wish to provide us a link stating otherwise.

Which one do you think is opinion? 18 U.S. Code § 1385 or 10 U.S. Code § 2808?

[*bfine32*]

(02-19-2019, 06:40 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Which one do you think is opinion? 18 U.S. Code § 1385 or 10 U.S. Code § 2808?

The one that is open to interpretation:
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-04-10/posse-comitatus-law-can-t-stop-trump-from-using-troops-at-border

Quote:The unsavory origins of the Posse Comitatus Act make it hard to view it as a high-minded stand against military involvement in civil affairs. To make matters even more complicated, the original prohibition and subsequent amendments have been diluted by a number of exceptions. 
These exceptions have enabled presidents to deploy federal troops and state militias in ways that erode the distinction between military and civilian authority. In the late 19th century, for example, presidents tapped federal troops to quell labor unrest.



In the 20th century, these exceptions have led to a number of cases where federal soldiers and state militias have been used to enforce laws. These include shameful episodes like President Herbert Hoover’s decision to send military units to Washington to end a largely peaceful 1932 protest by World War I veterans seeking promised payments to help them survive the Great Depression. But the exceptions have also been used to justify the use of federal troops to enforce desegregation in the South during the 1950s.


More recently, Congress has carved out several additional exceptions meant to make it easier to use the military to help police agencies fight drug trafficking.
The exceptions — to say nothing of the fact that no one has ever been prosecuted for violations of the Posse Comitatus Act — highlight the degree to which the law may not be quite the firewall that conventional wisdom would suggest. Its dubious origin in the violent overthrow of Reconstruction only makes matters worse.

This is most likely why folks say it will be decided in court; most likely by SCOTUS. 

Doesn't the Insurrection Act give POTUS the power to deploy Federal Troops to stop lawlessness?

[fredtoast]

(02-19-2019, 07:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Doesn't the Insurrection Act give POTUS the power to deploy Federal Troops to stop lawlessness?

There is no "lawlessness" on the border that the state authorities can not control.  No rioting.  No mass violence. No break down in public order.  No citizens being denied their rights.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(02-19-2019, 06:40 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Which one do you think is opinion? 18 U.S. Code § 1385 or 10 U.S. Code § 2808?

Might want to read that second one a little better.

In the event of a declaration of war or the declaration by the President of a national emergency in accordance with the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) that requires use of the armed forces, the Secretary of Defense, without regard to any other provision of law, may undertake military construction projects, and may authorize the Secretaries of the military departments to undertake military construction projects, not otherwise authorized by law that are necessary to support such use of the armed forces. Such projects may be undertaken only within the total amount of funds that have been appropriated for military construction, including funds appropriated for family housing, that have not been obligated.

Looks like it says the SOD can do these things during and SOE.

[Belsnickel]

(02-19-2019, 07:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The one that is open to interpretation:
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-04-10/posse-comitatus-law-can-t-stop-trump-from-using-troops-at-border

This is most likely why folks say it will be decided in court; most likely by SCOTUS. 

Doesn't the Insurrection Act give POTUS the power to deploy Federal Troops to stop lawlessness?

Ah, I see you have decided to put words in someone's mouth again.

While the article you quote is correct that there have been exceptions, none of the exceptions carved out apply in this scenario. It's not likely the Insurrection Act applies, either, just based on the requirements for it to be invoked. If it were invoked for this situation it would set a very dangerous precedent moving forward.

Anyway, the court battles that will likely be the longest fought will be with those who own border property.

[Belsnickel]

(02-19-2019, 08:17 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Might want to read that second one a little better.

In the event of a declaration of war or the declaration by the President of a national emergency in accordance with the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) that requires use of the armed forces, the Secretary of Defense, without regard to any other provision of law, may undertake military construction projects, and may authorize the Secretaries of the military departments to undertake military construction projects, not otherwise authorized by law that are necessary to support such use of the armed forces. Such projects may be undertaken only within the total amount of funds that have been appropriated for military construction, including funds appropriated for family housing, that have not been obligated.

Looks like it says the SOD can do these things during and SOE.

You missed the part where the construction is to be "necessary to support such use of the armed forces." It's even in the bold part, there. What that means is that the construction to be undertaken is to support the military efforts. Hence my question: if the military is not supposed to act as law enforcement, how is the wall supporting their mission?

[Mike M (the other one)]

(02-19-2019, 08:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There is no "lawlessness" on the border that the state authorities can not control.  No rioting.  No mass violence. No break down in public order.  No citizens being denied their rights.

Sure there is, anyone trying to cross the border is breaking the law.

And you might want to read up on in Insurrection Act.

Congress widened the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States to enforce the laws.

The wording needs to be chosen carefully, but that's why I said call it an Opiod Disaster or Humanitarian one. It just needs to be justified to satisfy the legal wording.

[fredtoast]

The US military has been assisting with border security (in a limited fashion) for over 30 years. My nephew was in the Marines in the 1990's and he spent some time about fifty miles north of the Mexican border monitoring for illegal immigrants. If they came across some they would call the border patrol.

But building a wall is a lot more than just watching the borer.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(02-19-2019, 08:20 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You missed the part where the construction is to be "necessary to support such use of the armed forces." It's even in the bold part, there. What that means is that the construction to be undertaken is to support the military efforts. Hence my question: if the military is not supposed to act as law enforcement, how is the wall supporting their mission?

How is protecting the US border by building a wall not supporting the mission?

[Belsnickel]

(02-19-2019, 08:25 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Sure there is, anyone trying to cross the border is breaking the law.

And you might want to read up on in Insurrection Act.

Congress widened the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States to enforce the laws.

The wording needs to be chosen carefully, but that's why I said call it an Opiod Disaster or Humanitarian one. It just needs to be justified to satisfy the legal wording.

Do you mean the amendment that was repealed in 2008?

[Belsnickel]

(02-19-2019, 08:28 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: How is protecting the US border by building a wall not supporting the mission?

Border security is a law enforcement function, something the armed forces cannot be deployed to do. If they cannot be engaging in law enforcement, then how is the wall supporting them? I thought my original post was pretty clear on my thought process there.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(02-19-2019, 08:26 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The US military has been assisting with border security (in a limited fashion) for over 30 years.  My nephew was in the Marines in the 1990's and he spent some time about fifty miles north of the Mexican border monitoring for illegal immigrants.  If they came across some they would call the border patrol.

But building a wall is a lot more than just watching the borer.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought it was always the job of the US Military to keep the borders of the US secure?
Invasions' can come in many forms besides just Immigration. Diseases, drugs, humanitarian issues to name a few.

[Belsnickel]

(02-19-2019, 08:41 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought it was always the job of the US Military to keep the borders of the US secure?
Invasions' can come in many forms besides just Immigration. Diseases, drugs, humanitarian issues to name a few.

Crossing the border illegally is a federal crime, making it a law enforcement issue. That's why CBP exists.

[fredtoast]

(02-19-2019, 08:41 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Invasions' can come in many forms besides just Immigration. Diseases, drugs, humanitarian issues to name a few.

There is not disease outbreak.

Drugs are smuggled into the country via planes, boats, or vehicles on roads.  Wall will not effect any of that.  The sad part is that the opioid addiction problem in this country is an actual state of emergency but no one wants to do anything about it.

There is no humanitarian crisis at the border.

The only emergency is Trumps inability to deliver on a campaign promise to make Mexico pay for a wall, but that is personal instead of national.

[*bfine32*]

(02-19-2019, 08:18 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Ah, I see you have decided to put words in someone's mouth again.

While the article you quote is correct that there have been exceptions, none of the exceptions carved out apply in this scenario. It's not likely the Insurrection Act applies, either, just based on the requirements for it to be invoked. If it were invoked for this situation it would set a very dangerous precedent moving forward.

Anyway, the court battles that will likely be the longest fought will be with those who own border property.

What words did I put in your mouth?

[*bfine32*]

(02-19-2019, 08:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There is no "lawlessness" on the border that the state authorities can not control.  No rioting.  No mass violence. No break down in public order.  No citizens being denied their rights.

Are the states stopping illegal immigration? 

[Belsnickel]

(02-19-2019, 10:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What words did I put in your mouth?

Surprisingly, not mine this time.