Thread: How can the army aiding Border Patrol be unconstitutional?

Ron Paul voted seven times against allowing the United States military to assist in border control efforts. It has been suggested by his supporters that it may be unconstitutional for the United States military to do so.

If the United States military can guard and enforce the borders of foreign countries, I would like to know how it is unconstitutional for the United States military to guard this nation's borders.

Apparently, Ron Paul supports President Bush's position that the United States military should not assist the United States Border Patrol in guarding the nation's borders. Apparently, he supports the position of President Bush that the national guard may aid the Border Patrol, but not the United States military.

Dude, do you have a hardon for Ron Paul or what?

Also, didn't you say he "didn't co-sponsor" the birthright citizenshp bill that Tancredo did?

Maybe that was because he put forth one of his own:
H. J. Res. 46: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to deny United States...

He also co-sponsored a simliar bill way back in 2002
Rep. Paul cosponsored H.J.Res 42

Originally Posted by BrightNail

Dude, do you have a hardon for Ron Paul or what?

Also, didn't you say he "didn't co-sponsor" the birthright citizenshp bill that Tancredo did?

Maybe that was because he put forth one of his own:
H. J. Res. 46: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to deny United States...

He also co-sponsored a simliar bill way back in 2002
Rep. Paul cosponsored H.J.Res 42

No, I've never posted anything about Ron Paul's failure to cosponsor any birthright citizenship bill. In fact, I've not posted anything regarding Ron Paul and the issue of birthright citizenship. I have no criticism of him on that issue.

tancredofan wrote:

If the United States military can guard and enforce the borders of foreign countries, I would like to know how it is unconstitutional for the United States military to guard this nation's borders.

I don't agree with it, but he's probably using the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 as his guide.

Originally Posted by tancredofan

Ron Paul voted seven times against allowing the United States military to assist in border control efforts. It has been suggested by his supporters that it may be unconstitutional for the United States military to do so.

If the United States military can guard and enforce the borders of foreign countries, I would like to know how it is unconstitutional for the United States military to guard this nation's borders.

Apparently, Ron Paul supports President Bush's position that the United States military should not assist the United States Border Patrol in guarding the nation's borders. Apparently, he supports the position of President Bush that the national guard may aid the Border Patrol, but not the United States military.

RON PAUL WAS, I THINK, THE ONLY REPUBLICAN TO NOT SUPPORT THE WAR. So, if the current president DOES NOT follow the consitution, why are you putting that on Ron Paul?

Also, I think the traditional roles are what is at issue. We have plenty of national guard so why not have the governors use them? You have splitting hairs here. 10,000 extra national guard or 10,000 troops? One could be against the constitution, in his eyes, whereas the other is not.

Plus, DO NOT ASSOCIATE Ron Paul with Bush. Bush has deliberatly left that border open. If he thinks the national guard should be down there, he would have ordered it or gave the states money to push that forward.

Bush trampels the constituion, Ron Paul follows it very strickly. There is a difference.

Make no mistake - Tancredo is without a doubt more formidable when it comes to illegal immigration... but when selecting a president one should look at 'most' of the other qualifications.

Originally Posted by tancredofan

Originally Posted by BrightNail

Dude, do you have a hardon for Ron Paul or what?

Also, didn't you say he "didn't co-sponsor" the birthright citizenshp bill that Tancredo did?

Maybe that was because he put forth one of his own:
H. J. Res. 46: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to deny United States...

He also co-sponsored a simliar bill way back in 2002
Rep. Paul cosponsored H.J.Res 42

No, I've never posted anything about Ron Paul's failure to cosponsor any birthright citizenship bill. In fact, I've not posted anything regarding Ron Paul and the issue of birthright citizenship. I have no criticism of him on that issue.

Must of been MW then

btw.. I support Ron Paul, but if Tancredo can muster up enough support I will go with him because illegal immigration is very important to me. BUT, NAU and SPP are ALSO VERY VERY important to me and Ron Paul is very strong on making sure they don't happen.

BrightNail wrote:

Make no mistake - Tancredo is without a doubt more formidable when it comes to illegal immigration... but when selecting a president one should look at 'most' of the other qualifications.

Exactly, that's why Hunter is the only real choice in my mind.

On the birthright citizenship issue, sponsoring your own bill is not a reason to disregard another bill that basically achieves the same purpose. It's done all the time.

Originally Posted by MW

BrightNail wrote:

Make no mistake - Tancredo is without a doubt more formidable when it comes to illegal immigration... but when selecting a president one should look at 'most' of the other qualifications.

Exactly, that's why Hunter is the only real choice in my mind.

On the birthright citizenship issue, sponsoring your own bill is not a reason to disregard another bill that basically achieves the same purpose. It's done all the time.

(inquired on the ronpaulforums and got this)

Because those aren't before Congress.

He has his own bill currently before Congress concerning this...

House Joint Resolution 46

He probably didn't co-sponsor the ones you ask about because Dr Paul sees only a Constitutional Amendment as the appropriate fix, not more laws than can be easily changed.

Originally Posted by BrightNail

Originally Posted by tancredofan

Originally Posted by BrightNail

Dude, do you have a hardon for Ron Paul or what?

Also, didn't you say he "didn't co-sponsor" the birthright citizenshp bill that Tancredo did?

Maybe that was because he put forth one of his own:
H. J. Res. 46: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to deny United States...

He also co-sponsored a simliar bill way back in 2002
Rep. Paul cosponsored H.J.Res 42

No, I've never posted anything about Ron Paul's failure to cosponsor any birthright citizenship bill. In fact, I've not posted anything regarding Ron Paul and the issue of birthright citizenship. I have no criticism of him on that issue.

Must of been MW then

btw.. I support Ron Paul, but if Tancredo can muster up enough support I will go with him because illegal immigration is very important to me. BUT, NAU and SPP are ALSO VERY VERY important to me and Ron Paul is very strong on making sure they don't happen.

Of course, Tom Tancredo is just as strongly opposed to the NAU and the SPP as Ron Paul is.

Originally Posted by MW

tancredofan wrote:

If the United States military can guard and enforce the borders of foreign countries, I would like to know how it is unconstitutional for the United States military to guard this nation's borders.

I don't agree with it, but he's probably using the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 as his guide.

If that is his argument against the use of the United States military on the border, then his argument is laughable.

There is absolutely nothing in the Posse Commitatus Act that prevents the American military from defending this nation's borders.