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

Originally Posted by BrightNail

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.

The security of our nation's southern border should not depend on whether governors will send national guard troops to the southern border. The United States military should be on the southern border now helping the Border Patrol to guard the border.


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

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.

This is why: Posse Comitatus Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

There are of course different interpretations of what it means. I think we should be wary of armed forces deployed in our country. Those troops could be ordered to turn around and aim the guns at us. More likely under the NAU would be Canadian or Mexican forces ordered against us.

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION, RON PAUL IS RIGHT. IT IS THE NATIONAL GUARD (OR MILITIA) THAT IS TO TAKE CARE OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE (OR INVASION).

THERE ARE TWO KINDS OF VIOLENCE.....FOREIGN OR DOMESTIC..... DOMESTIC MEANS WITHIN THE U.S.

The Posse Whatever act doesn't enter into the picture.

This is an international border - the American Army has been used on that Southern Border before - it has nothing to do with using it inside the US.

Please don't let them hide behind that - don't give them a pass - dont' make excuses for them.

We had the army on the border during WWII and several miles inland guarding key bridges.

This idea that, we, for some reason can't protect an international border is just ludicrous -

What in the world is an army for if not to protect your border - your first line of defense.

It isn't a state border - it is an international border -

Originally Posted by girlygirl369

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION, RON PAUL IS RIGHT. IT IS THE NATIONAL GUARD (OR MILITIA) THAT IS TO TAKE CARE OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE (OR INVASION).

THERE ARE TWO KINDS OF VIOLENCE.....FOREIGN OR DOMESTIC..... DOMESTIC MEANS WITHIN THE U.S.

There is absolutely nothing in the language that you quoted from the constitution that says that the United States military can't guard this nation's borders.

Are you actually claiming that if units of the Mexican army began an "invasion" of the United States that the United States Army could not go down to the Mexican border and fight against the Mexican Army?

The constitution says that a militia can repel invasions. Nowhere does it say that the United States army can't participate in repelling invasions.

Do you really believe that the United States Army can't participate in repelling invasions on its borders? Do you really believe that the United States Army can guard the borders of other nations, but can't repel an invasion on its own border?

Originally Posted by nntrixie

The Posse Whatever act doesn't enter into the picture.

This is an international border - the American Army has been used on that Southern Border before - it has nothing to do with using it inside the US.

Please don't let them hide behind that - don't give them a pass - dont' make excuses for them.

We had the army on the border during WWII and several miles inland guarding key bridges.

This idea that, we, for some reason can't protect an international border is just ludicrous -

What in the world is an army for if not to protect your border - your first line of defense.

It isn't a state border - it is an international border -

Since it is unconstitutional for the United States military to repel an invasion on United States territory according to girlygirl369, it must have been completely unconstitutional for the United States Army and the United States Marine Corps to fight the Japanese on United States territory on the island of Attu in the Aleutian Islands during World War II. The United States military should have just allowed the Japanese invasion of that island and the island of Kiska to remain uncontested until the national guard could get to Alaska because we know from girlygirl369's statements that it was unconstitutional for the United States military to attempt on United States soild to repel the invasion of the Japanese onto the territory of the United States.

Originally Posted by tancredofan

Originally Posted by girlygirl369

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion;
ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION, IT IS THE NATIONAL GUARD (OR MILITIA) THAT IS TO TAKE CARE OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE (OR INVASION).

THERE ARE TWO KINDS OF VIOLENCE.....FOREIGN OR DOMESTIC..... DOMESTIC MEANS WITHIN THE U.S.

There is absolutely nothing in the language that you quoted from the constitution that says that the United States military can't guard this nation's borders.

We don't need the "military" we just need civilian Americans to stand up.

Originally Posted by Rattler

We don't need the "military" we just need civilian Americans to stand up.

They already have.....We need more. I am sick of hearing about the Mexican military crossing the border and firing at our agents, and the agents feeling powerless because they do not want to trigger an international conflagration. It seems crazy to me -- as others have mentioned -- that the US military has no constitutional authority to defend its border from invasion. That they are only supposed to used in foreign affairs, but not defend the US border. That seems to go directly against what Ron Paul stands for. This makes 0 sense.

People if our army is not to defend our borders - why do we have an army.

We do not maintain an army to patrol the rest of the world, although it would seem that way.

Good gracious. I guess most of us have lived so long with our army being involved in wars around the world, they seem to think it is only to fight 'somewhere else'.

We have an army to protect the American soil and the American people.

Once again, we had the US Army on the border during WWII. We had the US Army inland quite a few miles guarding one particular key bridge. I know this because my father was there. They were armed and they would certainly have taken action.

Also, there are big bunkers in Washington State along the coastline. These things are big enough to drive an auto through.

I can't get my mind around the idea that people think our army can't protect US soil??????

This is an international border - it is not a border between the states -

If it were not the federal government's job to protect us against people coming into the country illegally, then why have a Border Patrol - why not just let the states take care of their own borders - and by george, enforce the laws against illegals. Now there's an idea worth exploring!!!

Originally Posted by nntrixie

People if our army is not to defend our borders - why do we have an army.

We do not maintain an army to patrol the rest of the world, although it would seem that way.

Good gracious. I guess most of us have lived so long with our army being involved in wars around the world, they seem to think it is only to fight 'somewhere else'.

We have an army to protect the American soil and the American people.

Once again, we had the US Army on the border during WWII. We had the US Army inland quite a few miles guarding one particular key bridge. I know this because my father was there. They were armed and they would certainly have taken action.

Also, there are big bunkers in Washington State along the coastline. These things are big enough to drive an auto through.

I can't get my mind around the idea that people think our army can't protect US soil??????

This is an international border - it is not a border between the states -

If it were not the federal government's job to protect us against people coming into the country illegally, then why have a Border Patrol - why not just let the states take care of their own borders - and by george, enforce the laws against illegals. Now there's an idea worth exploring!!!

What more important purpose can there be for the United States Army than to defend our borders.

It is almost hard to believe that Ron Paul and some of his supporters believe it is unconstitutional for the United States Army to defend this country from an invasion on its southern border.