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

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!!!

If he is elected president, Rep, Tom Tancredo will put the United Stares military on the southern border to help stop the invasion of our southern border.

What is an invasion.


Invasion In*va"sion, n. [L. invasio: cf. F. invasion. See
Invade.]
[1913 Webster]
1. The act of invading; the act of encroaching upon the
rights or possessions of another; encroachment; trespass.

Ok now that we cleared that up.


Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 15: The Congress shall have the Power (to) provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 2: The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Article I, Section 10, Paragraph 3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Article IV, Section 4, Paragraph 1: 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 domestics Violence.

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

I BELIEVE THERE IS SOME PART OF NAFTA WHERE WE AGREED NOT TO MILITARIZE THE BORDER.

Originally Posted by redpony353

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

I BELIEVE THERE IS SOME PART OF NAFTA WHERE WE AGREED NOT TO MILITARIZE THE BORDER.

Yes, there is. NAFTA is an extra-constitutional agreement that Ron Paul vehimently opposes, and would get rid of.

NAFTA = precursor to NAU.

It seems to me that if we are indeed in a WAR against terror that it would be highly justified to utilize the military as sentry along our borders!

I think the problem is that because our military is a volunteer military and our military is spread so thin in conflicts around the world...President Bush doesn't WANT to dilute our troop strength from these world conflicts to protect our borders.

But to tell you the truth...even if we instituted a draft to beef up our troops and then pulled our troops out of Iraq and Afganistan...the borders would probably still not get any military attention because Bush has no will to protect our borders anyway!

Originally Posted by CostaMesaMan

It seems to me that if we are indeed in a WAR against terror that it would be highly justified to utilize the military as sentry along our borders!

I think the problem is that because our military is a volunteer military and our military is spread so thin in conflicts around the world...President Bush doesn't WANT to dilute our troop strength from these world conflicts to protect our borders.

But to tell you the truth...even if we instituted a draft to beef up our troops and then pulled our troops out of Iraq and Afganistan...the borders would probably still not get any military attention because Bush has no will to protect our borders anyway!

Also, there could the instance where we are taking Dr. Ron Pauls belief out of context and also when they were made. If you read the latest "WND" interview he explicitly says "we need to get our men (referring to soldiers") home so we can secure our borders..."

So, as TancredoFan is apt to do , is make statements without verifying or validating the context in which they are used.

I think Ron Paul WOULD put military at the border because based on the NAU, SPP, NAFTA these are all contrary to the soverignty of the United States, thus 'not' a state issue, but an America issue, thus soldiers at the border would be justified. If Texas was dealing with an incursion of illegals that only dealth with Texas only.. then I can see no military.. BUT, because of the tens of millions of illegals and the deliberate opening of the borders and setting in motion the NAU etc... then that directly threatens America.. so yes, I feel Ron Paul WOULD (and noted in his latest interview) that he would put military at the border.

A better question would be is - "why isn't California, Texas etc.. putting their national guard at the border?" Why aren't the "other" states ponying up some money to support this on a state level...

When working out how he votes or how he stands, just use the Constitution as a base.. He always votes on the constitution.

As I see it... because 'our' nations sovreignty is at risk.. then troops are justifieable. But also another poster pointed out, this is now a terror issue too...

(no spellcheck)

Originally Posted by BrightNail

Originally Posted by CostaMesaMan

It seems to me that if we are indeed in a WAR against terror that it would be highly justified to utilize the military as sentry along our borders!

I think the problem is that because our military is a volunteer military and our military is spread so thin in conflicts around the world...President Bush doesn't WANT to dilute our troop strength from these world conflicts to protect our borders.

But to tell you the truth...even if we instituted a draft to beef up our troops and then pulled our troops out of Iraq and Afganistan...the borders would probably still not get any military attention because Bush has no will to protect our borders anyway!

Also, there could the instance where we are taking Dr. Ron Pauls belief out of context and also when they were made. If you read the latest "WND" interview he explicitly says "we need to get our men (referring to soldiers") home so we can secure our borders..."

So, as TancredoFan is apt to do , is make statements without verifying or validating the context in which they are used.

I think Ron Paul WOULD put military at the border because based on the NAU, SPP, NAFTA these are all contrary to the soverignty of the United States, thus 'not' a state issue, but an America issue, thus soldiers at the border would be justified. If Texas was dealing with an incursion of illegals that only dealth with Texas only.. then I can see no military.. BUT, because of the tens of millions of illegals and the deliberate opening of the borders and setting in motion the NAU etc... then that directly threatens America.. so yes, I feel Ron Paul WOULD (and noted in his latest interview) that he would put military at the border.

A better question would be is - "why isn't California, Texas etc.. putting their national guard at the border?" Why aren't the "other" states ponying up some money to support this on a state level...

When working out how he votes or how he stands, just use the Constitution as a base.. He always votes on the constitution.

As I see it... because 'our' nations sovreignty is at risk.. then troops are justifieable. But also another poster pointed out, this is now a terror issue too...

(no spellcheck)

Just for the record, I am NOT a Tancredo fan just yet! I have not come down on any one candidate. I watched the Fox debate, and Paul's statement about 911 being our fault has become a big stumbling block for me...and I think it will be for a lot of Americans, too.

I'm sure Paul, Tancredo, or Hunter will do the right thing to protect us from invasion. Where as bush turns his back and enjoys his plans for destruction of America.

I wonder if it is constitutional to send U.S. National Guard troops and U.S. Border Patrol to defend the borders of Iraq?

Interesting discussion, I decided to do a little research. Below is a compilation of what I found regarding the military and their use:

---------------------------------------

The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385) passed on June 16, 1878 after the end of Reconstruction. The Act was intended to prohibit Federal troops from supervising elections in former Confederate states. It generally prohibits Federal military personnel and units of the United States National Guard under Federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. The Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act substantially limit the powers of the Federal government to use the military for law enforcement.

The original act referred only to the United States Army. The Air Force was added in 1956, and the Navy and the Marine Corps have been included by a regulation of the Department of Defense. This law is often mentioned when it appears that the Department of Defense is interfering in domestic disturbances.

Contents [hide]
1 Legislation
2 Limits on the Act
2.1 Exclusion Applicable to U.S. Coast Guard
3 Homeland Security
4 Trivia
5 See also
6 External links



[edit] Legislation
The whole text of the relevant legislation is as follows:

Sec. 1385. - 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".

[edit] Limits on the Act
There are a number of situations in which the Act does not apply. These include:

National Guard units while under the authority of the governor of a state;
Troops when used pursuant to the Federal authority to quell domestic violence as was the case during the 1992 Los Angeles riots;
Troops used under the order of the President of the United States pursuant to the Insurrection Act
Under 18 U.S.C. § 831, the Attorney General may request that the Secretary of Defense provide emergency assistance if civilian law enforcement is inadequate to address certain types of threat involving the release of nuclear materials, such as potential use of a Nuclear or Radiological weapon. Such assistance may be by any personnel under the authority of the Department of Defense, provided such assistance does not adversely affect U.S. military preparedness.

[edit] Exclusion Applicable to U.S. Coast Guard
See the Law Enforcement Detachments and Missions of the United States Coast Guard for more information on U.S. Coast Guard law enforcement activities
Although it is a military force, the United States Coast Guard, which operates normally under the Department of Homeland Security, is not covered by the Posse Comitatus Act and does enforce U.S. laws. It enforces U.S. laws even when operating as a service in the Navy.

In December 1981 additional laws were enacted clarifying permissible military assistance to civilian law enforcement agencies and the Coast Guard especially in combating drug smuggling into the United States. Posse Comitatus clarifications emphasize supportive and technical assistance (e.g., use of facilities, vessels, aircraft, intelligence, tech aid, surveillance) while generally prohibiting direct participation of Department of Defense personnel in law enforcement (e.g., search, seizure, and arrests). For example, Coast Guard Law Enforcement Detachments (LEDETS) serve aboard Navy vessels and perform the actual boardings of interdicted suspect drug smuggling vessels and, if needed, arrest their crews.

[edit] Homeland Security
TITLE 6 CHAPTER 1 SUBCHAPTER VIII Part H Sec. 466. Congress finds the following:

Section 1385 of title 18 (commonly known as the Posse Comitatus Act) prohibits the use of the Armed Forces as a Posse comitatus to execute the laws except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress.
Enacted in 1878, the Posse Comitatus Act was expressly intended to prevent United States Marshals, on their own initiative, from calling on the Army for assistance in enforcing Federal law.
Some believe the Posse Comitatus Act has served the Nation well in limiting the use of the Armed Forces to enforce the law. Whether this is a good thing or not is subject to debate.
The Posse Comitatus Act was not intended to be a complete barrier to the use of the Armed Forces for a range of domestic purposes, including law enforcement functions, when the use of the Armed Forces is authorized by Act of Congress or the President determines that the use of the Armed Forces is required to fulfill the President's obligations under the Constitution provide for the common defense or to respond promptly to insurrection, or other serious emergency.
Existing laws, including Title 10, Chapter 15 (commonly known as The Insurrection Act), and The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Title 42, Chapter 6, grant the President broad powers that may be invoked in the event of domestic emergencies, including an attack against the Nation using weapons of mass destruction, and these laws specifically authorize the President to use the Armed Forces to help restore public order.
The Posse Comitatus Act could be replaced, nullified or modified by a simple act of Congress.

I think that if it is unconstitutional for the military to protect our borders someone should inform the Coast Guard immediately.In my opinion why should we have standing army, navy,marines,air force,and coast guard if we can't use them to protect us from foreign or domestic invasion?The administration of course will use every means available to say that it is impossible to do so.The mostly unarmed national guard troops now on the border should give us a hint as to what Congress and the White House think of stopping the invasion completely.