Posse comitatus nullified

[boutons_]

February 19, 2007
Editorial

Making Martial Law Easier

A disturbing recent phenomenon in Washington is that laws that strike to the heart of American democracy have been passed in the dead of night. So it was with a provision quietly tucked into the enormous defense budget bill at the Bush administration’s behest that makes it easier for a president to override local control of law enforcement and declare martial law.

The provision, signed into law in October, weakens two obscure but important bulwarks of liberty. One is the doctrine that bars military forces, including a federalized National Guard, from engaging in law enforcement. Called posse comitatus, it was enshrined in law after the Civil War to preserve the line between civil government and the military. The other is the Insurrection Act of 1807, which provides the major exemptions to posse comitatus. It essentially limits a president’s use of the military in law enforcement to putting down lawlessness, insurrection and rebellion, where a state is violating federal law or depriving people of cons utional rights.

The newly enacted provisions upset this careful balance. They shift the focus from making sure that federal laws are enforced to restoring public order. Beyond cases of actual insurrection, the president may now use military troops as a domestic police force in response to a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, terrorist attack or to any “other condition.”

Changes of this magnitude should be made only after a thorough public airing. But these new presidential powers were slipped into the law without hearings or public debate. The president made no mention of the changes when he signed the measure, and neither the White House nor Congress consulted in advance with the nation’s governors.

There is a bipartisan bill, introduced by Senators Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, and Christopher Bond, Republican of Missouri, and backed unanimously by the nation’s governors, that would repeal the stealthy revisions. Congress should pass it. If changes of this kind are proposed in the future, they must get a full and open debate.

==================

The Exec/Repugs talk about starving the beast, small govt, fiscal resposibility, but they grow the beast to help corps and super-rich, enlarge the federal govt, and strengthen the Exec powers over the people, over the states, and over the Legislative branch, no more checks and balances for the Exec mother ers dubya and head "Just trust us".

Impeach dubya and head

[101A]

February 19, 2007
Editorial

Making Martial Law Easier

A disturbing recent phenomenon in Washington is that laws that strike to the heart of American democracy have been passed in the dead of night. So it was with a provision quietly tucked into the enormous defense budget bill at the Bush administration’s behest that makes it easier for a president to override local control of law enforcement and declare martial law.

The provision, signed into law in October, weakens two obscure but important bulwarks of liberty. One is the doctrine that bars military forces, including a federalized National Guard, from engaging in law enforcement. Called posse comitatus, it was enshrined in law after the Civil War to preserve the line between civil government and the military. The other is the Insurrection Act of 1807, which provides the major exemptions to posse comitatus. It essentially limits a president’s use of the military in law enforcement to putting down lawlessness, insurrection and rebellion, where a state is violating federal law or depriving people of cons utional rights.

The newly enacted provisions upset this careful balance. They shift the focus from making sure that federal laws are enforced to restoring public order. Beyond cases of actual insurrection, the president may now use military troops as a domestic police force in response to a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, terrorist attack or to any “other condition.”

Changes of this magnitude should be made only after a thorough public airing. But these new presidential powers were slipped into the law without hearings or public debate. The president made no mention of the changes when he signed the measure, and neither the White House nor Congress consulted in advance with the nation’s governors.

There is a bipartisan bill, introduced by Senators Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, and Christopher Bond, Republican of Missouri, and backed unanimously by the nation’s governors, that would repeal the stealthy revisions. Congress should pass it. If changes of this kind are proposed in the future, they must get a full and open debate.

==================

The Exec/Repugs talk about starving the beast, small govt, fiscal resposibility, but they grow the beast to help corps and super-rich, enlarge the federal govt, and strengthen the Exec powers over the people, over the states, and over the Legislative branch, no more checks and balances for the Exec mother ers dubya and head "Just trust us".

Impeach dubya and head

Although underhanded, and frankly, somewhat alarming, this law was, in fact, passed by the Congress, and signed by the President. Nothing impeachable here. Glad it is seeing the light of day, however. I thing a discussion of its merits/shortcomings is the least the public is due. Most probably didn't understand the restriction existed in the first place, however.

[boutons_]

As with Clinton, dubya, or any President, impeachment is a political act, and the Congress can vote to impeach the President for whatever the it wants to.

The "body of work", lying, incompetence, corruption, etc, by this Exec is fully impeachable as the sovereign people fired dubya in November, and he and head continue ignore the Congress and sovereign people.

Impeach dubya and head

[1369]

As with Clinton, dubya, or any President, impeachment is a political act, and the Congress can vote to impeach the President for whatever the it wants to.

The "body of work", lying, incompetence, corruption, etc, by this Exec is fully impeachable as the sovereign people fired dubya in November, and he and head continue ignore the Congress and sovereign people.

Impeach dubya and head

Is that the foxtrot, or the waltz you're doing around the point 101A raised?

[101A]

As with Clinton, dubya, or any President, impeachment is a political act, and the Congress can vote to impeach the President for whatever the it wants to.


Impeach dubya and head

...because the Congress and American popular and political opinion are SO dependable, just and wise.

[boutons_]

If you can trust the people and their elected Pres, whom else can you trust?

The people were trusted to elect dubya (based on campaign bull ) but can't be trusted to impeach him (based on actual conduct in office)?

Trust the wonderful good will, honesty, competence of this sinister, evil Exec, two of the worst mother ers, aided by the accomplices, ever to disgrace the White House?

[01Snake]

If you can trust the people and their elected Res, whom else can you trust?

The people were trusted to elect dubya (based on campaign bull ) but can't be trusted to impeach him (based on actual conduct in office)?

Trust the wonderful good will, honesty, competence of this sinister, evil Exec, two of the worst mother ers, aided by the accomplices, ever to disgrace the White House?

Suck it up Croutons. You've got almost 2 more years of W in the White House.

[101A]

If you can trust the people and their elected Res, whom else can you trust?

The people were trusted to elect dubya (based on campaign bull ) but can't be trusted to impeach him (based on actual conduct in office)?

Trust the wonderful good will, honesty, competence of this sinister, evil Exec, two of the worst mother ers, aided by the accomplices, ever to disgrace the White House?

I don't trust the government; any branch of it. It would seem the executive branch had mucho control for the past 6 years- since that party controlled Congress; too much control? Apparently so, at least for American tastes right now. The check on that power has been implemented.

If we, as a people, were to overreact and give to Congress the power you wish to bestow upon them; the ramifications would be felt LONG after the impeachment of George W. Bush, I am afraid. The executive would be neutered forever; and be forever more impotent. If the legislative controls the executive, and teh executive nominates the judicial, well, you do the math.

I think I'll support a more traditional threshold for impeachment than you espouse, B.

[boutons_]

the 70%+ people who disapprove of dubya/ head can contact their congresspersons to encourage impeachment, totally legal and bona fide way to express their opinion. It's still up the Legislature to do it.

[gtownspur]

Coochtons is such a .

[gtownspur]

I say we vote on Dan Quayle laying a steamer on butchtons chest.

[sabar]

Technically you can't impeach someone unless they commit an illegal act against the state (treason, purjury, ect).
The house of reps isn't dumb enough to impeach either. Congress would be so sharply divided that it would go nowhere.

[DarkReign]

The country gains nothing from impeaching the President for any reason. I dont care if Bill got impeached, he shouldnt have lied. Two wrongs do not make a right and certainly not because "they started it".

Let it go.

[boutons_]

"The country gains nothing from impeaching the President for any reason."

Impeaching dubya and head for their lies, their bull war, their multiple incompentences, their failures as "comander" in chief, dereliction of NatSec duty is necessary. It may not dissuade others, but not punishing them will certainly encourage and embolden others, as well as letting their poisoning of the Exec and Congress continue to degrade public life.

[DarkReign]

"The country gains nothing from impeaching the President for any reason."

Impeaching dubya and head for their lies, their bull war, their multiple incompentences, their failures as "comander" in chief, dereliction of NatSec duty is necessary. It may not dissuade others, but not punishing them will certainly encourage and embolden others, as well as letting their poisoning of the Exec and Congress continue to degrade public life.

Hes a lame duck president. Sure, hes run rough-shod all over the world for 6 straight years, which is deplorable. But hes got one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel. 2 more years. Then youll go from hate-spewing allegations to constant defense in this forum.

Which do you think is more difficult?

I dont like the President anymore than you do. But we were obviously in the minority (electorate-wise). Majority rules, for better or worse. In this case, alot worse.

[AFE7FATMAN]

Getting back to Posse Comitatus:

"Call forth the militia" to "execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrection, and repel invasion". Where's the conflict. Placing the Guard on the border is executing the laws of the union and repelling invasion. Protection of our borders is a federal obligation. Thousands are illegaling entering our country stealing and threatening our safety and resources. The death and destruction caused by our "unarmed" invaders through violence and narcotics distribution far exceeds deaths of Gulf War I, II and the current Iraq and Afgan Wars.

If the Guard was on duty at the Boston Airport a few years ago, maybe there would be over 3,000 Americans eating dinner with their families today

[boutons_]

"If the Guard was on duty at the Boston Airport a few years ago, maybe there would be over 3,000 Americans eating dinner with their families today"

I thought the right-wing spin to absolve dubya/ head/condi from dereliction of NatSec duty prior to 9/11 was that "nobody or nothing could have foreseen or stopped the 9/11 attackers"?

Now, your revisionism is that NG in all US airports could have prevented 9/11?

[xrayzebra]

"The country gains nothing from impeaching the President for any reason."

Impeaching dubya and head for their lies, their bull war, their multiple incompentences, their failures as "comander" in chief, dereliction of NatSec duty is necessary. It may not dissuade others, but not punishing them will certainly encourage and embolden others, as well as letting their poisoning of the Exec and Congress continue to degrade public life.

You forgot to add: Bush is the only one who has stuck
by his guns. Unlike most of the dimm-o-craps who switch
sides with the latest polls or focus groups. He has kept
your sorry butt safe for last six years, boutons. And
will continue to do so for the next two. So sleep well,
twerp!

[El_Tejano]

The newly enacted provisions upset this careful balance. They shift the focus from making sure that federal laws are enforced to restoring public order. Beyond cases of actual insurrection, the president may now use military troops as a domestic police force in response to a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, terrorist attack or to any “other condition.”

I guess the "other condition", includes religious fanatics in Waco, Tx.

[BIG IRISH]

The newly enacted provisions upset this careful balance. They shift the focus from making sure that federal laws are enforced to restoring public order. Beyond cases of actual insurrection, the president may now use military troops as a domestic police force in response to a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, terrorist attack or to any “other condition.”

I guess the "other condition", includes religious fanatics in Waco, Tx.

Waco was already done by BC, Janet Reno, and the A$$ Hole some people want to become president, Wes Clark

[xrayzebra]

The newly enacted provisions upset this careful balance. They shift the focus from making sure that federal laws are enforced to restoring public order. Beyond cases of actual insurrection, the president may now use military troops as a domestic police force in response to a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, terrorist attack or to any “other condition.”

I guess the "other condition", includes religious fanatics in Waco, Tx.

But wasn't that what the dimm-o-craps wanted in
New Orleans. Remember? Federal troops to protect
everyone from all the killings that weren't happening
and all the pollution that didn't occur and meals on
wheels for all the people the mayor forgot and wouldn't
let the red cross help. And I guess to dry out all the
school buses he let go under water.

[ChumpDumper]

If the Guard was on duty at the Boston Airport a few years ago, maybe there would be over 3,000 Americans eating dinner with their families today

If we didn't allow boxcutters through security, there would be over 3,000 Americans eating dinner with their families today.

I wonder which solution would cost less....

[xrayzebra]

Yeah and Chump, if a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his
butt.

Hind sight is 20/20. If they God had just given us bad weather
that day and ground all flights in the East those people would
still be alive.

[El_Tejano]

Waco was already done by BC, Janet Reno, and the A$$ Hole some people want to become president, Wes Clark

Yep, that was my point, the idea that this newly passed legislation will now give the president some new ability to use the military that he didn't have in the past, doesn't work. This particular legislation wasn't around in the 90's, yet BC had no problem using the military at Waco. Here's an interesting thought, would BC have sent in forces had the compound in Waco been a Mosque?

[PixelPusher]

^when did the FBI and ATF become "military"?