Trump we will guard our border with our military

[jc456]

these illegals are DESTROYING America

No they are not . Another rube falling for age old scapegoating .

Harmonica is right, but that's irrelevant to the discussion that the role of our military is to defend our borders and you don't know that. Unreal. Read the Constitution

Oh yeah ? What part of the constitution are your referring too?

Article IV. Section 4. You know you're on the Internet too ...

This is what you are hanging your hat on?

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.


Geez. We are not being “invaded” . We have commerce with Mexico . Tourists and legal immigration by both countries every day .

1500 people illegally trying to enter at once is an invasion. i don't see what else you would call it. I'm open, give me an idea.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

No. That’s the purpose of the border patrol .

Trump is playing with you rubes . You eat this shit up .

Shut up fuckhead you dont know me from Adam.
The point I was attempting to make is the defense of the border and thus national defense being extra Posse Comitatus. For instance, if we have a foreign force converging on our border would this also be a violation of Posse Comitatus? Given then current environment of international terrorism and the porous nature of our border I think this argument could be logically made.

Do you think that "logical" argument would hold up in front of SCOTUS?

If a hostile foreign force was gathering at our border, Posse Comitatus would not apply - because rebelling a hostile army is a function of the military, not law enforcement.

Border security, according to our legal system, is a function of domestic law enforcement - and therefore, PCA applies.

The Constitution puts the responsibility for securing our borders on the military. Can you show the qualifications you're making up? Where are they written that you want illegals to drown us so that part of securing our border is not a military responsibility?

The Constitution does no such thing.

Article IV, Section 4. You seriously don't think securing our borders is the job of the MILITARY? Hello, you've succumbed to leftist stupidity and lies. The MILITARY? You don't grasp the relation between the military and securing our freaking borders?

You are S-T-U-P-I-D. Not ignorant, stupid

Here's the text of Article IV, Section 4:

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.

Now, I'm not sure what school of Constitutional interpretation you fit within, but what do you believe that the founding fathers meant, when they said "foreign invaders"?

Do you think they meant a military invasion, or do you think they meant immigrants?

Keep in mind, the founding fathers never expected any "controls" whatsoever on immigration.

To think they meant to apply that to immigrants takes quite a reach, for the sake of legal interpretation. I doubt you could even get Stevens to go that far from the text.

 

[Timmy]

We are not at war with Canada or Mexico ! Do you realize the commerce that happens at our border on a daily basis ?

What next ? Have the Air Force run our airports ?

these illegals are DESTROYING America

No they are not . Another rube falling for age old scapegoating .

illegals cost the US taxpayer BILLIONS$$$$
and they raise prices and lower wages
they dumb down the US
yes they are DESTROYING America
The Cost of Illegal Immigration to US Taxpayers | FAIR

Says the Bureau of Made Up Statistics .

You also realize 40 % of illegals come in legally. Wall does nothing about that . Military on the border does nothing about that .

'''illegals come here legally''' ...hahahahahahhahahahaha

God you are a great example of a clueless rube .

Say you are a foreign student . You legally entered the us on a student visas . But then you overstay. You now an “illegal” as the term goes .

Do you know nothing about immigration?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Through the Insurrection Act.

It doesn't apply here.

Wrong again....LBJ told Romney to declare an insurrection for federal troops but that would have voided every insurance policy on the hundreds of burning buildings. At that time Romney was thought to be the GOP candidate to run against Johnson. Romney told him to go fuck himself....his exact words. Who declared an insurrection at Waco?

PCA doesn't apply to the National Guard.

 

[jc456]

Shut up fuckhead you dont know me from Adam.
The point I was attempting to make is the defense of the border and thus national defense being extra Posse Comitatus. For instance, if we have a foreign force converging on our border would this also be a violation of Posse Comitatus? Given then current environment of international terrorism and the porous nature of our border I think this argument could be logically made.

Do you think that "logical" argument would hold up in front of SCOTUS?

If a hostile foreign force was gathering at our border, Posse Comitatus would not apply - because rebelling a hostile army is a function of the military, not law enforcement.

Border security, according to our legal system, is a function of domestic law enforcement - and therefore, PCA applies.

The Constitution puts the responsibility for securing our borders on the military. Can you show the qualifications you're making up? Where are they written that you want illegals to drown us so that part of securing our border is not a military responsibility?

The Constitution does no such thing.

Article IV, Section 4. You seriously don't think securing our borders is the job of the MILITARY? Hello, you've succumbed to leftist stupidity and lies. The MILITARY? You don't grasp the relation between the military and securing our freaking borders?

You are S-T-U-P-I-D. Not ignorant, stupid

Here's the text of Article IV, Section 4:

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.

Now, I'm not sure what school of Constitutional interpretation you fit within, but what do you believe that the founding fathers meant, when they said "foreign invaders"?

Do you think they meant a military invasion, or do you think they meant immigrants?

Keep in mind, the founding fathers never expected any "controls" whatsoever on immigration.

To think they meant to apply that to immigrants takes quite a reach, for the sake of legal interpretation. I doubt you could even get Stevens to go that far from the text.

they have no authority to come here that makes them militants.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Do you think that "logical" argument would hold up in front of SCOTUS?

If a hostile foreign force was gathering at our border, Posse Comitatus would not apply - because rebelling a hostile army is a function of the military, not law enforcement.

Border security, according to our legal system, is a function of domestic law enforcement - and therefore, PCA applies.

The Constitution puts the responsibility for securing our borders on the military. Can you show the qualifications you're making up? Where are they written that you want illegals to drown us so that part of securing our border is not a military responsibility?

The Constitution does no such thing.

Article IV, Section 4. You seriously don't think securing our borders is the job of the MILITARY? Hello, you've succumbed to leftist stupidity and lies. The MILITARY? You don't grasp the relation between the military and securing our freaking borders?

You are S-T-U-P-I-D. Not ignorant, stupid

Here's the text of Article IV, Section 4:

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.

Now, I'm not sure what school of Constitutional interpretation you fit within, but what do you believe that the founding fathers meant, when they said "foreign invaders"?

Do you think they meant a military invasion, or do you think they meant immigrants?

Keep in mind, the founding fathers never expected any "controls" whatsoever on immigration.

To think they meant to apply that to immigrants takes quite a reach, for the sake of legal interpretation. I doubt you could even get Stevens to go that far from the text.

they have no authority to come here that makes them militants.

No, it doesn't.

Words have meanings.

 

[Tijn Von Ingersleben]

Do you think that "logical" argument would hold up in front of SCOTUS?

I don't know. However if there is a force determined to be in an area bordering our nation that was a threat to the US interior could the argument then be made?
Hypothetical: We know ISIS has cells in Mexico. They are running ops into our country and committing acts of terror. Would it then be against PoCom to place troops on the border?
Now expand that out...other terrorist orgs or drug gangs who perform terrorist acts and are subsequently classed as such.
This is not out of the realm of possibility as many of the actions currently being perpetrated by the criminal gangs in Mexico could easily be reclassified as terrorism.

Do you think it would hold up in court then?
My logic is that there seems to be a very fine line between criminal and terrorist a simple reclass.
IDK just some thoughts.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Do you think that "logical" argument would hold up in front of SCOTUS?

I don't know. However if there is a force determined to be in an area bordering our nation that was a threat to the US interior could the argument then be made?
Hypothetical: We know ISIS has cells in Mexico. They are running ops into our country and committing acts of terror. Would it then be against PoCom to place troops on the border?
Now expand that out...other terrorist orgs or drug gangs who perform terrorist acts and are subsequently classed as such.
This is not out of the realm of possibility as many of the actions currently being perpetrated by the criminal gangs in Mexico could easily be reclassified as terrorism.

Do you think it would hold up in court then?
My logic is that there seems to be a very fine line between criminal and terrorist a simple reclass.
IDK just some thoughts.

Reclassifying something as "terrorism" wouldn't get around the PCA. Prosecuting terrorists is also a function of law enforcement, not the military.

This is exactly the purpose of the PCA - to prevent the President from doing things like this.

 

[Tom Horn]

PCA doesn't apply to the National Guard.

You can't bluff your way through this, Doc. After the Michigan National Guard did more harm than good, 82nd Airborne and a small number of 101st were stationed every 30 feet on the dowtown streets. I would deploy to the RVN in October of '67 and remember it like it was yesterday.

 

[jc456]

The Constitution puts the responsibility for securing our borders on the military. Can you show the qualifications you're making up? Where are they written that you want illegals to drown us so that part of securing our border is not a military responsibility?

The Constitution does no such thing.

Article IV, Section 4. You seriously don't think securing our borders is the job of the MILITARY? Hello, you've succumbed to leftist stupidity and lies. The MILITARY? You don't grasp the relation between the military and securing our freaking borders?

You are S-T-U-P-I-D. Not ignorant, stupid

Here's the text of Article IV, Section 4:

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.

Now, I'm not sure what school of Constitutional interpretation you fit within, but what do you believe that the founding fathers meant, when they said "foreign invaders"?

Do you think they meant a military invasion, or do you think they meant immigrants?

Keep in mind, the founding fathers never expected any "controls" whatsoever on immigration.

To think they meant to apply that to immigrants takes quite a reach, for the sake of legal interpretation. I doubt you could even get Stevens to go that far from the text.

they have no authority to come here that makes them militants.

No, it doesn't.

Words have meanings.

sure it is, you have no idea their intentions. you know absolutely nothing about them. they could all be rebels.

 

[jc456]

Do you think that "logical" argument would hold up in front of SCOTUS?

I don't know. However if there is a force determined to be in an area bordering our nation that was a threat to the US interior could the argument then be made?
Hypothetical: We know ISIS has cells in Mexico. They are running ops into our country and committing acts of terror. Would it then be against PoCom to place troops on the border?
Now expand that out...other terrorist orgs or drug gangs who perform terrorist acts and are subsequently classed as such.
This is not out of the realm of possibility as many of the actions currently being perpetrated by the criminal gangs in Mexico could easily be reclassified as terrorism.

Do you think it would hold up in court then?
My logic is that there seems to be a very fine line between criminal and terrorist a simple reclass.
IDK just some thoughts.

Reclassifying something as "terrorism" wouldn't get around the PCA. Prosecuting terrorists is also a function of law enforcement, not the military.

This is exactly the purpose of the PCA - to prevent the President from doing things like this.

I agree whole heartily, against citizens, not illegal combatants of the country, then it is military time.

 

[westwall]

Looks like it may happen.

BREAKING: Trump Says Military Will Be Used To Protect Border

I like it. Whatever it takes.

One would think that you guys would understand by now that Trump tweeting about something is not to be taken as an implication that anything will actually happen.

The Posse Comitatus Act would be a difficult hurdle to overcome.

The Posse Comitatus Act has nothing to do with protecting the nations borders. That IS what the Army's job IS.

 

[ABikerSailor]

I really don't think they're going to call on someone who was too scared to go to a USO.

Which is why Trump will not have to worry about it.

Trump was never in the military and has likely never gone to a USO. Gaybiker on the other hand wouldn't get off his ship on shore leave even to go to a USO. A regular profile in courage. Meanwhile civilian employees like my mother worked there.

The wrong stuff I guess.

Actually, what I told you was that when Reagan was in office, we had to keep our heads on a swivel because USO's were being bombed. Yeah, I think checking for things like that is just prudent. Especially when there were bombings happening in all sorts of places US troops liked to frequent.

How many years did you serve again Meathead? I did a full 20 in 4 war zones.

Oh wait....................forgot..................you just like to troll people.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Looks like it may happen.

BREAKING: Trump Says Military Will Be Used To Protect Border

I like it. Whatever it takes.

One would think that you guys would understand by now that Trump tweeting about something is not to be taken as an implication that anything will actually happen.

The Posse Comitatus Act would be a difficult hurdle to overcome.

The Posse Comitatus Act has nothing to do with protecting the nations borders. That IS what the Army's job IS.

No, it's not.

At no point in during peacetime in American history, has the military been tasked with protecting our borders.

Patrolling the border has been a function of civilian law enforcement as long as our borders have ever been patrolled.

 

[ABikerSailor]

It’s amazing . Cons always fear big government, but now you want to activate the military act WITHIN our borders ? !

Did you bawl when Obama did it?

It’s amazing . Cons always fear big government, but now you want to activate the military act WITHIN our borders ? !

Did you bawl when Obama did it?

Oh you mean the military excersies in Texas that were a front for an obama armed take over?

Isn’t that what you rubes believed ?

No I mean when he sent military to help with the drug war.

Now don't you feel foolish, fucking clown shoes

Obama didn't send in the military. He sent in the National Guard, which has different rules than the military does for deployment and who can send them.

Obama orders 1,200 Guard troops to border

So Trump sends the guard, still military ...sit down and shush I don't give two shits about your ramblings

Actually, the National Guard is more of a militia than it is a military. They aren't full time, and they are governed by different rules. But, if you knew anything about the military that wasn't bullshit, you would have known that and not looked so stupid.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Do you think that "logical" argument would hold up in front of SCOTUS?

I don't know. However if there is a force determined to be in an area bordering our nation that was a threat to the US interior could the argument then be made?
Hypothetical: We know ISIS has cells in Mexico. They are running ops into our country and committing acts of terror. Would it then be against PoCom to place troops on the border?
Now expand that out...other terrorist orgs or drug gangs who perform terrorist acts and are subsequently classed as such.
This is not out of the realm of possibility as many of the actions currently being perpetrated by the criminal gangs in Mexico could easily be reclassified as terrorism.

Do you think it would hold up in court then?
My logic is that there seems to be a very fine line between criminal and terrorist a simple reclass.
IDK just some thoughts.

Reclassifying something as "terrorism" wouldn't get around the PCA. Prosecuting terrorists is also a function of law enforcement, not the military.

This is exactly the purpose of the PCA - to prevent the President from doing things like this.

I agree whole heartily, against citizens, not illegal combatants of the country, then it is military time.

Refugees aren't "illegal combatants".

Again, words have meanings.

 

[westwall]

Looks like it may happen.

BREAKING: Trump Says Military Will Be Used To Protect Border

I like it. Whatever it takes.

One would think that you guys would understand by now that Trump tweeting about something is not to be taken as an implication that anything will actually happen.

The Posse Comitatus Act would be a difficult hurdle to overcome.

The Posse Comitatus Act has nothing to do with protecting the nations borders. That IS what the Army's job IS.

No, it's not.

At no point in during peacetime in American history, has the military been tasked with protecting our borders.

Patrolling the border has been a function of civilian law enforcement as long as our borders have ever been patrolled.

Hmmm, their mission statement says otherwise.

• Preserving the peace and security and providing for the defense of the United States, the Commonwealths and possessions and any areas occupied by the United States
• Supporting the national policies
• Implementing the national objectives
• Overcoming any nations responsible for aggressive acts that imperil the peace and security of the United States

 

[Tijn Von Ingersleben]

Do you think that "logical" argument would hold up in front of SCOTUS?

I don't know. However if there is a force determined to be in an area bordering our nation that was a threat to the US interior could the argument then be made?
Hypothetical: We know ISIS has cells in Mexico. They are running ops into our country and committing acts of terror. Would it then be against PoCom to place troops on the border?
Now expand that out...other terrorist orgs or drug gangs who perform terrorist acts and are subsequently classed as such.
This is not out of the realm of possibility as many of the actions currently being perpetrated by the criminal gangs in Mexico could easily be reclassified as terrorism.

Do you think it would hold up in court then?
My logic is that there seems to be a very fine line between criminal and terrorist a simple reclass.
IDK just some thoughts.

Reclassifying something as "terrorism" wouldn't get around the PCA. Prosecuting terrorists is also a function of law enforcement, not the military.

This is exactly the purpose of the PCA - to prevent the President from doing things like this.

But is fighting terrorists? That is my hypothetical, not the prosecution of them but the combating of them. I do see what you are saying and it makes sense within the realm of the normal. PCA prevents military from law enforcement activities. Defense of the border doesn't seem to fall under that category. Either way..thanks.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Looks like it may happen.

BREAKING: Trump Says Military Will Be Used To Protect Border

I like it. Whatever it takes.

One would think that you guys would understand by now that Trump tweeting about something is not to be taken as an implication that anything will actually happen.

The Posse Comitatus Act would be a difficult hurdle to overcome.

The Posse Comitatus Act has nothing to do with protecting the nations borders. That IS what the Army's job IS.

No, it's not.

At no point in during peacetime in American history, has the military been tasked with protecting our borders.

Patrolling the border has been a function of civilian law enforcement as long as our borders have ever been patrolled.

Hmmm, their mission statement says otherwise.

• Preserving the peace and security and providing for the defense of the United States, the Commonwealths and possessions and any areas occupied by the United States
• Supporting the national policies
• Implementing the national objectives
• Overcoming any nations responsible for aggressive acts that imperil the peace and security of the United States

This isn't about "mission statements", this is about the Laws of the United States.

 

[Tom Horn]

Refugees aren't "illegal combatants".

Again, words have meanings.

Words sure do.....why are you calling them "refugees"????? They are an invasion force who has stated their intention to cross our southern border illegally. Guess what? This group just got the WALL built...watch and see.