attention law nerds: Sassy Stephen Colbert talks with Crazy Cory Booker about how Trump broke the "Posse Comitatus Act"!

[basquebromance]

Booker would make a good AG, though, if Biden wins (lol)



" A Federal Law signed on June 18 1878 by President Rutherford B. Hayes! To limit federal government in using Federal Military to enforce domestic politics or policies within U.S.!!!!!!! "

 

[Justin Richardson]

Spartacus Unleashed

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Neither one knows anything about the law,

 

[basquebromance]

Neither one knows anything about the law,

YOU DO?

 

[Lewdog]

It is unconstitutional to do so in a state without the state governor's consent, unless he invokes nationwide martial law.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Neither one knows anything about the law,

YOU DO?

Yes. As a matter of fact, I DO. The Insurrection Act of 1807 Gives the president authority to deploy the national guard or even active duty military to put down acts of rebellion. The governor need not agree but national guard troops must be generalized and removed from state control before the president can order them to deploy.

Isn't Booker a lawyer? How the hell did he pass the bar?

 

[Lewdog]

Neither one knows anything about the law,

YOU DO?

Yes. As a matter of fact, I DO. The Insurrection Act of 1807 Gives the president authority to deploy the national guard or even active duty military to put down acts of rebellion. The governor need not agree but national guard troops must be generalized and removed from state control before the president can order them to deploy.

Isn't Booker a lawyer? How the hell did he pass the bar?

You failed to address the entire act... without governor's consent it requires the POTUS to prove one of 2 other qualifications to exist, which do not in this circumstance.

" > to address an insurrection, in any state, which makes it impracticable to enforce the law (§ 252), or
> to address an insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination or conspiracy, in any state, which results in the deprivation of Constitutionally-secured rights, and where the state is unable, fails, or refuses to protect said rights (§ 253)."

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It is unconstitutional to do so in a state without the state governor's consent, unless he invokes nationwide martial law.

Simply NOT true, both Eisenhower and Kennedy did so.

 

[Lewdog]

It is unconstitutional to do so in a state without the state governor's consent, unless he invokes nationwide martial law.

Simply NOT true, both Eisenhower and Kennedy did so.

Yes it is true, when the POTUS can not prove the 2 other qualifications needed... which Trump cannot.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Neither one knows anything about the law,

YOU DO?

Yes. As a matter of fact, I DO. The Insurrection Act of 1807 Gives the president authority to deploy the national guard or even active duty military to put down acts of rebellion. The governor need not agree but national guard troops must be generalized and removed from state control before the president can order them to deploy.

Isn't Booker a lawyer? How the hell did he pass the bar?

You failed to address the entire act... without governor's consent it requires the POTUS to prove one of 2 other qualifications to exist, which do not in this circumstance.

" > to address an insurrection, in any state, which makes it impracticable to enforce the law (§ 252), or
> to address an insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination or conspiracy, in any state, which results in the deprivation of Constitutionally-secured rights, and where the state is unable, fails, or refuses to protect said rights (§ 253)."

The first one applies as well as the second when Mayors and Governors refuse to use the police to stop rioting.

 

[Lewdog]

Neither one knows anything about the law,

YOU DO?

Yes. As a matter of fact, I DO. The Insurrection Act of 1807 Gives the president authority to deploy the national guard or even active duty military to put down acts of rebellion. The governor need not agree but national guard troops must be generalized and removed from state control before the president can order them to deploy.

Isn't Booker a lawyer? How the hell did he pass the bar?

You failed to address the entire act... without governor's consent it requires the POTUS to prove one of 2 other qualifications to exist, which do not in this circumstance.

" > to address an insurrection, in any state, which makes it impracticable to enforce the law (§ 252), or
> to address an insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination or conspiracy, in any state, which results in the deprivation of Constitutionally-secured rights, and where the state is unable, fails, or refuses to protect said rights (§ 253)."

The first one applies as well as the second when Mayors and Governors refuse to use the police to stop rioting.

They did not refuse to use police to stop rioting. Please feel free to share where rioting is still going on unabated to the point Trump can meet the standards needed. I'll wait.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Neither one knows anything about the law,

YOU DO?

Yes. As a matter of fact, I DO. The Insurrection Act of 1807 Gives the president authority to deploy the national guard or even active duty military to put down acts of rebellion. The governor need not agree but national guard troops must be generalized and removed from state control before the president can order them to deploy.

Isn't Booker a lawyer? How the hell did he pass the bar?

You failed to address the entire act... without governor's consent it requires the POTUS to prove one of 2 other qualifications to exist, which do not in this circumstance.

" > to address an insurrection, in any state, which makes it impracticable to enforce the law (§ 252), or
> to address an insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination or conspiracy, in any state, which results in the deprivation of Constitutionally-secured rights, and where the state is unable, fails, or refuses to protect said rights (§ 253)."

The first one applies as well as the second when Mayors and Governors refuse to use the police to stop rioting.

They did not refuse to use police to stop rioting. Please feel free to share where rioting is still going on unabated to the point Trump can meet the standards needed. I'll wait.

Yes they did they ALLOWED rioters to destroy over 170 businesses in one city in Raleigh the Police chief ANNOUNCED she would not protect buisnesses so that is NOT enforcing the law numbnuts.

 

[White 6]

Neither one knows anything about the law,

YOU DO?

Yes. As a matter of fact, I DO. The Insurrection Act of 1807 Gives the president authority to deploy the national guard or even active duty military to put down acts of rebellion. The governor need not agree but national guard troops must be generalized and removed from state control before the president can order them to deploy.

Isn't Booker a lawyer? How the hell did he pass the bar?

Is your understanding different that this?
Legislation
The original provision was enacted as Section 15 of chapter 263, of the Acts of the 2nd session of the 45th Congress.
Sec. 15. From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress; and no money appropriated by this act shall be used to pay any of the expenses incurred in the employment of any troops in violation of this section and any person willfully violating the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction thereof shall be punished by fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars or imprisonment not exceeding two years or by both such fine and imprisonment[10]

The text of the relevant legislation is as follows:
18 U.S.C. § 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.
Also notable is the following provision within Title 10 of the United States Code (which concerns generally the organization and regulation of the armed forces and Department of Defense):
10 U.S.C. § 275. Restriction on direct participation by military personnel The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to ensure that any activity (including the provision of any equipment or facility or the assignment or detail of any personnel) under this chapter does not include or permit direct participation by a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity unless participation in such activity by such member is otherwise authorized by law.
2006–07 suspension
In 2006, Congress modified the Insurrection Act as part of the 2007 Defense Authorization Bill (repealed as of 2008). On September 26, 2006, President George W. Bush urged Congress to consider revising federal laws so that U.S. armed forces could restore public order and enforce laws in the aftermath of a natural disaster, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition. These changes were included in the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (H.R. 5122), which was signed into law on October 17, 2006.[11]
Section 1076 is titled "Use of the Armed Forces in major public emergencies". It provided that:
The President may employ the armed forces ... to ... restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition ... the President determines that ... domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order ... or [to] suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such ... a condition ... so hinders the execution of the laws ... that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law ... or opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.[12]

In 2008, these changes in the Insurrection Act of 1807 were repealed in their entirety, reverting to the previous wording of the Insurrection Act.[13] It was originally written to limit presidential power as much as possible in the event of insurrection, rebellion, or lawlessness

It looks as if Bush got it amended to allow use of federal troops in 2006, but the changes were repealed in 2008.

Posse Comitatus Act - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Lewdog]

Neither one knows anything about the law,

YOU DO?

Yes. As a matter of fact, I DO. The Insurrection Act of 1807 Gives the president authority to deploy the national guard or even active duty military to put down acts of rebellion. The governor need not agree but national guard troops must be generalized and removed from state control before the president can order them to deploy.

Isn't Booker a lawyer? How the hell did he pass the bar?

You failed to address the entire act... without governor's consent it requires the POTUS to prove one of 2 other qualifications to exist, which do not in this circumstance.

" > to address an insurrection, in any state, which makes it impracticable to enforce the law (§ 252), or
> to address an insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination or conspiracy, in any state, which results in the deprivation of Constitutionally-secured rights, and where the state is unable, fails, or refuses to protect said rights (§ 253)."

The first one applies as well as the second when Mayors and Governors refuse to use the police to stop rioting.

They did not refuse to use police to stop rioting. Please feel free to share where rioting is still going on unabated to the point Trump can meet the standards needed. I'll wait.

Yes they did they ALLOWED rioters to destroy over 170 businesses in one city in Raleigh the Police chief ANNOUNCED she would not protect buisnesses so that is NOT enforcing the law numbnuts.

You seem to have a problem understanding how to manage a crisis situation like that. You don't put LIVES at risk for material items. I'm not just talking about the lives of looters, who you will build a strawman on, but the lives of police who could be surrounded and ganged up on by looters, or innocent citizens who happen to just live in the neighborhoods where there is looting. You don't bring in active duty military to protect an empty store... good grief. You were a REAL Gunny? Cause I know very few Gunny Sergeants that are so quick to turn ACTIVE duty military against U.S. citizens. Sad to see you are so partisan you are more than willing to piss on the Constitution so fast.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Neither one knows anything about the law,

YOU DO?

Yes. As a matter of fact, I DO. The Insurrection Act of 1807 Gives the president authority to deploy the national guard or even active duty military to put down acts of rebellion. The governor need not agree but national guard troops must be generalized and removed from state control before the president can order them to deploy.

Isn't Booker a lawyer? How the hell did he pass the bar?

You failed to address the entire act... without governor's consent it requires the POTUS to prove one of 2 other qualifications to exist, which do not in this circumstance.

" > to address an insurrection, in any state, which makes it impracticable to enforce the law (§ 252), or
> to address an insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination or conspiracy, in any state, which results in the deprivation of Constitutionally-secured rights, and where the state is unable, fails, or refuses to protect said rights (§ 253)."

The first one applies as well as the second when Mayors and Governors refuse to use the police to stop rioting.

They did not refuse to use police to stop rioting. Please feel free to share where rioting is still going on unabated to the point Trump can meet the standards needed. I'll wait.

Yes they did they ALLOWED rioters to destroy over 170 businesses in one city in Raleigh the Police chief ANNOUNCED she would not protect buisnesses so that is NOT enforcing the law numbnuts.

You seem to have a problem understanding how to manage a crisis situation like that. You don't put LIVES at risk for material items. I'm not just talking about the lives of looters, who you will build a strawman on, but the lives of police who could be surrounded and ganged up on by looters, or innocent citizens who happen to just live in the neighborhoods where there is looting. You don't bring in active duty military to protect an empty store... good grief. You were a REAL Gunny? Cause I know very few Gunny Sergeants that are so quick to turn ACTIVE duty military against U.S. citizens. sad o see you are so partisan you are more than willing to piss on the Constitution so fast.

Yes you do business owners pay TAXES for protection retard. If the cops won't protect them then the Army will, pretty damn simple failure of law enforcement to curtail riots looting and arson are EXACTLY what the act is written for.

 

[Lewdog]

Neither one knows anything about the law,

YOU DO?

Yes. As a matter of fact, I DO. The Insurrection Act of 1807 Gives the president authority to deploy the national guard or even active duty military to put down acts of rebellion. The governor need not agree but national guard troops must be generalized and removed from state control before the president can order them to deploy.

Isn't Booker a lawyer? How the hell did he pass the bar?

You failed to address the entire act... without governor's consent it requires the POTUS to prove one of 2 other qualifications to exist, which do not in this circumstance.

" > to address an insurrection, in any state, which makes it impracticable to enforce the law (§ 252), or
> to address an insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination or conspiracy, in any state, which results in the deprivation of Constitutionally-secured rights, and where the state is unable, fails, or refuses to protect said rights (§ 253)."

The first one applies as well as the second when Mayors and Governors refuse to use the police to stop rioting.

They did not refuse to use police to stop rioting. Please feel free to share where rioting is still going on unabated to the point Trump can meet the standards needed. I'll wait.

Yes they did they ALLOWED rioters to destroy over 170 businesses in one city in Raleigh the Police chief ANNOUNCED she would not protect buisnesses so that is NOT enforcing the law numbnuts.

You seem to have a problem understanding how to manage a crisis situation like that. You don't put LIVES at risk for material items. I'm not just talking about the lives of looters, who you will build a strawman on, but the lives of police who could be surrounded and ganged up on by looters, or innocent citizens who happen to just live in the neighborhoods where there is looting. You don't bring in active duty military to protect an empty store... good grief. You were a REAL Gunny? Cause I know very few Gunny Sergeants that are so quick to turn ACTIVE duty military against U.S. citizens. sad o see you are so partisan you are more than willing to piss on the Constitution so fast.

Yes you do business owners pay TAXES for protection retard. If the cops won't protect them then the Army will, pretty damn simple failure of law enforcement to curtail riots looting and arson are EXACTLY what the act is written for.

Retard? The only person with a learning disability is the one that thinks active duty military should be called in for what happened. I'm beyond happy you are a former military man, because you don't respect the Constitution, and are a fascist to want to use active duty military against U.S. citizens so easily... glad at least to see Mattis, Kelly, and others have gotten to Esper and he isn't letting Trump walk all over him on this.

 

[White 6]

Neither one knows anything about the law,

YOU DO?

Yes. As a matter of fact, I DO. The Insurrection Act of 1807 Gives the president authority to deploy the national guard or even active duty military to put down acts of rebellion. The governor need not agree but national guard troops must be generalized and removed from state control before the president can order them to deploy.

Isn't Booker a lawyer? How the hell did he pass the bar?

You failed to address the entire act... without governor's consent it requires the POTUS to prove one of 2 other qualifications to exist, which do not in this circumstance.

" > to address an insurrection, in any state, which makes it impracticable to enforce the law (§ 252), or
> to address an insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination or conspiracy, in any state, which results in the deprivation of Constitutionally-secured rights, and where the state is unable, fails, or refuses to protect said rights (§ 253)."

The first one applies as well as the second when Mayors and Governors refuse to use the police to stop rioting.

They did not refuse to use police to stop rioting. Please feel free to share where rioting is still going on unabated to the point Trump can meet the standards needed. I'll wait.

Yes they did they ALLOWED rioters to destroy over 170 businesses in one city in Raleigh the Police chief ANNOUNCED she would not protect buisnesses so that is NOT enforcing the law numbnuts.

You seem to have a problem understanding how to manage a crisis situation like that. You don't put LIVES at risk for material items. I'm not just talking about the lives of looters, who you will build a strawman on, but the lives of police who could be surrounded and ganged up on by looters, or innocent citizens who happen to just live in the neighborhoods where there is looting. You don't bring in active duty military to protect an empty store... good grief. You were a REAL Gunny? Cause I know very few Gunny Sergeants that are so quick to turn ACTIVE duty military against U.S. citizens. sad o see you are so partisan you are more than willing to piss on the Constitution so fast.

Yes you do business owners pay TAXES for protection retard. If the cops won't protect them then the Army will, pretty damn simple failure of law enforcement to curtail riots looting and arson are EXACTLY what the act is written for.

Retard? The only person with a learning disability is the one that thinks active duty military should be called in for what happened. I'm beyond happy you are a former military man, because you don't respect the Constitution, and are a fascist to want to use active duty military against U.S. citizens so easily... glad at least to see Mattis, Kelly, and others have gotten to Esper and he isn't letting Trump walk all over him on this.

Unlikely to see posse Comitatus act used without approval of the Governor of a state. Most states have national guard units, many are combat units, so if the Govern wants force he has force. To invoke the act without the Governor's approval or request would pretty well obliterate states rights, basically forever. DC is a special case, my understanding is the Guard falls under control of the President, as mayors have no authority over the Guard and DC has no governor. Bringing troops home from Europe to take over the cities is a wet dream of the trump supporters.

 

[Lewdog]

Neither one knows anything about the law,

YOU DO?

Yes. As a matter of fact, I DO. The Insurrection Act of 1807 Gives the president authority to deploy the national guard or even active duty military to put down acts of rebellion. The governor need not agree but national guard troops must be generalized and removed from state control before the president can order them to deploy.

Isn't Booker a lawyer? How the hell did he pass the bar?

You failed to address the entire act... without governor's consent it requires the POTUS to prove one of 2 other qualifications to exist, which do not in this circumstance.

" > to address an insurrection, in any state, which makes it impracticable to enforce the law (§ 252), or
> to address an insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination or conspiracy, in any state, which results in the deprivation of Constitutionally-secured rights, and where the state is unable, fails, or refuses to protect said rights (§ 253)."

The first one applies as well as the second when Mayors and Governors refuse to use the police to stop rioting.

They did not refuse to use police to stop rioting. Please feel free to share where rioting is still going on unabated to the point Trump can meet the standards needed. I'll wait.

Yes they did they ALLOWED rioters to destroy over 170 businesses in one city in Raleigh the Police chief ANNOUNCED she would not protect buisnesses so that is NOT enforcing the law numbnuts.

You seem to have a problem understanding how to manage a crisis situation like that. You don't put LIVES at risk for material items. I'm not just talking about the lives of looters, who you will build a strawman on, but the lives of police who could be surrounded and ganged up on by looters, or innocent citizens who happen to just live in the neighborhoods where there is looting. You don't bring in active duty military to protect an empty store... good grief. You were a REAL Gunny? Cause I know very few Gunny Sergeants that are so quick to turn ACTIVE duty military against U.S. citizens. sad o see you are so partisan you are more than willing to piss on the Constitution so fast.

Yes you do business owners pay TAXES for protection retard. If the cops won't protect them then the Army will, pretty damn simple failure of law enforcement to curtail riots looting and arson are EXACTLY what the act is written for.

Retard? The only person with a learning disability is the one that thinks active duty military should be called in for what happened. I'm beyond happy you are a former military man, because you don't respect the Constitution, and are a fascist to want to use active duty military against U.S. citizens so easily... glad at least to see Mattis, Kelly, and others have gotten to Esper and he isn't letting Trump walk all over him on this.

Unlikely to see posse Comitatus act used without approval of the Governor of a state. Most states have national guard units, many are combat units, so if the Govern wants force he has force. To invoke the act without the Governor's approval or request would pretty well obliterate states rights, basically forever. DC is a special case, my understanding is the Guard falls under control of the President, as mayors have no authority over the Guard and DC has no governor. Bringing troops home from Europe to take over the cities is a wet dream of the trump supporters.

Well the irony is, Trump ran on a platform of pushing for stronger state's rights, as it was his way of trying to get Roe v. Wade overturned by his DoJ and have the decision of abortion legislation returned to the states.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So Eisenhower and Kennedy were despots? They violated the Constitution?

 

[basquebromance]

So Eisenhower and Kennedy were despots? They violated the Constitution?

yes