Keeping ICE away from polling places a top priority for Democrats

[Marener]

Cite his ruling. The quote and link earlier was just his opinion thrown out there before doing nothing.

Why don’t you read the opinion and then get back to me.

 

[Delldude]

In the context of the federal law (18 U.S. Code § 592) mentioned earlier, the phrase "person in the civil, military, or naval service" refers to the two main branches of federal employment:

1. Civil Service (The "Civil" Part)​

This refers to the civilian workforce of the federal government. These are employees who work for federal agencies but are not active-duty military members.

• Examples: Agents from the FBI, DHS, ICE, or any other federal administrative department.
• The Rule: The law says these civilian federal officials cannot use their authority to bring "armed men" or troops to a polling place.

2. Military and Naval Service​

This refers to the Armed Forces (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Space Force, and Coast Guard).

• The Rule: Officers in these branches are strictly prohibited from stationing troops at polling stations.

Why the distinction matters​

The law is written this way to cover everyone who works for the federal government, whether they wear a military uniform or a suit. It ensures that:

• The President (as Commander-in-Chief) cannot send the military.
• Federal Department Heads (like the Secretary of Homeland Security) cannot send armed federal agents.

Is "Civil Military" a single group?​

Usually, when people say "Civil-Military," they are talking about Civil-Military Relations—the principle that the military must always stay under the control of elected civilian leaders (like the President and Congress) rather than running the country themselves.


In the specific law you asked about, "civil" and "military" are listed separately to make sure no federal employee, regardless of their department, interferes with an election.


Local police are not part of the "federal civil service," which is why they are governed by state laws instead of these specific federal restrictions.


Cornell University | Search Pages

1. LII
2. U.S. Code
3. Title 18
4. PART I
5. CHAPTER 29
6. § 592

Quick search by citation:
Title
Section

18 U.S. Code § 592 - Troops at polls​

• U.S. Code
• Notes

prev | next
Whoever, being an officer of the Army or Navy, or other person in the civil, military, or naval service of the United States, orders, brings, keeps, or has under his authority or control any troops or armed men at any place where a general or special election is held, unless such force be necessary to repel armed enemies of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both; and be disqualified from holding any office of honor, profit, or trust under the United States.

This section shall not prevent any officer or member of the armed forces of the United States from exercising the right of suffrage in any election district to which he may belong, if otherwise qualified according to the laws of the State in which he offers to vote.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 719; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(K), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

Not to ruin your day, has this actually happened?

Sounds like your sky is falling.

 

[Marener]

Your link is about arrest procedures without addressing any specific cases of agents saying unbelievable things as your post I responded to inferred.

"Let's be honest here"

The link was a case where the judge found ICE was engaging in unconstitutional arrests of minorities.

Part of that case included examples of the judge disregarding written statements from ICE agents as lacking credibility.

For instance, after they had unconstitutionally arrested a citizen because of his race, his boss stood in front of their vehicle while he tried to show ICE agents the citizens documents. The ICE agent claimed he never saw him. He never saw the guy standing in front of his vehicle waving the documents around.

There are other examples in the link but you never read it so you wouldn’t know.

 

[Delldude]

Why don’t you read the opinion and then get back to me.

It doesn't address or cite instances of agents making 'unbelievable' claims in court.

 

[Delldude]

There are other examples in the link but you never read it so you wouldn’t know

Still can't cite specific cases like I originally asked.

Got it.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Still can't cite specific cases like I originally asked.

Got it.

Besides the case?

 

[Nostra]

Why don’t you read the opinion and then get back to me.

I accept your concession, Moroner.

 

[Marener]

Still can't cite specific cases like I originally asked.

Got it.

I already did. It’s not my fault you didn’t read it.

 

[Stann]

Cite his ruling. The quote and link earlier was just his opinion thrown out there before doing nothing.

Legal opinions are more than just opinions , they are the standard that make rulings.

 

[Nostra]

Legal opinions are more than just opinions , they are the standard that make rulings.

Ok, in his opinion they didn't show enough evidence to prove a crime, so he threw his personal opinion out there.

 

[Delldude]

Besides the case?

Evidence provided in court showed otherwise. ICE agents and DHS lawyers have made a habit of telling unbelievable stories in court and have a serious credibility problem.

More than one case.

 

[Marener]

Ok, in his opinion they didn't show enough evidence to prove a crime, so he threw his personal opinion out there.

Ha! You’re so confused.

Prove a crime? You think this is a criminal prosecution?

Jesus, man. You are embarrassing.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

They wont be intimidating me, but I'm an extremely typical white guy.

and you don't worry about having your white privilege revoked?

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Ask a Hispanic person in Minnesota.

what will they say?

 

[Delldude]

what will they say?

Most likely say it in Somali.

 

[Marener]

Evidence provided in court showed otherwise. ICE agents and DHS lawyers have made a habit of telling unbelievable stories in court and have a serious credibility problem.

More than one case.

You denied the first case has any example of it, so what good would it do to present another case?

 

[dblack]

Most likely say it in Somali.

Hispanic and Somali are different. But they're both a brownish color, so maybe it's all the same to you.

 

[Delldude]

You denied the first case has any example of it, so what good would it do to present another case?

LOL..... Never addressed it because it has no bearing on your original statement and my original querie.

Classic Marener.

Obviously you can't.

 

[Delldude]

Hispanic and Somali are different. But they're both a brownish color, so maybe it's all the same to you.

You saying they all look the same?

How racist.

 

[Marener]

LOL..... Never addressed it because it has no bearing on your original statement and my original querie.

Classic Marener.

Obviously you can't.

It does. I could dumb it down for you more, but I shouldn’t have to. I’ve done everything that one could expect in an adult conversation.

But since that’s not what you’re engaged in, this doesn’t work.