General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumscan trump legally use soldiers and military installations for domestic purposes?
This misuse of the military is just the beginning of a police state: roadblock check points, incarceration of civilians, arrest of protesters.
Immigrants are not a "national security" issue.
AlexSFCA
(6,139 posts)my understanding not even SC can interfere in military affairs
atreides1
(16,093 posts)But he does not have unlimited power, regarding the US military! In 1878, Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids military involvement in domestic law enforcement without congressional approval.
The National Security Act of 1947, and the 1949 amendments to the same act, created the Department of Defense and the services (Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force) became subject to the "authority, direction and control" of the Secretary of Defense; the civilian cabinet-level official serving as the head of the Department of Defense and who is appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.
Fullduplexxx
(7,870 posts)struggle4progress
(118,356 posts)shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority ...
SCOTUS may often show some deference to military courts, but in the end SCOTUS is over them
Supreme Court hears rare appeal challenging military judges
By Ariane de Vogue, CNN Supreme Court Reporter
Updated 3:46 PM ET, Tue January 16, 2018
Washington (CNN)The Supreme Court delved into unusual terrain on Tuesday when it heard arguments brought by military service members -- the first time the justices have heard such a case in 21 years. At issue in the case -- Dalmazzi v. United States -- is an 1870 statute that prohibits active-duty service members from holding a second elected or appointed government office unless Congress expressly authorizes it. It's this law, for example, that prevents active-duty military officers from holding most Cabinet positions, or from being elected to state or local office. In this case, the issue arises from the appointment of four military judges to also serve as judges on the Court of Military Commission Review, the special appeals court Congress created in 2006 to oversee the Guantánamo military commissions. Eight service members were convicted by court-martial, and had their appeal heard by one of these four miliary judges while they were serving in both capacities. And under the 1870 statute, the service members argue, the appointment of these judges to this second office should have required them to forfeit their military status -- thereby disqualifying them from hearing their appeals ...
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)Trek4Truth
(515 posts)Zoonart
(11,879 posts)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[5]
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. § 375. 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.
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,369 posts)... after the governor tried to use National Guard to enforce segregation.