As long as it passes muster with a civilian review board, sure. It's one of the few good ideas coming out of Cambridge, Mass.Originally Posted by ConHog
#EleSim
As long as it passes muster with a civilian review board, sure. It's one of the few good ideas coming out of Cambridge, Mass.
Your head exploded
I am 100% okay with civilian review boards. I would prefer that each member be required to attend a ride a long on a regular basis.
Super Minion
You would give equal weight to city cops, rural cops, state cops, federal cops: DEA, FBI, ATF, etc.,? How interesting. Each can go for 'resisting, "thus killed."
"The government is a child that has found their parents credit card, and spends knowing that they never have to reconcile the bill with their own money"-Shannon Churchill
Banned
One good example is the use of Federal troops by President Eisenhower to force a Governor to open a school. Said school was at all times under the control of the state and not the invader of Normandy.
You must realize a lot of shit happens that is not constitutional and finally somebody has enough money to take it all the way. When it reaches the Supreme Court, since they can't initiate such things but can rule on such things, finally the issue is settled.
CA infringes on our rights. One might think the ACLU would have got this overturned by the Supreme court. Damned few citizens can gather suffient funds to fight the Democrats who are so fond of passing laws that simply are illegal.
Educate man, Liberate man
Our 2nd Amendment at work....
I love to make Liberals Cry, and Whine.
So, this is for them.
GOD BLESS AMERICA - IN GOD WE TRUST !
Your head exploded
yes how dare Ike send in federal troops to order a school to integrate in accordance with the COTUS.
by the way, at the time, using the Army for such a purpose was not illegal, it now is.
oh no, you mean you're expected to follow the COTUS to solve your disputes with the government?
You must realize a lot of shit happens that is not constitutional and finally somebody has enough money to take it all the way. When it reaches the Supreme Court, since they can't initiate such things but can rule on such things, finally the issue is settled.
CA infringes on our rights. One might think the ACLU would have got this overturned by the Supreme court. Damned few citizens can gather suffient funds to fight the Democrats who are so fond of passing laws that simply are illegal.
Super Minion
I'm sure that Robert has some citations to call the Little Rock incident unconstitutional, but I can't find a way to argue against the results.
I'll assume that Ike went about it regarding Brown v Bd of Edl, but it was the right thing to do.
"The government is a child that has found their parents credit card, and spends knowing that they never have to reconcile the bill with their own money"-Shannon Churchill
Banned
11 Branch Davidians acquitted Feb 26, 1994
11 Branch Davidians were put on trial by the Feds. All were acquitted.
I once read the search warrant and it talked not of children, but of guns.
Ruby is an example of the Feds infringing on the second amendment. I know that the survivor husband was handsomely paid by the Feds when it was ruled they were wrong.Originally Posted by ConHog
Don't hold me to this, I'm just going off memory and don't have the time right now to double check but I believe that in the case of Waco it initially started as a report of possible abuse of children and went from there. I believe Ruby Ridge was a case of federal weapons violations.
Right on both.
The length of the shotgun barrel is an infringement on rights.
Your head exploded
yes robert , that's because the welfare agents who visited the compound determined that there were no kids being endangered , but they DID report the guns they saw to the ATF. An ATF went to the gate and was turned away, so then based on the eyewitness accounts of the welfare agents they obtained a duly sworn WARRANT to search the place for illegal weapons.
Certainly federal agencies didn't REACT correctly in the Ruby Ridge situation, but that situation was precipitated when Weaver sold illegal firearms to undercover ATF agents.
Ruby is an example of the Feds infringing on the second amendment. I know that the survivor husband was handsomely paid by the Feds when it was ruled they were wrong.
The length of the shotgun barrel is an infringement on rights.
Now you're certainly argue whether the law is constitutional or not, but there is a legal procedure for challenging such laws.
Fighting it out with the ATF is not part of that procedure.
Super Minion
So the government opened fire on the site, why? How many died? That's a good use of federal police powers, in your opinion? Because they balked at arrest?
"The government is a child that has found their parents credit card, and spends knowing that they never have to reconcile the bill with their own money"-Shannon Churchill
Banned
Originally Posted by Robert A Whit
One good example is the use of Federal troops by President Eisenhower to force a Governor to open a school. Said school was at all times under the control of the state and not the invader of Normandy.
Conhog hits back by being a smart ***.
yes how dare Ike send in federal troops to order a school to integrate in accordance with the COTUS.
by the way, at the time, using the Army for such a purpose was not illegal, it now is.
Have you such a short attention span that you forgot your own question? I am checking to see if I am correct, but I believe that Posse Comatitus started in the late 1800s rather than in the 1950s. If wrong, I will get back to the forum.
Robert continued
You must realize a lot of shit happens that is not constitutional and finally somebody has enough money to take it all the way. When it reaches the Supreme Court, since they can't initiate such things but can rule on such things, finally the issue is settled.
Yes I do.Conhog keeps smarting off
oh no, you mean you're expected to follow the COTUS to solve your disputes with the government?
No comment by Conhog.Robert continued
CA infringes on our rights. One might think the ACLU would have got this overturned by the Supreme court. Damned few citizens can gather suffient funds to fight the Democrats who are so fond of passing laws that simply are illegal.
The Posse Comitatus Act is the United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) that was passed on June 18, 1878, after the end of Reconstruction and was updated in 1981. Its intent (in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807) was to limit the powers of Federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce the State laws. Contrary to popular belief, the Act does not prohibit members of the United States Armed Forces from exercising Law enforcement agency powers within a State, police, or peace officer powers that maintain "law and order"; it requires that any authority to do so must exist within the United States Constitution or Act of Congress (which it currently does not except under the Insurrection Act).{Federalist 29 (Hamilton, 1788)} Any use of the Armed Forces under either Title 10/Active Duty or Title 10/Reserves at the direction of the President will offend the Constitutional Law also known as Public Law prohibiting such action unless declared by the President of the United States and approved by Congress. Any infringement will be problematic for political and legal reasons.
The Bill/Act as modified in 1981 refers to the Armed Forces of the United States. It does not apply to the National Guard under state authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within its home state or in an adjacent state if invited by that state's governor. The U.S. Coast Guard, which operates under the Department of Homeland Security, is also not covered by the Posse Comitatus Act, primarily because the Coast Guard has both a maritime law enforcement mission and a federal regulatory agency mission.
One problem. Koresh was a duly licensed fire arms dealer. The Warrant was nothing more than a fishing expedition. As to the claims about the kids, so what? You admit they found nothing and you claim they reported guns. The church was very large. They must have not noticed he was a weapons dealer.
I believe he did not rush out to fight, but was attacked.
Your head exploded
Have you such a short attention span that you forgot your own question? I am checking to see if I am correct, but I believe that Posse Comatitus started in the late 1800s rather than in the 1950s. If wrong, I will get back to the forum.
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
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act
I suggest you read
Cooper v Aaron
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooper_v._Aaron
The Supreme Court ruled that states were absolutely bound by Supreme Court rulings , and that Arkansas violated that when they refused to enforce the ruling in Brown v Board of Education.
They further ruled that Arkansas violated the Equal Protection Clause of the COTUS and therefor Eisenhower was well within his powers under the Posse Comitataus act to send in federal troops as a policing unit to enforce the COTUSIn 1981 the Act was amended so that under NO conditions could the US military act as a police agency in the US (excepting the National Guard when under state control and the Coast Guard)
Yes I do.
No comment by Conhog.
is that so?
[SIZE=1.5][SIZE=1.5][SIZE=1.5]The widespread rumor that David Koresh, Paul Fatta or other Davidians had a gun dealers license is not accurate. [/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]
http://murderpedia.org/male.K/k/koresh-tdm-02.htm
The Warrant was nothing more than a fishing expedition. As to the claims about the kids, so what? You admit they found nothing and you claim they reported guns. The church was very large. They must have not noticed he was a weapons dealer.
I believe he did not rush out to fight, but was attacked. [/QUOTE]
what you believe is irrelevant in the face of facts.
where did Robert go?
LOL
Robert, don't argue history with me.
Ignored by the alt-right
I don't think anyone was suggesting that resisters be targeted and 'killed.' It just happens to be the outcome when those being arrested push back, suicide by cop if you will. I recall we had a whole thread about the legality of resisting arrest and that there are several laws that deem it illegal.
"when socialism fails, blame capitalism and demand more socialism." - A friend
"You know the difference between libs and right-wingers? Libs STFU when evidence refutes their false beliefs." - Another friend
“Don't waste your time with explanations: people only hear what they want to hear.” - Paulo Coelho
Gunny's nightmare
In WW2 we had 1000# of munitions per soldier vs. every one pound that the Japanese soldiers did. That's how we beat them. That's how we'd beat the Chinese if they ever marched over here.
ObamaCare is illegal and I don't see any high level defectors on that. We've turned into 'what the President says is legal is legal' and there is no turning back on that. Gun grabbing will be the same way.
Not so junior as all that
Interesting point, a system sliding into whatever the monarch or dictator says is law IS law. Because "le roi le veult," the king wills it. Henry VIII tried it on explicitly, and got away with it, but he had a strong personality.
Louis XVI, who did not have much of a personality at all and very likely had Aspergers, also tried it.
Boy, did that not work. They guillotined him and his wife and abused the heir to death.
So it's an iffy political strategy.
Then the French allowed Napoleon to take over and did whatever he told them to, including losing a lot of wars. So it just depends on the personality of the ruler, really.
I'd say Obama doesn't have the sort of alpha male personality to carry it off.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote