Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 67

Thread: Bush-Era Debate: Using G.I.s in U.S.

  1. #51
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,520

    Re: Report: Bush mulled sending troops into Buffalo

    Quote Originally Posted by Scorpion89 View Post
    No the District doesn't fall under Posse

    From Section 8,

    To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;
    You're wrong. Any law, act, or whatever that protects American citizens applies to those American citizens that live in The District of Columbia.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  2. #52
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    01-05-10 @ 06:26 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,629

    Re: Report: Bush mulled sending troops into Buffalo

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    You're wrong. Any law, act, or whatever that protects American citizens applies to those American citizens that live in The District of Columbia.
    No it doesn't look dude you have no idea what your talking about trust me on this one. The District is controlled by Congress you know they make up the Cities Budget, I suggest you go back and read what I posted the next page back.

    Better yet here you go Sir care to retrack your statement or you going to say that US Constitution is wrong.

    The Posse Comitatus Act forbidding civilian police work by the U.S. military did not apply to Washington, D.C., because it is the federal district directly governed by the U.S. Congress (U.S. Constitution, Article I. Section 8. Clause 17).
    Last edited by Scorpion89; 07-25-09 at 11:13 PM.

  3. #53
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Report: Bush mulled sending troops into Buffalo

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    You're wrong. Any law, act, or whatever that protects American citizens applies to those American citizens that live in The District of Columbia.
    This is not necessarily true.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  4. #54
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

    Re: Bush-Era Debate: Using G.I.s in U.S.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    What are you "speechless" about? Perhaps you should look at Waco, 1993.
    You'll be accused of having Clinton on the brain.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  5. #55
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

    Re: Bush-Era Debate: Using G.I.s in U.S.

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Where'd that come from? There's not a single post on this thread condoning, proposing, suggesting, nor hinting that the United States military should be used to arrest American citizens.

    Obviously, the OP was another case of BDS, but only managed to put a feather in Bush's cap. They thought it up, they debated it, they decided against it. And, the problem is?
    PeteEU runs around, out of his league a lot, here. Pay him no mind.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  6. #56
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Between Hollywood and Compton.
    Last Seen
    11-25-09 @ 12:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    5,497

    Re: Bush-Era Debate: Using G.I.s in U.S.

    Odd. I searched for this subject and I didn't find it before; sorry for the duplicate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    Since when did you care about the US Constitution?
    Since when did you care about the US Constitution? After all, you are the one who defended unjust restrictions on Constitutional rights here (though it's not as though we didn't already realize that you're not a libertarian).

    At any rate, the Constitution as a document is irrelevant; the defenses against police state tactics that it could offer are far more relevant and would be if enshrined in any document or legal code.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    Criticizing him for considering it is kind of silly.
    It certainly would be. Good thing I didn't do that, right?

  7. #57
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,520

    Re: Report: Bush mulled sending troops into Buffalo

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    This is not necessarily true.
    Care to cite a case where American citizens, living in D.C. weren't protected under United States law?
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  8. #58
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    01-05-10 @ 06:26 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,629

    Re: Report: Bush mulled sending troops into Buffalo

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Care to cite a case where American citizens, living in D.C. weren't protected under United States law?
    (U.S. Constitution, Article I. Section 8. Clause 17)

  9. #59
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,520

    Re: Report: Bush mulled sending troops into Buffalo

    Quote Originally Posted by Scorpion89 View Post
    (U.S. Constitution, Article I. Section 8. Clause 17)
    Um, that's a no-go. Let's see some legal precedence supporting you and RNYC's point of view; not your interpretation of the Constitution. I know how big you are on supporting your comments, so I won't have to wait long. Thanks in advance.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  10. #60
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Bush-Era Debate: Using G.I.s in U.S.

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Care to cite a case where American citizens, living in D.C. weren't protected under United States law?
    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Um, that's a no-go. Let's see some legal precedence supporting you and RNYC's point of view; not your interpretation of the Constitution. I know how big you are on supporting your comments, so I won't have to wait long. Thanks in advance.
    "Precedent," not "precedence."

    It's really not debatable that the District of Columbia is a separate entity than the rest of the states. There is no state government, so all of its laws have to be specifically passed by Congress. That's why Heller, the most recent gun case, was decided separately from other state cases.

    If you want an example of where federal law included a carve-out for DC, look no further than the Bonus March, cited by Scorpion in this very thread.

    The Posse Comitatus Act forbidding civilian police work by the U.S. military did not apply to Washington, D.C., because it is the federal district directly governed by the U.S. Congress (U.S. Constitution, Article I. Section 8. Clause 17).
    [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army]Bonus Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •