• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does a state governor have the Constitutional right to monitor Federal troops?

Does a state governor have the Constitutional right to monitor Federal troops?


  • Total voters
    20
OMG...really? What egregious affront to Obama have I generated?

Yes really. YOU invented this

Just because you feel that it's some egregious affront to Obama doesn't mean it actually is.

I didn't say it was an egregious affront to Obama, you invented that idea that I felt that way.

You keep complaining about how this is such a blow against the President, who is? Obama. So that's you.

WRONG! I did not say it was a PERSONAL affront, rather I said the act was in defiance of the authority of the President of the United States. There is a difference. To give an example, to say that Obama's daughters are ugly because they are black females is a personal insult to Obama and his family. That is personal. To say that the Governor of Texas is acting IN DEFIANCE OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES is not personal, but is in defiance of the authority of the office of the President of the United States.
 
Yes really. YOU invented this

I invented what?

I didn't say it was an egregious affront to Obama, you invented that idea that I felt that way.

He is the current President, is he not? You invented this egregious affront to the President in all the hysterics of your argument. So this is an egregious affront to Obama, he being the current President, yes? Jesus.

WRONG! I did not say it was a PERSONAL affront, rather I said the act was in defiance of the authority of the President of the United States. There is a difference. To give an example, to say that Obama's daughters are ugly because they are black females is a personal insult to Obama and his family. That is personal. To say that the Governor of Texas is acting IN DEFIANCE OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES is not personal, but is in defiance of the authority of the office of the President of the United States.

Nothing here is in "defiance of the authority of the President", this is just hysterics on your part. Monitoring is not obstructing.
 
Gov. Abbott is addressing the concerns of his fellow Texans. Of course he's doing the right thing here.

More like he is appeasing the irrational concerns of a bunch of certifiable nuts.
 
of course the governor has the power to order his state troops to monitor federal troops....what a silly question.:roll:
 
I said what you invented. I am not going to repeat it.

:roll:

OK, if that's the argument you're reduced to. So be it. You're tilting at windmills here. The State is not interfering with Fed activities, they are merely monitoring it and nothing more. It is not a challenge, it is not an affront, it is not defiance towards the President's rightful powers.
 
Ordering the state militia to monitor federal troops in response to concerns from citizens that martial law could be imposed by the President, can be interpreted as sending the message to citizens that such an order from a President, who is acting within his constitutional authority, will be obstructed. The use of the militia in that way can be seen as defiance of the authority of the President and thus the constitution. As such, it can be viewed as obstructive in nature.

Fine we'll go with your definition.

If there's tbe slightest hint of ML, the **** will hit the fan . Bring it Obama...we dare you!

Does that answer you questions?
 
Fine we'll go with your definition.

If there's tbe slightest hint of ML, the **** will hit the fan . Bring it Obama...we dare you!

Does that answer you questions?

Sure does. And that's just the type of thing that I am talking about. As a result, like I said, what the Texas governor did could be interpreted as sending such a message to the citizens of Texas. Therefore it could be seen as a violation of the constitution.
 
Sure does. And that's just the type of thing that I am talking about. As a result, like I said, what the Texas governor did could be interpreted as sending such a message to the citizens of Texas. Therefore it could be seen as a violation of the constitution.

When the Administration calls for martial law, will see how it goes. Chances are there will be one Hell of a war before we discuss the legalities.
 
Do you people even understand that legally it is irrelevant? Federal legal authority always usurps State legality. This is a non-issue. The State governor is doing it to appeal to mental simpletons that don't know the Law.
 
When the Administration calls for martial law, will see how it goes. Chances are there will be one Hell of a war before we discuss the legalities.

Knock yourself out dawg! I don't want to be any where near it, or have anything to do with it.
 
Does a state governor have the authority to order state agents onto federal lands that just to be located inside his state? It depends. If the feds bar access the state agents can't legally enter.

Can those state agents monitor what's going on from the vantage point of state lands? Unquestionably yes.

Can those state agents follow federal agents around while they happen to be on state lands? Unquestionably yes.

Is the federal government going to impose martial law on Texas? I'd like to know what the people who think that are smoking cause it must be some powerful stuff.
 
Good luck with that....we're everywhere.

No you are not everywhere. Only the Supreme Lord of all things is omnipresent. Indeed everywhere are his eyes, his hands, his ears, his mouths, his legs, and his faces.
 
If called upon however, they are under the authority of yours truly, Barack Obama.

EDIT

nvm **** that. But they can all, as individuals, be drafted so they're practically albeit not legally still under the command of Obama.

And that's precisely when the first part of the second amendment has meaning.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Thinks about it. ;)
 
"Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States."

When called into actual service of the United States. Yes, the President can assume control of State militia by calling them into service, but he does not get carte blanch control of State militias. Ultimately a militia is controlled by the State it serves and then President when called up.



They're just making sure the Feds stay within proper bounds.



We'll see what they lawyers say on that one. But as the State has control of its own militia, it seems to me that the governor has more than enough power to order them to monitor federal agents operating within his State.

Where does it say the President can call them into service?
 
Do you people even understand that legally it is irrelevant? Federal legal authority always usurps State legality. This is a non-issue. The State governor is doing it to appeal to mental simpletons that don't know the Law.

You are apparently an expert on the law. Maybe you'd be so kind was to cite the law, and then explain it.
 
An interesting question of constitutional law. Does the governor of Texas have the right to order a volunteer state militia to monitor Federal troops to ensure there is no hostile intent?
*I* have a right to monitor troops (to a point), so of course the Governor does, too. Having said that, sounds like grandstanding on his part to me.
 
Do you people even understand that legally it is irrelevant? Federal legal authority always usurps State legality. This is a non-issue. The State governor is doing it to appeal to mental simpletons that don't know the Law.
Not according to the 10th Amendment.

Then again, we don't actually follow the 10th Amendment anymore, so there ya go.
 
No you are not everywhere. Only the Supreme Lord of all things is omnipresent. Indeed everywhere are his eyes, his hands, his ears, his mouths, his legs, and his faces.

You know what I meant.
 
An interesting question of constitutional law. Does the governor of Texas have the right to order a volunteer state militia to monitor Federal troops to ensure there is no hostile intent?

I think this needs to be broken down into:

A. Can he?
B. Is it even remotely warranted in this case?

For me, the answers are:
A. Yes
B. No
 
I think this needs to be broken down into:

A. Can he?
B. Is it even remotely warranted in this case?

For me, the answers are:
A. Yes
B. No

I suppose what it boils down to is the motivation. In this case he is doing it to send the wrong message to people who don't like the fact the the President has the right to declare martial law. As such, he is violating the Constitution.
 
Back
Top Bottom