US Constitution

[Ishmael]

Article I, Section 10, 3rd paragraph.

One way to stop the invasion at the border.

Ishmael

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sean Renaud]

For those of us who haven't committed the Constitution to memory.

Article I, Section 10, 3rd paragraph


No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

This would do absolutely shit all in the current scenario.

I'm mildly curious to see if we actually still obey that part of the Constitution. On it's face it looks like the sort of thing that we'd probably ignore.

 

[RobDownSouth]

https://scontent-a-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/t1.0-9/10351590_10204169893148743_5051487921104215353_n.jpg


The choice was spelled out concisely at the Vettemanor today....

 

[Ishmael]

I mentioned it a while back, but no takers. It does enable the Texas Governor to defend his borders in my view, but I'm sure the ACLU would keep it in the courts for years.

After the fact. It would be an interesting discussion.

Ishmael

 

[Colonel Hogan]

As much as I favor a southern border that is truly secure, I don't think there is any credible argument that the "invasion" and "imminent danger" envisioned by Article I is even remotely similar to that characterized by illegal immigration.

 

[Ishmael]

As much as I favor a southern border that is truly secure, I don't think there is any credible argument that the "invasion" and "imminent danger" envisioned by Article I is even remotely similar to that characterized by illegal immigration.

At what point does waves of illegals begin to constitute an 'invasion?' While I tend to agree with you in general, it is a matter of degrees. And then there is the problem with the drug cartels as well.

It's obvious that at this point in time that the federal government is doing nothing to protect the borders or the citizens of the various states. A governor could make the argument that this does constitute an 'invasion.' What the long term consequences of that might be is anyone's guess.

Ishmael

 

[Sean Renaud]

At what point does waves of illegals begin to constitute an 'invasion?' While I tend to agree with you in general, it is a matter of degrees. And then there is the problem with the drug cartels as well.

It's obvious that at this point in time that the federal government is doing nothing to protect the borders or the citizens of the various states. A governor could make the argument that this does constitute an 'invasion.' What the long term consequences of that might be is anyone's guess.

Ishmael

It never constitutes an 'invasion'.

 

[eyer]

An Internet "Colonel"'s opinion on a porn Board...

As much as I favor a southern border that is truly secure, I don't think there is any credible argument that the "invasion" and "imminent danger" envisioned by Article I is even remotely similar to that characterized by illegal immigration.

...compared to Marine General John Kelly's testimony to Congress (the General is Commander of US Southern Command):

"Supporters and sympathizers of Lebanese Hezbollah are involved in both licit and illicit activities in the region," Kelly testified. "Members, supporters and adherents of Islamic extremist groups are present in Latin America. Islamic extremists visit the region to proselytize, recruit, establish business venues to generate funds, and expand their radical networks."

Then there are violent transnational gangs like Mara Salvatrucha, or MS-13, which specializes in extortion and human trafficking and has criminal franchises throughout the U.S. "The FBI has warned that MS-13 has a significant presence in California, North Carolina, New York and northern Virginia, and is expanding into new areas of the United States, including Indian reservations in South Dakota," Kelly has told the Congress.

Roger Noriega, an American Enterprise Institute fellow and former assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs during the George W. Bush administration, underscored Kelly's warning about MS-13.:

There's going to be a time when MS-13 fires an RPG into an Alexandria (Va.) police car, and (Americans) are going to say, "What the hell happened?"

Personally, I think Noriega is vastly optimistic...

...I reckon a large portion of Americans will simply say, So?

 

[CandiCame]

That's a long-ass stretch. It took me a good while to find any kind of connection whatsoever. Basically what you're saying is that you're so scared of Mexican Drug cartels it's worth declaring war on Mexico?

 

[Sean Renaud]

I highly doubt there will come a day when a gangster fires an RPG at a cop.

 

[Disgustipated]

At what point does waves of illegals begin to constitute an 'invasion?' While I tend to agree with you in general, it is a matter of degrees. And then there is the problem with the drug cartels as well.

It's obvious that at this point in time that the federal government is doing nothing to protect the borders or the citizens of the various states. A governor could make the argument that this does constitute an 'invasion.' What the long term consequences of that might be is anyone's guess.

Ishmael

Then get him impeached, you whiney little cunt.

 

[colddiesel]

As much as I favor a southern border that is truly secure, I don't think there is any credible argument that the "invasion" and "imminent danger" envisioned by Article I is even remotely similar to that characterized by illegal immigration.

Gamesetunmatch - 'played Col H!'

 

[Colonel Hogan]

At what point does waves of illegals begin to constitute an 'invasion?' While I tend to agree with you in general, it is a matter of degrees. And then there is the problem with the drug cartels as well.

It's obvious that at this point in time that the federal government is doing nothing to protect the borders or the citizens of the various states. A governor could make the argument that this does constitute an 'invasion.' What the long term consequences of that might be is anyone's guess.

Ishmael

It's not just a matter of "degrees;" it is also a matter of intent, and the vast majority of illegals do not enter this country with the intent of causing, even inadvertently, "imminent danger." That is not a reason for ignoring or to diminish the illegality of their entry whether they presented a danger or not, and certainly those who DO enter this country with the intent of engaging in criminal enterprise, such as MS-13, substantially increase that which is at stake by leaving the border unsecured.

I would not even disparage a state governor who would find sufficient reason to activate the National Guard in his or her state to affect border security. But the legitimate authority for a "State Active Duty" must lie within the state constitution and statutes, not the federal Constitution, and certainly not a part of the Constitution that was obviously designed to repel a military attack.

If a governor is serious enough to take such drastic action, it is equally as important to do so under the proper legal authority. Article I, Section 10 isn't it.

 

[dan_c00000]

At what point does waves of illegals begin to constitute an 'invasion?'

Here's your "invading" army.

http://theblacksphere.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Illegal-children.jpg

 

[Dream59]

As much as I favor a southern border that is truly secure, I don't think there is any credible argument that the "invasion" and "imminent danger" envisioned by Article I is even remotely similar to that characterized by illegal immigration.

I agree with this completely. Our southern border is not as well secured as the boarder with Canada.


For the legal scholars here I have a question. Even though the Governors of the states have control of the National Guard units except during a federal call up, would it violate the Posse Comitatus Act if the National Guard took and active role in securing the boarders of a state?

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I agree with this completely. Our southern border is not as well secured as the boarder with Canada.


For the legal scholars here I have a question. Even though the Governors of the states have control of the National Guard units except during a federal call up, would it violate the Posse Comitatus Act if the National Guard took and active role in securing the boarders of a state?

According to Wiki:

"The Governor can activate National Guard personnel to "State Active Duty" in response to natural or man-made disasters or Homeland Defense missions. State Active Duty is based on State statute and policy as well as State funds. Soldiers and Airmen remain under the command and control of the Governor. The federal Posse Comitatus Act (PCA) does not apply under state active duty status or Title 32 status."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_the_United_States#State_Duty

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

That's a long-ass stretch. It took me a good while to find any kind of connection whatsoever. Basically what you're saying is that you're so scared of Mexican Drug cartels it's worth declaring war on Mexico?

Poncho Villa...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The German vanguard did not see themselves as invaders...

 

[RobDownSouth]

I agree with this completely. Our southern border is not as well secured as the boarder with Canada.

Agreed, there are a shit-ton more swarthy brown people coming across the southern border, as opposed to the relative trickle of swarthy brown people crossing from the northern border. Good point there, Harry.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

So mine the border from the Gulf to the Pacific.

 

[DooleyDarter]

https://scontent-a-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/t1.0-9/10351590_10204169893148743_5051487921104215353_n.jpg


The choice was spelled out concisely at the Vettemanor today....

which one of them trailers is yours?

 

[Lancecastor]

Article I, Section 10, 3rd paragraph.

One way to stop the invasion at the border.

Ishmael

Refugees from Central America don't constitute an invasion, but nice try.

 

[Ishmael]

Refugees from Central America don't constitute an invasion, but nice try.

Nice try at following the "refugee" party line.

Ishmael

 

[Ishmael]

It's not just a matter of "degrees;" it is also a matter of intent, and the vast majority of illegals do not enter this country with the intent of causing, even inadvertently, "imminent danger." That is not a reason for ignoring or to diminish the illegality of their entry whether they presented a danger or not, and certainly those who DO enter this country with the intent of engaging in criminal enterprise, such as MS-13, substantially increase that which is at stake by leaving the border unsecured.

I would not even disparage a state governor who would find sufficient reason to activate the National Guard in his or her state to affect border security. But the legitimate authority for a "State Active Duty" must lie within the state constitution and statutes, not the federal Constitution, and certainly not a part of the Constitution that was obviously designed to repel a military attack.

If a governor is serious enough to take such drastic action, it is equally as important to do so under the proper legal authority. Article I, Section 10 isn't it.

On the 'intent' subject. I'm certain that as individuals, with the exceptions of the criminal enterprises mentioned, they have no 'intent' of spreading disease, occupying territory, or consuming resources, but that, in fact, is exactly what they ARE doing and in that respect the results are no different than any invading army.

Ishmael