“Former government lawyers say we need to limit the president's ability to deploy U.S. troops at home”

Events occurring and how they relate/affect Anabaptist faith and culture.
User avatar
Josh
Posts: 24223
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm
Location: 1000' ASL
Affiliation: The church of God

Re: “Former government lawyers say we need to limit the president's ability to deploy U.S. troops at home”

Post by Josh »

Ken wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2024 12:47 pm
Josh wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2024 11:33 am
Judas Maccabeus wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2024 5:42 am

Their justification is part of the “elastic clause “, necessary and proper. In the judgment of generations of courts, they have been found constitutionally appropriate.
It seems like a “clause” one can drive a truck through, where every single thing ends up subject to federal jurisdiction, which is very much the opposite of what we know the intent of the framers was.
The framers also intended that the Federal government have law enforcement powers and the Federal government has been engaged in law enforcement (keeping the peace and general welfare) going all the way back to George Washington.
actually, the framers intended that America wouldn’t have a standing army nor a federal police apparatus. Could you inform us all why the FBI, ATF, and DEA were created?
0 x
Ken
Posts: 16277
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 12:02 am
Location: Washington State
Affiliation: former MCUSA

Re: “Former government lawyers say we need to limit the president's ability to deploy U.S. troops at home”

Post by Ken »

Josh wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2024 3:35 pm
Ken wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2024 12:47 pm
Josh wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2024 11:33 am

It seems like a “clause” one can drive a truck through, where every single thing ends up subject to federal jurisdiction, which is very much the opposite of what we know the intent of the framers was.
The framers also intended that the Federal government have law enforcement powers and the Federal government has been engaged in law enforcement (keeping the peace and general welfare) going all the way back to George Washington.
actually, the framers intended that America wouldn’t have a standing army nor a federal police apparatus. Could you inform us all why the FBI, ATF, and DEA were created?
They are all branches of the Justice Department which was created by act of congress in 1870 as part of reconstruction.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
User avatar
Josh
Posts: 24223
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm
Location: 1000' ASL
Affiliation: The church of God

Re: “Former government lawyers say we need to limit the president's ability to deploy U.S. troops at home”

Post by Josh »

Ken wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2024 5:04 pm
Josh wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2024 3:35 pm
Ken wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2024 12:47 pm

The framers also intended that the Federal government have law enforcement powers and the Federal government has been engaged in law enforcement (keeping the peace and general welfare) going all the way back to George Washington.
actually, the framers intended that America wouldn’t have a standing army nor a federal police apparatus. Could you inform us all why the FBI, ATF, and DEA were created?
They are all branches of the Justice Department which was created by act of congress in 1870 as part of reconstruction.
Are you asserting the FBI, ATF, and DEA existed in 1870?
0 x
Ken
Posts: 16277
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 12:02 am
Location: Washington State
Affiliation: former MCUSA

Re: “Former government lawyers say we need to limit the president's ability to deploy U.S. troops at home”

Post by Ken »

Josh wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2024 6:12 pm
Ken wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2024 5:04 pm
Josh wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2024 3:35 pm

actually, the framers intended that America wouldn’t have a standing army nor a federal police apparatus. Could you inform us all why the FBI, ATF, and DEA were created?
They are all branches of the Justice Department which was created by act of congress in 1870 as part of reconstruction.
Are you asserting the FBI, ATF, and DEA existed in 1870?
I'm saying they are not rogue independent agencies that came from nowhere. They are part of a cabinet department that was created by Congress about 150 years ago. As such they answer to the Attorney General who answers to the President. Both their budgets and the scope of their duties and powers are controlled by Congress. And they would all cease to exist should Congress ever decide to stop appropriating money for their operations.

This is all very standard executive branch stuff. Each and every Cabinet Department is organized into various bureaus, agencies, offices, and services.
That is how executive branch bureaucracies are organized everywhere in the world. There is nothing unusual, rogue or unconstitutional about it.
2 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
Judas Maccabeus
Posts: 4043
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 11:13 am
Location: Maryland
Affiliation: Con. Menno.

Re: “Former government lawyers say we need to limit the president's ability to deploy U.S. troops at home”

Post by Judas Maccabeus »

Josh wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2024 11:33 am
Judas Maccabeus wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2024 5:42 am
Josh wrote: Tue Apr 09, 2024 9:19 am

Their scope has gone way beyond “regulating interstate commerce”.
Their justification is part of the “elastic clause “, necessary and proper. In the judgment of generations of courts, they have been found constitutionally appropriate.
It seems like a “clause” one can drive a truck through, where every single thing ends up subject to federal jurisdiction, which is very much the opposite of what we know the intent of the framers was.
There was considerable debate there. Jefferson’s ideas largely lost out.
0 x
:hug:
User avatar
Jazman
Posts: 519
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2016 7:30 am
Affiliation: Lanc Menno Conf

Re: “Former government lawyers say we need to limit the president's ability to deploy U.S. troops at home”

Post by Jazman »

I guess this isn't related to the OP question... but tangentially related? But why would anyone want to give a president more 'immunity from criminal charges!' when the guy their arguing for isn't in office anymore, but the other guy/president (who they detest and fear and believe is really bad!) is currently in office!
0 x
A history that looks back to a mythologized past as the country’s perfect time is a key tool of authoritarians. It allows them to characterize anyone who opposes them as an enemy of the country’s great destiny. - Heather Cox Richardson
Post Reply