Page 3 of 3
Re: “Former government lawyers say we need to limit the president's ability to deploy U.S. troops at home”
Posted: Wed Apr 10, 2024 3:35 pm
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?
Re: “Former government lawyers say we need to limit the president's ability to deploy U.S. troops at home”
Posted: Wed Apr 10, 2024 5:04 pm
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.
Re: “Former government lawyers say we need to limit the president's ability to deploy U.S. troops at home”
Posted: Wed Apr 10, 2024 6:12 pm
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?
Re: “Former government lawyers say we need to limit the president's ability to deploy U.S. troops at home”
Posted: Wed Apr 10, 2024 6:29 pm
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.
Re: “Former government lawyers say we need to limit the president's ability to deploy U.S. troops at home”
Posted: Wed Apr 10, 2024 10:56 pm
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.
Re: “Former government lawyers say we need to limit the president's ability to deploy U.S. troops at home”
Posted: Fri Apr 26, 2024 3:44 pm
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!