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

[Ken]

We don't need standing armies. No foreign country will invade the US in 2024

And the Army wasn't involved at Waco, Ruby Ridge, or Malheur either. This is what an actual armored combat brigade looks like (the operational unit of the US Army). There is no conceivable domestic issue that requires this sort of firepower or troops whose training is in how to operate and use this equipment in combat against an opposing army, rather than police civilians.

Oh yes we should defund and end the FBI, ATF, DEA and all the unconstitutional alphabet agencies

What makes them unconstitutional?

[Thomas_muntzer]

And the Army wasn't involved at Waco, Ruby Ridge, or Malheur either. This is what an actual armored combat brigade looks like (the operational unit of the US Army). There is no conceivable domestic issue that requires this sort of firepower or troops whose training is in how to operate and use this equipment in combat against an opposing army, rather than police civilians.

Oh yes we should defund and end the FBI, ATF, DEA and all the unconstitutional alphabet agencies

What makes them unconstitutional?

The alphabet agencies are created by executive orders and they create rules that are enforced as law without pass by congress or the senate.

[Judas Maccabeus]

Oh yes we should defund and end the FBI, ATF, DEA and all the unconstitutional alphabet agencies

What makes them unconstitutional?

The alphabet agencies are created by executive orders and they create rules that are enforced as law without pass by congress or the senate.

No they were created by congress, in legislation signed by the president. They are annually funded by appropriations passed by congress.

Why do you think they were created by executive order?

[Josh]

And the Army wasn't involved at Waco, Ruby Ridge, or Malheur either. This is what an actual armored combat brigade looks like (the operational unit of the US Army). There is no conceivable domestic issue that requires this sort of firepower or troops whose training is in how to operate and use this equipment in combat against an opposing army, rather than police civilians.

Oh yes we should defund and end the FBI, ATF, DEA and all the unconstitutional alphabet agencies

What makes them unconstitutional?

Their scope has gone way beyond “regulating interstate commerce”.

[Judas Maccabeus]

Oh yes we should defund and end the FBI, ATF, DEA and all the unconstitutional alphabet agencies

What makes them unconstitutional?

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.

[Josh]

What makes them unconstitutional?

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.

[RZehr]

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.

Is that truck crossing state lines?

[barnhart]

Oh yes we should defund and end the FBI, ATF, DEA and all the unconstitutional alphabet agencies

Is this a parallel movement to De-fund the Police?

[Ken]

Oh yes we should defund and end the FBI, ATF, DEA and all the unconstitutional alphabet agencies

What makes them unconstitutional?

Their scope has gone way beyond “regulating interstate commerce”.

Interstate commerce is not the only authority that Congress and the executive branch have to act under the Constitution. There is also the general authority in Article 1 to act to protect the general welfare of the public. Law enforcement clearly falls under the general welfare and no one has ever challenged the constitutionality of Federal law enforcement going all the way back to George Washington.

[Ken]

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.

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.