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?Ken wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2024 12:47 pmThe 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.Josh wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2024 11:33 amIt 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.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.
“Former government lawyers say we need to limit the president's ability to deploy U.S. troops at home”
Re: “Former government lawyers say we need to limit the president's ability to deploy U.S. troops at home”
0 x
-
- Posts: 18410
- 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”
They are all branches of the Justice Department which was created by act of congress in 1870 as part of reconstruction.Josh wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2024 3:35 pmactually, 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
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
Re: “Former government lawyers say we need to limit the president's ability to deploy U.S. troops at home”
Are you asserting the FBI, ATF, and DEA existed in 1870?Ken wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2024 5:04 pmThey are all branches of the Justice Department which was created by act of congress in 1870 as part of reconstruction.
0 x
-
- Posts: 18410
- 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”
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.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
Re: “Former government lawyers say we need to limit the president's ability to deploy U.S. troops at home”
There was considerable debate there. Jefferson’s ideas largely lost out.Josh wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2024 11:33 amIt 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.Judas Maccabeus wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2024 5:42 amTheir justification is part of the “elastic clause “, necessary and proper. In the judgment of generations of courts, they have been found constitutionally appropriate.
0 x
Re: “Former government lawyers say we need to limit the president's ability to deploy U.S. troops at home”
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