This is correct.

Quote:

---

I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God. (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

---

Bondag said:

---

Quote:

---

I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God. (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

---

---

What law is this again?

Ed Harley said:

---

Burrus86 said:

---

Want to make the Dems go reeeeee? Because this is how you make them go reeeeeeee!

---

So stupid that this is all MAGA cares about these days.

---

These days?

You mean like how the NSA back doored AT&T and illegally spied on US citizens?

Who we to jail for that?

I'll hang up and listen.

Btw - this is BAD TRUMP.

pagerman @ work said:

---

Bondag said:

---

Quote:

---

I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God. (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

---

---

What law is this again?

---

Title 10 of the the US Code covering the Armed Forces and specifically the oath of enlistment and such.

Pretty sure National Guard was used in most all airports post 09/11 to "enhance" airport security. I do not recall, but maybe all of the governors provided the invitation.

Specifically here it would seem this is exploring the ways additional NON-LETHAL presence can occur to provide a deterrence against lawlessness.

Posse Comitatus just says the following: "Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

Seems to me all that is being asked here is providing some assistance in case those duly authorized to execute / enforce the laws of our Nation... if they need it and ask for it. No issue as far as I can see.

Regarding points of entry, including airports, seaports, coastlines and land borders, I believe POTUS has explicit authority to deploy the US military to protect us from invasion - no gubernatorial invitation required.

Burrus86 said:

---

Want to make the Dems go reeeeee? Because this is how you make them go reeeeeeee!

---

It's not always good and it doesn't have to be continuous. We wouldn't like the left making noise about the same thing and for damn good reason.

Bad Trump. We knew there'd be some.

flown-the-coop said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

Bondag said:

---

Quote:

---

I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God. (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

---

---

What law is this again?

---

Title 10 of the the US Code covering the Armed Forces and specifically the oath of enlistment and such.

Pretty sure National Guard was used in most all airports post 09/11 to "enhance" airport security. I do not recall, but maybe all of the governors provided the invitation.

Specifically here it would seem this is exploring the ways additional NON-LETHAL presence can occur to provide a deterrence against lawlessness.

Posse Comitatus just says the following: "Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

Seems to me all that is being asked here is providing some assistance in case those duly authorized to execute / enforce the laws of our Nation... if they need it and ask for it. No issue as far as I can see.

Regarding points of entry, including airports, seaports, coastlines and land borders, I believe POTUS has explicit authority to deploy the US military to protect us from invasion - no gubernatorial invitation required.

---

18 U.S.C. 1385. Use of Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Space Force as posse comitatus: Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air Force, or the Space Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

10 U.S.C. 275. Restriction on direct participation by military personnel The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to ensure that any activity (including the provision of any equipment or facility or the assignment or detail of any personnel) under this chapter does not include or permit direct participation by a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity unless participation in such activity by such member is otherwise authorized by law.
And Section 15 of chapter 263, of the Acts of the 2nd session of the 45th Congress

Sec. 15. From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress; and no money appropriated by this act shall be used to pay any of the expenses incurred in the employment of any troops in violation of this section and any person willfully violating the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction thereof shall be punished by fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars or imprisonment not exceeding two years or by both such fine and imprisonment.

I am not seeing the issue or point you are trying to make.

flown-the-coop said:

---

I am not seeing the issue or point you are trying to make.

---

My point is that what you contend the law says is at best incomplete and at worst outright wrong.

Does it? Assistance is not execution.

If they are upgrading under the command of local or state LEOs or any other federal law enforcement, then I don't see the issue.

The law was to prevent military commanded units executing the functions of domestic law enforcement. To prevent the military being USED by the high government / POTUS against the local citizens of the various states.

Plus, at the end of the day all Team Trump is doing is having the back & forth we are. You may be right, I may be right. It's decidedly unsettled areas.

pagerman @ work said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

Bondag said:

---

Quote:

---

I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God. (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

---

---

What law is this again?

---

Title 10 of the the US Code covering the Armed Forces and specifically the oath of enlistment and such.

Pretty sure National Guard was used in most all airports post 09/11 to "enhance" airport security. I do not recall, but maybe all of the governors provided the invitation.

Specifically here it would seem this is exploring the ways additional NON-LETHAL presence can occur to provide a deterrence against lawlessness.

Posse Comitatus just says the following: "Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

Seems to me all that is being asked here is providing some assistance in case those duly authorized to execute / enforce the laws of our Nation... if they need it and ask for it. No issue as far as I can see.

Regarding points of entry, including airports, seaports, coastlines and land borders, I believe POTUS has explicit authority to deploy the US military to protect us from invasion - no gubernatorial invitation required.

---

18 U.S.C. 1385. Use of Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Space Force as posse comitatus: Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air Force, or the Space Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

10 U.S.C. 275. Restriction on direct participation by military personnel The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to ensure that any activity (including the provision of any equipment or facility or the assignment or detail of any personnel) under this chapter does not include or permit direct participation by a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity unless participation in such activity by such member is otherwise authorized by law.
And Section 15 of chapter 263, of the Acts of the 2nd session of the 45th Congress

Sec. 15. From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress; and no money appropriated by this act shall be used to pay any of the expenses incurred in the employment of any troops in violation of this section and any person willfully violating the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction thereof shall be punished by fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars or imprisonment not exceeding two years or by both such fine and imprisonment.

---

A large part of the border is now a military institution (Roosevelt Reservation).

Quote:

---

unless participation in such activity by such member is otherwise authorized by law.

---

The military is authorized by Congress to protect military institutions from incursion by...anyone.

Does Trump not have a single constitutional lawyer around him to tell him how stupid this is? Are there no generals around him, or did Hegseth come to him with this idea? Posse comitatus is clear, military cannot be used for domestic law enforcement outside of acts of congress.

Why is this even in an executive order? He can't just call a meeting and ask what options are available and get the "no, that's illegal" answer then?

pagerman @ work said:

---

10 U.S.C. 275. Restriction on direct participation by military personnel The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to ensure that any activity (including the provision of any equipment or facility or the assignment or detail of any personnel) under this chapter does not include or permit direct participation by a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity unless participation in such activity by such member is otherwise authorized by law.
And Section 15 of chapter 263, of the Acts of the 2nd session of the 45th Congress

Sec. 15. From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress

---

The DoD aren't law enforcement. They can be (and for the last few decades) LE support.

For IKE, they even ensured the law was enforced, when state officials refused.

Tergdor said:

---

Does Trump not have a single constitutional lawyer around him to tell him how stupid this is? Are there no generals around him, or did Hegseth come to him with this idea? Posse comitatus is clear, military cannot be used for domestic law enforcement outside of acts of congress.

Why is this even in an executive order? He can't just call a meeting and ask what options are available and get the "no, that's illegal" answer then?

---

Posse comitatus isn't in the Constitution, it was a law passed in the late 1800s, to restrict the Army. The USMC, Navy and USAF were added last century. I don't know if it's ever been challenged to SCOTUS.

Regardless, Trumps EO looks Constitutional so far...

Sec. 4. Using National Security Assets for Law and Order. (a) Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Attorney General and the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security and the heads of agencies as appropriate, shall increase the provision of excess military and national security assets in local jurisdictions to assist State and local law enforcement.

And it looks like he's having them research how this can be done, which IMO one of the implied tasks is legally done, or it'll get shot down...

(b) Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Attorney General, shall determine how military and national security assets, training, non-lethal capabilities, and personnel can most effectively be utilized to prevent crime.

As I've previously stated, the DoD has thousands of personnel assisting Law Enforcement, for decades now.

Queso1 said:

---

Burrus86 said:

---

Want to make the Dems go reeeeee? Because this is how you make them go reeeeeeee!

---

We are going to "make dems go reeeee" ourselves into a military dictatorship. Maybe not with Trump but this is opening all kinds of paths.

---

They're hoping it's with trump and that he'll be the forever president.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

The military should not be used to prevent crime. We have local, state, and national police for that.

---

The dems allowed a ****ing invasion of our country. If the military needs to get involved then do it. The dems created this mess and now the adults have to figure out a way to fix it.

ts5641 said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

The military should not be used to prevent crime. We have local, state, and national police for that.

---

The dems allowed a ****ing invasion of our country. If the military needs to get involved then do it. The dems created this mess and now the adults have to figure out a way to fix it.

---

Absolutely!

We should answer the left's lawlessness with our own lawlessness!

That'll show everyone how superior our ideas are and the importance of the rule of law simultaneously!

pagerman @ work said:

---

ts5641 said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

The military should not be used to prevent crime. We have local, state, and national police for that.

---

The dems allowed a ****ing invasion of our country. If the military needs to get involved then do it. The dems created this mess and now the adults have to figure out a way to fix it.

---

Absolutely!

We should answer the left's lawlessness with our own lawlessness!

That'll show everyone how superior our ideas are and the importance of the rule of law simultaneously!

---

It is now lawlessness for Trump to ask for folks to investigate LAWFUL ways to assist enforcing our laws?

That is an incredibly strange twist I was not expecting.

ETFan said:

---

LMCane said:

---

we should build 1000 miles of fenceline along the southern and northern borders

and call them closed "US ARMY INSTALLATIONS" and have them patrolled by our military.

kill two birds with one stone

---

stay out of the boundary waters and big bend

---

Big Bend had a military installation run by Blackjack Pershing when the military was enlisted to stop Pancho Villa and his cross-border raids.

Kinda like law enforcement.

https://www.tshaonline.org/publications/old-army-in-the-big-bend

techno-ag said:

---

ETFan said:

---

LMCane said:

---

we should build 1000 miles of fenceline along the southern and northern borders

and call them closed "US ARMY INSTALLATIONS" and have them patrolled by our military.

kill two birds with one stone

---

stay out of the boundary waters and big bend

---

Big Bend had a military installation run by Blackjack Pershing when the military was enlisted to stop Pancho Villa and his cross-border raids.

Kinda like law enforcement.

https://www.tshaonline.org/publications/old-army-in-the-big-bend

---

Poncho Villa? Yes, one time we had lunch together.


Cool article and history. Big Bend became a national park in 1944 though and the BWCA in 1977. Both areas should remain untouched now.

Burrus86 said:

---

Want to make the Dems go reeeeee? Because this is how you make them go reeeeeeee!

---

This should make everyone go reeeeee!

If you don't think we are at war, look at cities in Europe and Minnesota. Unchecked migration with tons of military aged males coming first. Needs to be addressed before we turn out like parts of London, France and other European cities dealing with immigrants and "refugees".

LOCK UP ALL THE LEFTIES! IT'S TIME!!

InfantryAg said:

---

Tergdor said:

---

Does Trump not have a single constitutional lawyer around him to tell him how stupid this is? Are there no generals around him, or did Hegseth come to him with this idea? Posse comitatus is clear, military cannot be used for domestic law enforcement outside of acts of congress.

Why is this even in an executive order? He can't just call a meeting and ask what options are available and get the "no, that's illegal" answer then?

---

Posse comitatus isn't in the Constitution, it was a law passed in the late 1800s, to restrict the Army. The USMC, Navy and USAF were added last century. I don't know if it's ever been challenged to SCOTUS.

Regardless, Trumps EO looks Constitutional so far...

Sec. 4. Using National Security Assets for Law and Order. (a) Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Attorney General and the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security and the heads of agencies as appropriate, shall increase the provision of excess military and national security assets in local jurisdictions to assist State and local law enforcement.

And it looks like he's having them research how this can be done, which IMO one of the implied tasks is legally done, or it'll get shot down...

(b) Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Attorney General, shall determine how military and national security assets, training, non-lethal capabilities, and personnel can most effectively be utilized to prevent crime.

As I've previously stated, the DoD has thousands of personnel assisting Law Enforcement, for decades now.

---

I wouldn't bet on SCOTUS striking down posse comitatus any time soon. They like to stick pretty closely to that "powers not explicitly defined are delegated to congress" interpretation.

Regardless, I think this is what the EO might be for. The problem is that this has been happening frequently before this EO was written and the roles of military in that regard have already been clearly defined: intelligence, observation, training, and equipment. The fact that it directs SECDEF and the AG to find how they can be used is what makes me think Trump is trying something new.

Tergdor said:

---

InfantryAg said:

---

Tergdor said:

---

Does Trump not have a single constitutional lawyer around him to tell him how stupid this is? Are there no generals around him, or did Hegseth come to him with this idea? Posse comitatus is clear, military cannot be used for domestic law enforcement outside of acts of congress.

Why is this even in an executive order? He can't just call a meeting and ask what options are available and get the "no, that's illegal" answer then?

---

Posse comitatus isn't in the Constitution, it was a law passed in the late 1800s, to restrict the Army. The USMC, Navy and USAF were added last century. I don't know if it's ever been challenged to SCOTUS.

---

I wouldn't bet on SCOTUS striking down posse comitatus any time soon. They like to stick pretty closely to that "powers not explicitly defined are delegated to congress" interpretation.

Regardless, I think this is what the EO might be for. The problem is that this has been happening frequently before this EO was written and the roles of military in that regard have already been clearly defined: intelligence, observation, training, and equipment. The fact that it directs SECDEF and the AG to find how they can be used is what makes me think Trump is trying something new.

---

I wouldn't bet SCOTUS strikes it down either, but a Constitutional Lawyer can't for sure say what Trump is asking is unconstitutional.

Maybe he is / will try to overstep his bounds, but until he does, I'm not really worried about this. End of the day, the military is NOT going to be arresting people or executing warrants.

Bondag said:

---

If you don't think we are at war, look at cities in Europe and Minnesota. Unchecked migration with tons of military aged males coming first. Needs to be addressed before we turn out like parts of London, France and other European cities dealing with immigrants and "refugees".

---

Once we broaden the definition of war, be ready for the other side to do the same thing g.

If I'm understanding this correctly, this is a bad idea.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Bondag said:

---

If you don't think we are at war, look at cities in Europe and Minnesota. Unchecked migration with tons of military aged males coming first. Needs to be addressed before we turn out like parts of London, France and other European cities dealing with immigrants and "refugees".

---

Once we broaden the definition of war, be ready for the other side to do the same thing g.

---

9-11 pretty much broadened it years ago.