Should the US Military be used to protect American freedoms protected by the Constitution?

Every member of the United States military, and veteran, has sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

If the government doesn't wish to honor the Constitution, then they become the domestic enemy.

It would seem that they have already pissed off veterans. Things could get real messy if the gov pisses off the active military!

It would seem that they have already pissed off veterans.

I forgot to add MYSELF INCLUDED!

If the government doesn't wish to honor the Constitution, then they become the domestic enemy.

People like to say that, but at what point does the right to assemble kick in?

If my wife and I want to go fool around in the park after closing, isn't that peaceable assembly?

If the government doesn't wish to honor the Constitution, then they become the domestic enemy.

People like to say that, but at what point does the right to assemble kick in?

If my wife and I want to go fool around in the park after closing, isn't that peaceable assembly?

Good point. Rights are not absolute. One example is the "right to free speech". There are restrictions on freedom of speech-- I believe there have been quite a few SupreemeCourt rulings on that issue.

One famous quote is about the fact that you don't have the right to falsely yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre.

I personally believe in absolute freedom for the individual and I believe that the government should exist to protect our rights and to use force to defend it from corrupt lesser governments that would inflict violent acts against the citizenry.

We've been through this before Polka.

Do you believe we have the protected right to lie about another person in an attempt to harm their reputation?

Your rights end where another person's rights begin.

So you don't believe in "absolute" freedom.

The right to assemble on public lands do not infringe on anyone.

Do you know why the park cerfews were enacted in the first place?

(Thanks, btw Krish. ;) )

Do you believe we have the protected right to lie about another person in an attempt to harm their reputation?

Or to yell "Fire!' in a crowded theatre (when there is no fire)?

Yes-- I'm repeating myself...

Freedom is absolute when you can do what you want and don't infringe on the rights of others.

That is a conflicting statement. Either something is unlimited or it has a limit, you try to claim both in the same breath.

To infringe on our rights.

To keep crime down and keep homeless people from wrecking up the place.

The freedom of assembly on public lands should be considered to be absolute and the People should resist any attempts to undermine our freedoms including the use of violence by the government law enforcement thugs.

Once again, the law says you're wrong.

Posse Comitatus and the Insurection Act pretty much prohibit the use of the military (except National Guard troops) from national peace-keeping duties unless a rebellion is in place.

Generally speaking, when the military starts to control the civilian population, thigs get pretty bad. If anything, it tends to make for more of an infringement of human rights-- rather than expanding them.

To cite but one example-- look what happened in Egypt when Mubarak was removed from office-- and the military took over:

Arab Spring: Egyptian Military more brutal than Mubarak regime, eyewitnesses say

The federal government can use military to enforce federal law and that is the Constitution.

If you'd read my link, you'd know that DoD policy is to suppor the police in LEO actions and since the police as a group haven't broken any laws...

The blue shirts have violently attacked protesters to suppress their right to assemble. The Constitution protects our right to assemble so I think they have broken our Constitutional law.

We have no right to riot. What you may think is wrong.

The Insurrection Act of 1807 is the set of laws that govern the US President's ability to deploy troops within the United States to put down lawlessness, insurrection and rebellion. The laws are chiefly contained in 10 U.S.C. § 331 - 10 U.S.C. § 335. The general aim is to limit Presidential power as much as possible, relying on state and local governments for initial response in the event of insurrection. Coupled with the Posse Comitatus Act, Presidential powers for law enforcement are limited and delayed.

I just wish Newsvine had the same policy of Free Speech as the Constitution does.

It doesn't-- and never will have it.

The Constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech apply to actions by governments-- and not by private entities!

(You and Polka14 have a right to your opinions-- and a right to express them. But ultimately, we have the rule of law-- and existing laws take precedence over your personal opinions-- whether you like it or not! if each citizen were allowed to do whatever he/she wanted to, we would have anarchy).

I'm not a flag burner. My Dad founded a Bank called Great American Bank. We're listed in the book of Who's Who. Check us out. We opened with the largest capitalization of any bank in U.S. History at the time. We later changed our name to First Regional Bank. The Federal Government took us over last year because those we loaned money to refused to pay us back. I lost 3 million dollars. My Dad lost appr. 70 million. I am one angry lady.

Krishna - you should buy a pup tent and join the criminals who don't pay their debt. Because of people like you 800 people, our employees are out of work right now. BUT NEWSVINE is sooo important and your job is to further stifle, harm, humiliate Americans who are hurting right now. Take a walk off the banks of this country control freak.

This First Regional Bank, that went under in 2010? The FDIC didn't have nice things to say about you guys.

http://www.fdicoig.gov/reports10%5C10-047.pdf

First Regional’s failure was due to (1) ineffective Board and management oversight, which included weak

risk management practices, violations of laws and regulations, and lack of adherence to some examination

recommendations; (2) high concentrations in CRE and ADC lending; (3) inadequate loan underwriting;

(4) poor credit administration; and (5) increased dependence on brokered deposits as funding sources

during a critical period in 2008. These practices and strategies exposed the bank to substantial risk in

declining market conditions.

Polka

It may be absurd but it is settled law

The Posse Comitatus is IMHO applicable at the federal level but if you could provide a source that contradicts this I would appreciate it.

Then the People should violate that law as often as possible. It isn't legitimate.

It most certainly is. The right of one person to act like a moron doesn't trump the right of another to use the public space. If a group of idiots is blocking use of and destroying the property, they need to be removed.

The PCA only exists to prevent lesser governments from arbitrarily using federal forces to enforce their own laws. The US military can be used by the US government to defend the rights of US citizens when the lesser governments are unable to defend them. That is why I think the Oakland police and other government thugs should be stopped by the military from attacking and shooting civilians.

What information do you base this opinion on?

Their rights are equal. No one has a greater right to use the public space but all public space has a finite amount of area that can be occupied.

Which is exactly why groups are evicted if they're interfering with the enjoyment of the space by others.

The meaning of the PCA. Lesser governments are prevented from using the military to enforce their own laws and to capture criminals.

The only "lesser government" that has authority over the military is the State government.

It also has nothing to do with DoD policy to support the police during police actions.

Others can stay at the parks and share the space with protesters or they can leave. Everyone has an equal right to use that space through the freedom of assembly. The government shouldn't be allowed to evict anyone from the parks for any reason.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0468_0288_ZS.html

You're wrong. Please do try to base your arguments in fact, it will make you sounds more credible.

That could be a problem when the government thugs are committed towards oppressing the People for exercising their rights.

But they aren't.

I can't carry a gun into the DMV, I can't lie about my neighbor, and I need a permit to camp.

Actually it's to raise the money used to keep the parks clean. Not many people want to visit a park full of litter and dead plants.

It's used to infiltrate people's "supposedly" private homes, condos and apartments. I can't continue just now, I've an errand to run : An $845,000 toilet to purchase ~ aren't all toilets that expensive? Hmm. !!!

Polka

With respect you are wrong on the law, as to its restrictions on the federal government and Iwould challenge you to cite a source that says the federal government is exempt from the provision of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878

Thanks

It would seem that Polka is more interested in what they would like the law to be and not what the law is.Also through the tenor of her arguements it seemed to me that Polka was pushing for Anarchy and not the rights of all citizens. I do not Know if polka understands the implications of these requests or if polka simply does not care...but like my Gradfather used to say(WW I & WW II Vet) watch what you ask for ...you just might get it.

Polka

Actually your link seems to say that they could be used if new legislation is passed committing them to some role or if the Constitution is amended to allow that authority to the government.

I see where you are coming from

Thanks

So are those that disagree. Convinced I mean. :)

BD

Up and untilled we are taken over by the BORG, individual right trump collective rights.

BORG? Unfamiliar with that term.

Collective rights are a majority agreement. Until a collective right is challenged by an individual, there is no reason for the Supreme Court to overrule.

Look for some old STAR TREK NEXT GENERATION videos.

Sometimes the good of the many outweigh the needs of the few. To get all trekky about it. :P

Wraith, what you said sounds like something a communist state would believe in. Not a nation of freedoms.

Well. The Federation was more or less a communistic society. And I cannot remember what sort of governing body the Vulcans had. Which is where the quote came from.

Amanda Grayson: What's the matter Spock
Spock: I do not understand the question, mother.
Amanda Grayson: You're half human Spock; the computer knows that.
Spock: The question is irrelevant.
Amanda Grayson: Spock, the retraining of your mind has been in the Vulcan way, so you may not be aware of your human feelings, but as my son, you have them, they will surface.
Spock: As you wish, since you deem them of value, however, I cannot find my answers here.
Amanda Grayson: Where must you go?
Spock: To earth, to offer testimony.
Amanda Grayson: You do this for friendship?
Spock: I do it because I was there.
Amanda Grayson: Spock, does the good of the many outweigh the good of the one?
Spock: That would be a logical argument.
Amanda Grayson: Then you stand here alive because of a mistake made by your flawed, feeling, human friends. They have sacrificed their futures because they felt that the good of the one, you, was more important.
Spock: Humans make illogical decisions.
Amanda Grayson: (Proudly) They do, indeed.
Dr. Gillian Taylor: Don't tell me they don't use money in the 23rd Century.
James T. Kirk: Well, we don't.

And you do realise this is the post closet geek era right? It's acceptable to like them both.

Polka, I think by the Constitution we can assemble on private lands. I've already included the argument that it would be considered trespassing. Where are we going with this discussion? If I claim trespassing over right to assemble, how do people exercise their right to protest? My point it that in light of the enumeration of the Constitution, where does the law state the where, when why and how of our right to assemble?

You can't assemble on private lands without permission. #14.4

You can't destroy my door by breaking it down to get into my home. But you can stand in my yard and sing Christmas Carols (or heavy metal music) to get my attention that you are unhappy with my shoddy yard.

Anything owned by the government is owned by the people it is chartered to govern.

Here's an example: A corporation is polluting our environment. All regulations and pleas for settlement are ignored.

People choose to protest by "occupying" the area that the corporation uses to create the aforementioned pollution.

Does the corporation have the right to have these people arrested and removed so it can continue to pollute the environment?

BD

The SCOTUS has determined that there are time place and manner restrictions on free speach rights. There have also been decisions concerning private property rights. So there are and can be lmutations in protests in private property.

WRAITH

The good if the many may be greater than that of the few or the one but the determination of that is with the one or the few. Spock's decision to enter the reactor space was his and his alone. The decision of the soldier to cover a grenade to save his squadmates is his alone. The many may not determine what rights that the few have that they may violate for the good if the many.

Yes and yes. Now we started talking about if I were president, so not to be a pain in the head, I am shooting for ideal, if I were president. But I'm not, and I don't wanna be.

SCOTUS has been known to protect corporate interests over private, so I don't see any particular use in debating that part of it. I have no point to make about it that would be an effective counter to arkpdx in #14.11 except that what SCOTUS later did was in conflict with what the Constitution said first. People would have to challenge it in order to change it, which implies criminal behavior when the intent was to allow for peaceful protest. Is it possible that SCOTUS made a mistake? If so, how can we correct it?

So if we're limited to only protesting on public property, government can limit our rights further by creating laws that minimize the effects of protest, which is kinda what we're seeing with OWS.

Polka
I agree with your statement in #14.12 to a degree. Protesting on public property is allowed as long as it does not interfere with the eights if others. With the fleabaggers in ows. Movement have begun to interfere with the eights if others. Raw sewage and the deseases and vermin in the camps has become a problem for individuals that need to go near them. The noise coming from the amplifiers and the constant banging of drums is violating the rights if innocent residents surrounding the camps. The continuing presence if these camps is beginning to have a negative impact on their message and it it time fir them to disband and return to there own homes.

What about the right to not have to listen to others' opinions?

***scratching my head*** Did I just say that?

And who are these so-called innocents?

Since I never sought to be the brightest bulb in the lamp, my interpretation of the 9th amendment clearly states that all powers granted to the States and Federal government come directly from the people, with some reservations, and those reservations are inviolate. The primary citizen's reservation lies in the fact that, if the citizens find that both levels of government are working in opposition to the the majority of citizen desires, then that majority has not only the right, but the duty, to challenge the government's illegal actions! The majority of the citizens that I hear about are fixing to do just that and the vocal minority being kowtowed to here will have no one to blame for the resulting actions but themselves!

FIN, the story continues. It sounds like the 9th supports the prospect of a legalized revolution.

While that may sound like a contradiction of terms, it does indeed support the rights of the legal citizens to revolt against their current governmental bodies since the right to a citizen empowered government is just one of those more clearly defined rights reserved for the people! Underscores the more publicly stated right to keep and bear arms as a tacit threat for the consequences of governmental malfeasance.

Yes FIN, and I think you may have commented on earlier seed that indicated that America's Declaration of Independence was illegal.

In our new Constitution, any form of Declaration of Independence is currently legitimized by the 1st and 9th Amendment. It does underscore peaceful protest while also securing a concession from the government that people have a right to challenge a sovereign that attempts to govern against the will of the people.

BD Styers, sorry friend but you may have mistaken me for someone else in declaring that our Declaration of Independence is illegal. I don't ever recall addressing its legality nor would I presume to do so what with all of the legal experts we have around here! If you can find a reference that I did I sure would appreciate seeing it.

No, I mean that you may have seen the seed and commented on it. No accusations here.

No problems here, my friend! I plead old age and memory loss anyway! :>))

FIN, I don't fault you a bit. Wish you well.

OMG;Just how in the name of all that is holy can our declaration of Independence be illegal ? are you listening to yourself. Stop thinking,stop talking,stop doing drugs stop,stop STOP !!!!!

psychodd1, hold on, respectfully, consider the intellectual discussion of the "illegality". We're not suggesting that it is true. Lawyers have talked about it in years, and the discussion is in good faith.

What was done is history. The debate is about peaceful assembly.

Feel you BD...my bad ...got carried away =D

Hey, but put your comments on it. This has been pretty good topic. :-)

Tried to go there and this is the message that I got:

You do not have access to edit this Article.

oops, my mistake, I went from my edit page trying to find it.

Does this work? >>>

http://styersbd.newsvine.com/_news/2011/10/21/8426610-bbc-news-is-the-us-declaration-of-independence-illegal

It's called the "Bill of Rights". I'm one of those people. What was the intent if not implied by the title?

Many seem to think there are some rights provided in the Constitution

The people have the absolute right to protest and the lesser governments have absolutely no right to limit it regardless of any "laws" that exist.

I recommend reading about the legal battles of Phelps' Westboro Baptist church. The courts have regularly concluded that this group must comply with local laws and ordinances that are not based on any type of discrimination. Once those permits and ordinances are followed, the WBC can protest.

The Constitution dealt with the powers of a Federal government. The Bill of Rights were a limit on that Federal Power, not on the power of the states. The 14th amendment is used to extend things the federal government can't do, to the state and local level. However, absolute is not in the equation, only "due process". Otherwise, "absolute" would apply to the carrying of firearms, as the 2nd amendment has equal standing with free speech.

hsquared, I understand the legal precedent you submit, but what Polka is saying is these laws need to be protested. The additions of permits and ordinances inhibits individual rights defined by the Constitution. Local government will violate the Constitution, and until local population protests or challenges the law, the laws stand.

Additionally, what hasn't been stated in this seed is, Supreme Court actions have leaned in the direction of support for laws and communal interests that inhibit civil rights further.

The Constitution dealt with the powers of a Federal government. The Bill of Rights were a limit on that Federal Power, not on the power of the states. The 14th amendment is used to extend things the federal government can't do, to the state and local level. However, absolute is not in the equation, only "due process". Otherwise, "absolute" would apply to the carrying of firearms, as the 2nd amendment has equal standing with free speech

My interpretation of your quote is different than yours, however the quote stands.

The additions of permits and ordinances inhibits individual rights defined by the Constitution. Local government will violate the Constitution, and until local population protests or challenges the law, the laws stand.

Unless the local government issues the permits based on some method that can be seen as favoring one religion, race, etc. over any other, the Supreme Court will uphold that law. This is the basis of due process in the 14th amendment.

As for...

The Constitution dealt with the powers of a Federal government. The Bill of Rights were a limit on that Federal Power, not on the power of the states.

It is clearly seen in the history books that this is the case. The Constitution would not have been ratified, if not for the addition of the "bill of rights". Such was the concern of the states over there being a stronger central government. Thus the bill of rights was a limiting device against the federal government.

The 14th amendment is used to extend things the federal government can't do, to the state and local level.

It was the usage of this amendment following passage, that led to the concept of states' rights (plural), in the latter quarter of the 19th century. (Prior to the civil war it was state rights, singular)

The "right" that so many think we have would fall into the category of "privileges and immunities". For your reading pleasure.

There are a lot of people that think we have an unlimited freedom based on some court ruling. However, everyone of those court rulings cited were over "due process".

'For protection against abuses by legislatures the people must resort to the polls, not to the courts

Again for your reading pleasure. I suggest getting comfortable first. You might be interested in the definitions of "person" and "liberty".

Frankly, it would be nice to think we have some of those freedoms. We do get upset when we learn of some perceived right being taken away, but did we really have that right or did we just become aware that we didn't.

And finally... the author would consider using federal troops to ensure freedoms. Yet in the days the constitution was written the fear was the opposite and probably should be even today. Brutus X. I am now finished and fried.

That statement implies that laws can violate the Constitution as long as they violate it equally.

The additions of permits and ordinances inhibits individual rights defined by the Constitution. Local government will violate the Constitution, and until local population protests or challenges the law, the laws stand.

Unless the local government issues the permits based on some method that can be seen as favoring one religion, race, etc. over any other, the Supreme Court will uphold that law. This is the basis of due process in the 14th amendment.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge

the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any

State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of

law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the

laws.

hsquared, I hope you haven't given up on us yet. Assist me with interpretation please?

• It seems to say that state cannot legally make or enforce law that conflicts with Constitution
• The due process portion considers that state cannot enforce a legal law without a hearing requiring evidence of violation of legal law.
• Finally legal laws must be enforced equally (anti-discriminatory).

Which is why those laws would be ruled Unconstitutional. However, our rights are not unlimited.

The requirement of permits to camp in parks has been upheld by the Supreme Court. Don't like it? Too damn bad.

Well, actually, Rhep, I don't like the tone you're taking with me whipper-snapper! Who died and left you boss?

Rights are only limited by your imagination and your willingness to be responsible for actions. You can do pretty much what you want in this country until some nosy, self-righteous [expletive censored] comes along trying to show how my rights are better than yours.

For example, you can grow your own food and consume it yourself. You don't have to ask permission, and you don't have to worry about an employee who had a bad day dropping a deuce in the batch.

I've done a lot of camping in my lifetime. I never once needed a permit, unless you count the trade of money for services, which is referred to as market operations.

A permit is a restriction of your rights. Don't like it? Ignore it. Then take responsibility for your actions, because soon you will find that you may need a permit even to grow your own food.

Well, actually, Rhep, I don't like the tone you're taking with me whipper-snapper! Who died and left you boss?

How do you think they died?

Rights are only limited by your imagination and your willingness to be responsible for actions.

No, I'm pretty sure their protection under the law is limited.

You can do pretty much what you want in this country until some nosy, self-righteous [expletive censored] comes along trying to show how my rights are better than yours.

Not really, they are just pissing and moaning until a court agrees that your actions infringe on their rights.

I've done a lot of camping in my lifetime. I never once needed a permit, unless you count the trade of money for services, which is referred to as market operations.

Must not have been on government land, unless the trade was your money for their service.

A permit is a restriction of your rights. Don't like it? Ignore it. Then take responsibility for your actions, because soon you will find that you may need a permit even to grow your own food.

No, a permit is to raise the money to take care of our parks because some messy @!$%#s can't clean up after themselves.

You might think you can do anything you please, but I have just as much of a right to a park as you - and the governent has an interest in keeping that park in a manner that allows us all to use it.

I know, but I clean up after myself. The soldiers' way -- leave no trace. I don't need nanny-gov to clean up after me. Shame isn't it? Others could use rights as responsibility, but have this impression that rights mean doing whatever the *&*@% they want.

I hate it when fishermen leave their nasty smelling bait cups behind.

I think I said it on this seed earlier, but I'll say it again. Local governments can enact laws that infringe on your rights. Unless the law is challenged, there is no reason for SCOTUS involvement, and it becomes Constitutional application.

If people get the idea that rights equals responsibility instead of doing whatever you want, we have a community of rights that are enforced by the community rather than a nanny government knocking heads together.

Others could use rights as responsibility, but have this impression that rights mean doing whatever the *&*@% they want.

Rights are only limited by your imagination and your willingness to be responsible for actions.

#18.9 Careful, some might think these comments are contradictory.

You're free to do what you want, but protection by the government only goes so far. ;)

If people get the idea that rights equals responsibility instead of doing whatever you want, we have a community of rights that are enforced by the community rather than a nanny government knocking heads together.

Wouldn't that be nice? Too bad a certain rule applies here, "The larger the crowd, the lower the I.Q."

I ain't scared of contradiction. The world is full of it. Night turns into day, summer to winter. I call it shifting the focus, and you're not supposed to notice. Whose Kool-aid are you drinkin'?

Yeah, I'm an idealist and naive. It's called anarchy, but Americans think anarchy means mobs and riots and violence. So, the larger the crowd (of Americans), the lower the IQ.

If a Rhep protested in the woods, and nobody saw it, wood it still make a sound? SOH please

If they limit our ability to protest, they can ignore it. So what would be the point? Might as well get a job...

Whose Kool-aid are you drinkin'?

Can't afford no Kool-Aid! Think I'm made of money or what?

It's called anarchy, but Americans think anarchy means mobs and riots and violence.

Because (in the real world) it does.

Many anarchists, like my cousin, like to think of Anarchy as a bunch of happy people being nice and sharing because they're all happy and nice because there's no big bad government to get in the way. Unfortunately, real anarchy is much more like Somalia - he who has the biggest guns and the most will to use them, wins.

Same reason Communism will never work, too many @!$%#s.

If a Rhep protested in the woods, and nobody saw it, wood it still make a sound?

He most certainly would. He has a cell.

If they limit our ability to protest, they can ignore it. So what would be the point? Might as well get a job...

The protestpermit is more so the city/state/dragon-queen can make sure they can keep the peace, a camping permit is so people quit messing up my damn park.

Know what happens when you "forget" your permit and the cops can't close the roads? People get run the @!$%# over.

belly laugh :-) again, double thumbs up.

Except for Somalia, which is shameful :-(

Yea, warlords make me a sad panda. :(

• It seems to say that state cannot legally make or enforce law that conflicts with Constitution

The U.S. Constitution is about federal government. The Bill of rights was a limit on Federal government acts. It was only after the passage of the 14th amendment, that certain rights included in the bill of rights were gradually shifted from limiting federal government to limiting all forms of government. This was largely necessary, due to state's efforts to limit the rights of Blacks.

• The due process portion considers that state cannot enforce a legal law without a hearing requiring evidence of violation of legal law.

Due process requires that the laws be enforced, as exactly specified in the law. Example.. If the word f%&k is specifically stated in a law as being a violation, then a person using that word would face prosecution both legally and constitutionally. If the law uses a general term such as foul language, then the interpretation of that law might change from one officer to another. That violates due process. When the court overturns a law based on the 14th amendment's due process... it does not mean some right has been granted, but rather the wording or enforcement of the law was incorrect and the law should be revisited.

• Finally legal laws must be enforced equally (anti-discriminatory).

More reading.

Digesting

3) Posse Comitatus didn't stop the use of armed soldiers to protect integration of public schools. It was used to enforce federal law. Our rights should be protected too if the local government forces are trying to deny our rights by force.

That was national guard. Kinda different. Well, alot different.

The National Guard is a different animal than say the Army. You should also note they are commonly deployed in such situations as natural disasters.

Jurisdiction

The National Guard is directed and primarily funded through its respective state.

Source

And probably/maybe/if they will save the magic princess from the evil monkey dragon! Anyway, I strongly doubt many in the armed forces are that loyal to TPTB. Also we are talking about people from that state clamping down on their friends and neighbors.

Yes because pulling a trigger isn't a twitch situation. And knowingly incarcerating them is. [/sarcasm] And they weren't ordered to fire.

They're people. And you're breathing volumes into a situation even those in command of those that fired disagreed with. Your assertion is both highly unrealistic and falacious.