In Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution the funding for the United States Army is limited to two years at a time. This limitation allows the people, through their representation in the House of Representatives, to easily defund the army if it is being used against the people. Since the election of congressmen in the House of Representatives also takes place every two years, it also enables the populace to change the congressional guard in time, if necessary, to ensure the defunding is established.
In the Third Amendment, a part of the Bill of Rights, the quartering of soldiers is specifically addressed. The quartering of federal troops was something feared by the Framers of the Constitution, especially considering the use of quartering by the British, a practice that literally forced the colonists to house and feed members of the enemy's army. The Founding Fathers feared this was a practice a tyrannical federal government may also be tempted to employ, if proper safeguards were not in place.
Even calling up the militia has limitations. The allowance for Congress to call up the militia is expressly for executing the laws of the union, suppressing insurrections, and repelling invasions. For a State to call up the militia, it is supposed to be only in the case of being actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.
The danger of a standing army being used against the populace in the United States was a threat the Founding Fathers recognized as being possible, and something they wrote the Constitution to guard against. The use of the United States Military against the citizens of the United States was a potential danger the founders recognized as being a very real possibility, and a reality that has happened a few times during the short history of the United States.
Military force by the federal government was used to force the southern States back into the union during the War Between the States. Military force was used to place Americans of Japanese descent into internment camps during World War II. Military force was used to ensure racial integration in America's schools took place during the Civil Rights Movement. Military force was used in 1970 to take control of, and put down, anti-war protesters at Kent State University, leaving four students dead, and nine others wounded. Regardless of your opinion regarding the reasons the government used in each of these situations, or whether or not you support force being used in these situations, the fact that the government is willing to use force against its own citizens is a glaring reality, and each of those situations set a precedent that the government says gives them the authority to do it again.
When we talk about the use of the military inside the United States, a concept, and piece of legislation, called "Posse Comitatus" comes to mind. The Posse Comitatus Act became federal law in 1878, in response to the Reconstruction Period after the American Civil War during which the southern States were under the control of military governorships that were administered and enforced by the presence of federal troops. The law was updated in 1981. The original intent was to work in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807, limiting the powers of the federal government regarding its use of military personnel in the States. The Act does not apply to the National Guard, when the Guard is called into action by the State, which at that time makes the National Guard a part of the State militia (though it can also be called into action by Congress) as was used in the Kent State Massacre.
Military occupation of The South by federal military troops lasted ten years, and the presence of federal troops in the former Confederacy after President Rutherford Hayes chose to withdraw the troops from The South. While the Constitution gives the States the authority to prescribe the manner in which elections are held, during the period following the War Between the States the violence and fraud related to elections were out of control, and the governments of the Southern States were refusing to use police powers to maintain law and order. The Democrat Party had created paramilitary groups to threaten Republican and Black voters, and disrupt Republican meetings, and the military arm of the Democrat Party in the South had gotten so ruthless that the federal government decided that military intervention was necessary.
U.S. Representatives and Senators from the former Confederate States made it a priority in Washington to pass legislation to prohibit the federal government from imposing federal troops on the States in the future, and their efforts led to the Posse Comitatus Act that was signed in 1878.
While originally applying to the U.S. Army, the United States Air Force was added to the Posse Comitatus Act in 1956, and the U.S. Navy and United States Marine Corps have been included by a regulation of the Department of Defense. The law was specifically passed to prevent the Department of Defense from interfering with domestic law enforcement, and to disallow a federal standing army from dictating federal policy by force.
A few exceptions exist in the law, one of which was used by President Eisenhower to enforce integration in the school system in 1958 (a provision that allows the President to use military forces when State authorities are unable, or unwilling, to suppress violence that stands in opposition to the constitutional rights of the people).
Authorities regarding the use of the United States Military in the States has been adjusted recently a number of times through the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), with the most recent changes extending the definition of who can be subject to detention under the NDAA. The aim, as explained by government officials, was to allow the federal government to detain persons who support terrorist groups, or other associated forces engaged in hostilities against the United States, or its coalition partners. Where the red flags have gone up is where the provisions discuss other potential "domestic terrorists," of which some lists have included persons that are "constitutionalists," and other groups or persons that may be deemed hostile against the United States Government. Some Department of Homeland Security lists have even included "Tea Party members, military veterans, or persons suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder."
Which brings us to Operation Jade Helm. The operation is going to be held in a number of southwestern States to give elite service members from the four main branches of the U.S. Military the opportunity to operate covertly among the U.S. public, traveling from State to States, using military aircraft, in an effort to accustom these personnel to do the same as needed in areas that may be hostile overseas. In the exercise, a section in Southern California (that happens to be an enclave of conservatism), as well as Texas and Utah (aside from Arizona, States in the seven State area of the operation that are the most conservative), are being labeled as hostile territory (for the purpose of training, we are told).
The operation is planned to run from July 15 to September 15, and the hope is that it will better equip our military personnel with the ever-changing nature of warfare. The exercise, however, has caused a lot of concern among folks that believe that the United States government under the current administration would like to use martial law to ensure compliance by the population regarding the unpopular policies currently being applied and executed by the United States Government.
Whether or not the reality of the situation is that the federal government is preparing American forces for martial law, and to get military personnel accustomed to considering Americans to be potentially hostile targets, on its face the implications of the exercise are alarming. Intrusive federal programs and policies have been increasing under the watch of President Barack Obama, and the sudden inclusion of military exercises largely in areas where the most blow-back against those programs have occurred sends a message that the government is preparing to enforce their policies against the American public using military force. And even if one does not consider these exercise to be enough evidence that the government is considering using the force of military troops against the populace, we must ask, "How comfortable would the framers of the Constitution be with this kind of training exercise after employing so many protections against a standing army in the text of the United States Constitution?"
As for the liklihood of martial law being used in the United States by the federal government to compel a resistant population into compliance to tyrannical mandates, though I do not doubt the statists currently controlling the federal government want nothing more than to use force to compel compliance, I must remind Americans that they will probably not take such an action as long as the American public is armed. The federal government may have bigger guns, but the members of American society have more guns.
Is Operation Jade Helm a dry-run for martial law, or preparation for the use of military personnel against the American populace? Perhaps. But, until the Leftists make the final push for gun control, and totally disarm the American public, the probability of martial law remains low. Tyranny, if possible, likes to seize control with the least amount of bloodshed, and does not resort to an armed conflict unless they become desperate, and realize that there is no other way for them to force a people into the bondage they are offering.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
http://www.soc.mil/UNS/Releases/2015/March/150324-03.html
http://www.soc.mil/UNS/Releases/2015/March/150324-03.html
No comments:
Post a Comment