See what you would need to do, to limit to to just the one you are talking about, would be to replace THEY which is a plural, with IT, which is a singular.
What's the difference between a mass of people and an invading force? Have you really so lost the plot as to not believe that we can have the military defend our own border? Good luck with that. If the order is given, it will be lawful and immediately followed. And even then, you'll argue that you're somehow still right, and it's everyone else who is wrong. I'd prefer we go back to comparing uniforms, to be honest. Maybe even medals. What medals did you get? I bet they're higher than mine. DD214? Mine'a just honorable. Assume yours is super-supremely honorable? Come on, let's light this candle, devil dog!
Intent. And generally weapons. But mostly the intent. It's kind of like the difference between murder and manslaughter. We have the military to defend our borders from hostile intent. Non-hostile intent is not a military matter. Period. You know exactly who I am.
So, I had a minute of spare time between running errands and watching television and went to the greatest source of reliable info on the interwebs, ie Wikipedia, and found this listed as an exception to PCA. Regardless of the legality, which I agree with Tenny that it will likely be challenged somewhere, somehow, I think this may more of a gamble than Trump anticipates. If the military goes there and does nothing, he looks ineffective and a bit silly. If the militay goes there and does their job, the news media, activists, anti-government types, or some combination will do their best to make sure images are shared painting the whole situation as being an exercise in authoritarianism whether deserved or not. Once again, I've been wrong before.
Look here now, I'm equal opportunity when it comes to concern over government misuse of power. That being said, I have a bit more concern about Trump threatening military force on undocumented illegal entrants than I did about Obama turning Walmarts into concentration camps or whatever it was.
I’m not a fan of this order but they’ve been fighting that fight for a while now. They’re quite a few documented abuses with boarder patrol and them setting cameras and motion sensors on private land without permission.
Border Patrol is a law enforcement agency. While I agree with your premise, it's a bit different because we have an actual Amendment to the Constitution (3rd) thst prevents this during peacetime and severely limits it even during war by requiring passage of laws. Either the law (Constitution) is of supreme importance or none.
I would be interested to see a vote taken by the land owners on this issue. Curious to see how many would be in favor and how many would oppose.
I would be interested in seeing that. I'd actually like to see a before & after survey. Even if they wanted it, the 3rd Amendmant & Posse Comitatus stand as legal impediments.
Does the Third Amendment have any bearing on this at all? EDIT: Jay, as always, beat me to the punch on this.
Well, the Amendment says houses. I wouldn't want to be the person arguing that whiile troops can't stay in your house, they can camp in your front yard before the SCOTUS.
It would probably line up with the any number of surveys done on how they feel about a border wall. If it were an either/or, you’d probably see more on the side of military use, than wall, along the border. There are still pockets that are concerned they will be cut off by a wall.
I wouldn’t think the 3rd would apply, and there will be plenty of people volunteering their land for use. And Trumo is pro imminent domain, so it’d probably just get seized anyway. And then we’ll hear about how that’s okay too.
Since listed as an Amendment, wouldn't this be quite a bit different than simple imminent domain? A law can't override an Amendment. Also, interested in your take on Posse Comitatus as it may or may not apply here.