The Posse Comitatus Act, which dates from 1878, bars the use of federal troops for civilian law enforcement purposes, "except in cases and under circumstrances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress."
Suppose the president uses federal troops improperly? Can someone challenge the president's decision? Could California Governor Gavin Newsom, for instance, challenge what our current president has been doing with respect to the use of federal troops in Los Angeles?
According to a column in The Wall Street Journal, the Trump Administration is arguing that a Supreme Court decision handed down nearly two hundred years ago, Martin v. Mott (1827), makes clear that the answer is "no." Trump claims that "the president's judgment in this matter is final."
The factual situation in Martin v. Mott is completely different from what is happening today, in Los Angeles. We will just have to wait to see what the Supreme Court has to say.
We can observe, though, that if "the president" is the only person entitled to decide whether the conditions outlined in the Constitution and federal law are being met, the president is then possessed of what amounts to a unilateral power to use the armed forces under the president's command, and the power to tell the nation's military forces that they have to do what the president wants, despite any law or Constitutional prohibition to the contrary.
Such an interpretation, if approved by the Supreme Court, turns our elected Chief Executive into a dictator. The only opinion that would count would then be whatever the president decides. The president's "judgment" would be final
I liked what The Wall Street Journal had to say about this, in the conclusing words of the column I have referenced above:
The Supreme Court should not surrender its constitutional authority to review the deployment of U.S. forces inside the U.S.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your comment!