One of the
many subtexts in our current national debate on guns is the notion, embraced by
conservatives and gun nuts, that Americans need to keep their guns, to prevent
the federal government from imposing “tyranny”. Apparently “tyranny” includes
Democrats who have the gall to nominate a black guy with a funny name for
President.
There are many
problems with this argument. The main problem is that the founding fathers who
wrote the constitution feared the tyranny of armed mobs of private citizens
almost as much as they feared the tyranny of a new king: they said so many
times in the Federal Papers. That’s why the Constitution includes language in
Article 2 Section 2, specifying that a “militia” consists of the troops who
take orders from the president, not any armed loon who’s pissed off about his
taxes. And that’s a good thing: without that restriction, any armed loon could
indeed declare “Obama’s a tyrant” and starting shooting people. The founders
never intended for any old man on the street to proclaim that there was a
tyrant who needs to be brought to heel. And as we established in the Civil War,
even if an entire state or region starts screaming “tyranny”, they can’t just
make up their own rules and go off and start a new country. We already fought
that war.
A second
problem is that, particularly in the current climate, it is much more likely
that a state government could impose “tyranny” and take away the people’s
rights, than the federal government. Look at the laws which Republican
governors are signing, to block abortion rights, voting rights, union
rights….And Posse Comitatus doesn’t do a thing to prevent that form of tyranny,
which is not only more likely – it’s actually happening now.
And thirdly,
if these fat old white boys ever pried themselves out of their La-Z-Boys and
decided to march, wheezing, into the hills to proclaim Teh Revolution, our
military would kick their fat little butts in short order.
And that
issue, in turn, will cause the semi-literate knuckle-dragging gun nuts to do
something you wouldn’t expect: scream in Latin.
“Posse
Comitatus!”
In other
words, the legal doctrine that the President can’t use the military for
domestic law enforcement. That is, the U.S. Army can’t be used to shut down the
next Waco or Ruby Ridge or whatever.
Needless to
say, the wingnuts have their law wrong on this, as on everything else.
First, a quick
history lesson.
In 1876, not
long after the Civil War, there was an incredibly close presidential election,
which was settled by a back-room deal. According to the agreement, the
Republican candidate for president would win the White House; in return, the
new president would withdraw federal troops who were still occupying the south
after the Civil War. When southern politicians began streaming back into
Washington to take their seats in Congress, that wanted to make damn sure that
those occupying forces never came back to the south. So they pushed for passage
of the Posse Comitatus Act, which prevents the military from undertaking such
operations inside the United States without an act of Congress.
The problem
with the “Posse Comitatus” argument of the wingnuts, is that Congress has, in
fact, written laws which allow the President to take action.
First, the
Enforcement Act of 1870 was passed to stop groups like the Klan from using
terror to suppress the black vote. Two more Enforcement Acts the following year
allow the federal government to supervise southern elections, go after
officials involved in vote suppression, use troops to suppress groups like the
Klan and stop interference with federal operations, and suspend habeas corpus
if necessary to stop groups like the Klan. As Eisenhower demonstrated in Little
Rock, the President can use the Enforcement Acts to call up the military if
state authorities can’t or won’t stop a violent attack on constitutional
rights. Ike used it for school desegregation.
Second, the
Insurrection Act, as reinterpreted in 2008, says that the President can use the
military to suppress any insurrection, unlawful combination or conspiracy, if
the violation of the law is so egregious that it deprives people of their
rights, and the local authorities can’t or won’t fix the problem. And if the
people causing the trouble are actively obstructing federal law, it doesn’t
even matter what the local authorities are doing.
Third, in 2011
the National Defense Authorization Act authorized the President to impose
martial law upon any person who engages in hostilities against the United
States, including anyone who commits a belligerent act or supports such
hostilities. “Martial law” includes blowing your damn fool head off if you
screw with the U.S. Army.
So if these
“tyrant killers” deprive their neighbors of their rights, or violate federal
law, or proclaim their independence from the United States, or whatever, the
President can send in the same guys who conquered Iraq and plugged bin Laden.
Army! Navy! Air Force! Marines!
…and the Coast
Guard, which isn’t even restricted by the Posse Comitatus Act.
Also, if the
wingnuts don’t have the local governor on their side in their little rebellion
– which is very likely – the governor can send in the National Guard.
So there you go. If the gun nuts launch a rebellion
and the President orders it crushed, that crushing process will be entirely
successful, and entirely legal.
1 comment:
Post a Comment