This is unconstitutional - not that Bush cares a bit about the constitution. But why would a military deploy a unit inside the US when it is having trouble manning 2 wars in the Middle East? Could it be to maintain order when the economic collapse takes place? Or could it be to maintain the Bush dictatorship when he stations troops at the polling box to put an end to a sham election or to put McCain in as his successor? Or is it to keep Bush in power as he calls off the election in November?

Shut up Swat, our own military isn't going to kill any Americans. Enough with your conspiracies!

This isn't the first time the military has been deployed to American soil. The Army National Guard does it all the time.

Tell me, which Constitutional Amendment does this violate?

Wow, can we say conspiracy nut? Pleas cite your source about how this is unconstitutional. The National Guard stations troops all the time in the borders of the United States.

Are there actually any graduates or even students of a US highschool in this thread?

If so: very sad.

"Posse Comitatus Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385) passed on June 16, 1878 after the end of Reconstruction. The Act prohibits most members of the federal uniformed services (the Army, Air Force, and State National Guard forces when such are called into federal service) from exercising nominally state law enforcement police or peace officer powers that maintain "law and order" on non-federal property (states, their counties and municipal divisions) in the former Confederate states.

The statute generally prohibits federal military personnel and units of the United States National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. The Coast Guard is exempt from the Posse Comitatus Act.

The Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act substantially limit the powers of the federal government to use the military for law enforcement."

I will ignore this post since you quoted Wikipedia.

No wonder you did so poorly in school.
You're plainly a whiny brat of little substance.

That's right. I did horrible in school, and I'm a loser idiot who's living off welfare and food stamps. I should just kill myself and get it over with.

Was this expanded upon, or is it just in the Confederate states?

Either way, I'm concerned about the deployment.

Hmmm...the National Guard is a lot like regular forces... As this linked source from that Wiki article says (circa 2000) the act has been somewhat eroded. He talks about soldiers working with police, where though the soldiers may provide brute force, it is still up to the police to do the actual arresting...or it should work that way.

"The erosion of the Posse Comitatus Act through Congressional legislation and executive policy has left a hollow shell in place of a law that formerly was a real limitation on the military’s role in civilian law enforcement and security issues. The plethora of constitutional and statutory exceptions to the act provides the executive branch with a menu of options under which it can justify the use of military forces to combat domestic terrorism. Whether an act of terrorism is classified as a civil disturbance under 10 U.S.C., 331–334, or whether the president relies upon constitutional power to preserve federal functions, it is difficult to think of a domestic terrorism scenario of sizable scale under which the use of the military could not be lawfully justified in view of the act’s erosion. The act is no longer a realistic bar to direct military involvement in counterterrorism planning and operations. It is a low legal hurdle that can be easily cleared through invocation of the appropriate legal justification, either before or after the fact.[12]

Conclusion

Is the Posse Comitatus Act totally without meaning today? No, it remains a deterrent to prevent the unauthorized deployment of troops at the local level in response to what is purely a civilian law enforcement matter. Although no person has ever been successfully prosecuted under the act, it is available in criminal or administrative proceedings to punish a lower-level commander who uses military forces to pursue a common felon or to conduct sobriety checkpoints off of a federal military post. Officers have had their careers abruptly brought to a close by misusing federal military assets to support a purely civilian criminal matter.

But does the act present a major barrier at the National Command Authority level to use of military forces in the battle against terrorism? The numerous exceptions and policy shifts carried out over the past 20 years strongly indicate that it does not. Could anyone seriously suggest that it is appropriate to use the military to interdict drugs and illegal aliens but preclude the military from countering terrorist threats that employ weapons of mass destruction? For two decades the military has been increasingly used as an auxiliary to civilian law enforcement when the capabilities of the police have been exceeded. Under both the statutory and constitutional exceptions that have permitted the use of the military in law enforcement since 1980, the president has ample authority to employ the military in homeland defense against the threat of weapons of mass destruction in terrorist hands."

http://www.homelandsecurity.org/jour...Trebilcock.htm