His Postmaster General has in fact done many things to slow down mail delivery and Trump has all but admitted that it is being done to make voting by mail impossible. But, unless and until he actually violates the law, these pronouncements are merely undignified bluster. Postal Service in an effort to delay and discredit mail-in votes,” and suggesting “ delaying the 2020 election, despite lacking the authority to do so.” These are bad acts.
Nagl and Yingling accuse President Trump of all manner of violations of the norms that predecessors have abided by, including “ threatening to remain in office in defiance of our Constitution,” “ vigorously undermining public confidence in our election,” “actively sabotaging the U.S. Absent a declaration of war, the designation of any domestic group as an “enemy” not subject to these rights would be an unconstitutional bill of attainder. Even small-scale according-to-Hoyle treason is simply a criminal act, for which citizens are entitled to due process and other protections under our Constitution. Outside another literal civil war, the concept of a domestic enemy is not only useless but dangerous. Code, §§ 251-254, authorizes the President, with certain checks, to use force in the event “unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any States by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings.” Again, this precedes the “domestic enemies” concept by decades.
The Insurrection Act of 1807, codified in Title 10 of U.S. The Military Won’t Save Us – and You Shouldn’t Want Them To All Enemies, Foreign and Domestic”: An Open Letter to Gen. But considering that the “domestic enemy” clause was added in response to actual acts of treason-the literal waging of war against the United States by a seceding faction-it is the most obvious answer. The prohibition against treason in Article III, Section 3 long predates Congress’ addition of the phrase to the oath. Aside from the oath of office, the concept of “domestic enemy” does not appear in federal law. The short answer: not the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff or any other member of the armed forces. Who decides who or what constitutes a domestic enemy? You have to stay loyal to the government that is based on the Constitution, and you can’t support a rebellion or overthrow of that government.” Wrote Kerr: “The oath is probably best understood” not as an invitation for millions of Americans to independently enforce their own view of the Constitution, rooting out domestic enemies as they see fit, but “in its historical context as a promise to oppose political reforms outside the Constitution. Most Constitutional scholars would side with Berkeley law professor Orin Kerr in reading the provision much more narrowly. For example, an Air Force colonel argued in 2013 that “perpetrators of sexual assault and harassment” within the military were domestic enemies because they “revolt against civil authority by committing criminal acts against other members of our service.” That is by no means the silliest example out there. One can find well-meaning people making the case that all manner of forces and any number of their fellow citizens constitute a domestic enemy to the Constitution. What is a domestic enemy? Nagl and Yingling begin their plea by referring to the oath taken by all commissioned officers to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” When Congress added that phrase to the oath of office in 1861, they were responding to an ongoing rebellion by the Southern states. They raise some difficult questions and it is far better to come to a consensus on the answers now while they are theoretical rather than waiting for a fait accompli. While this was far from Nagl and Yingling’s best work, they have nonetheless done us a service in kicking off a tendentious debate. Kori Schake and Jim Golby, two of our leading experts on civil-military relations, ably explained why this is wrong on many levels.
Retired soldiers John Nagl and Paul Yingling, who came to national prominence on opposite sides of the counterinsurgency debates, joined forces to argue that, if Donald Trump were to lose the election and yet refuse to leave office at noon next January 20, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs must give the order to have him removed by military force.
0 kommentar(er)
