The Experts below are selected from a list of 360 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Charles Doyle - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • The Posse Comitatus Act and Related Matters: The Use of the Military to Execute Civilian Law
    2012
    Co-Authors: Charles Doyle
    Abstract:

    This report provides an historical analysis of the use of the Armed Forces to execute domestic law and of the Posse Comitatus Act, including their apparent theoretical and constitutional underpinnings. The report then outlines the current application of the Act as well as its statutory exceptions, and reviews the consequences of its violation.

  • Terrorism: Some Legal Restrictions on Military Assistance to Domestic Authorities Following a Terrorist Attack
    2005
    Co-Authors: Charles Doyle, Jennifer K. Elsea
    Abstract:

    AbstrAct : The Constitution empowers to the President to Act as Commander in Chief of the armed forces and to see to the execution of federal law. It gives Congress the authority to make federal law, including laws for the regulation of the armed forces. The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the use of the armed forces to perform civilian governmental tasks unless explicitly authorized to do so. There are statutory exceptions to ensure continued enforcement of state and federal law, to provide disaster assistance, and to provide technical support for law enforcement. There are constitutional impediments to the use of the military to nationalize an industry, to try civilians, and to compel state officials to perform federally imposed duties. Unlawful use of the armed forces might result in criminal or civil liability for responsible authorities and frustrate prosecution of terrorists. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, prompted some calls for the increased use of the military to fight terrorism. While the USA PATRIOT Act (Public Law 107-56) broadened the permissible circumstances for the use of the military to assist law enforcement agencies in countering terrorism, Congress also reaffirmed its determination to maintain the principle of the Posse Comitatus law. This report discusses specific statutory exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act and inherent Presidential authority to use troops to enforce the law. For a more complete discussion, see CRS Report 95-964, "The Posse Comitatus Act and Related Matters: The Use of the Military to Execute Civilian Law."

  • The Posse Comitatus Act and Related Matters: The Use of the Military to Execute Civilian Law,” Congressional Research Service Report 95-964
    2000
    Co-Authors: Charles Doyle
    Abstract:

    The Posse Comitatus Act outlaws willful use of any part of the Army or Air Force to execute the law unless expressly authorized by the Constitution or an Act of Congress. History supplies the grist for an argument that the Constitution prohibits military involvement in civilian affairs subject to only limited alterations by Congress or the President, but the courts do not appear to have ever accepted the argument unless violation of more explicit constitutional command could also be shown. The provision for express constitutional authorization when in fAct the Constitution contains no such express authorizations has been explained alternatively as a meaningless political face saving device or as an unartful reference to the President's constitutional powers. The express statutory exceptions include the legislation which allows the President to use military force to suppression insurrection, 10 U.S.C. 331-335, and sections which permit the Department of Defense to provide federal, state and local police with information and equipment, 10 U.S.C. 371-381. Existing case law indicates that "execution of the law " in violation of the Poss

  • of the Military to Execute Civilian Law Summary
    2000
    Co-Authors: Charles Doyle
    Abstract:

    The Posse Comitatus Act outlaws willful use of any part of the Army or Air Force to execute the law unless expressly authorized by the Constitution or an Act of Congress. History supplies the grist for an argument that the Constitution prohibits military involvement in civilian affairs subject to only limited alterations by Congress or the President, but the courts do not appear to have ever accepted the argument unless violation of more explicit constitutional command could also be shown. The provision for express constitutional authorization when in fAct the Constitution contains no such express authorizations has been explained alternatively as a meaningless political face saving device or as an unartful reference to the President's constitutional powers. The express statutory exceptions include the legislation which allows the President to use military force to suppression insurrection, 10 U.S.C. 331-335, and sections which permit the Department of Defense to provide federal, state and local police with information and equipment, 10 U.S.C. 371-381. Existing case law indicates that "execution of the law " in violation of the Poss

Garri Benjamin Hendell - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Domestic Use of the Armed Forces to Maintain Law and Order—Posse Comitatus Pitfalls at the Inauguration of the 44th President
    Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 2010
    Co-Authors: Garri Benjamin Hendell
    Abstract:

    The U.S. Constitution and federal and state laws provide many circumstances where regular Active duty and state militia military forces can be legitimately used to maintain law and order. There are certain restrictions on the use of certain forces domestically, the most well known of which are contained in the often misunderstood Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the use of such forces "to enforce the laws" unless such use is specifically authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress. However, there is no law which allows state governors to dispatch militias to Washington, DC in order to maintain law and order there, as occurred during the inauguration of the 44th President of the United States. Copyright 2011, Oxford University Press.

  • Domestic Use of the Armed Forces to Maintain Law and Order--Posse Comitatus Pitfalls at the Inauguration of the 44th President
    1
    Co-Authors: Garri Benjamin Hendell
    Abstract:

    The U.S. Constitution and federal and state laws provide many circumstances where regular Active duty and state militia military forces can be legitimately used to maintain law and order. There are certain restrictions on the use of certain forces domestically, the most well known of which are contained in the often misunderstood Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the use of such forces "to enforce the laws" unless such use is specifically authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress. However, there is no law which allows state governors to dispatch militias to Washington, DC in order to maintain law and order there, as occurred during the inauguration of the 44th President of the United States. Copyright 2011, Oxford University Press.

Jennifer K. Elsea - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • The Posse Comitatus Act and Related Matters: A Sketch
    2005
    Co-Authors: Jennifer K. Elsea
    Abstract:

    This report examines instances, as approved by Congress, where circumstances warrant a departure from the general rule of the Posse Comitatus Act, wherein the military is typically prevented from direct involvement in civilian affairs.

  • Terrorism: Some Legal Restrictions on Military Assistance to Domestic Authorities Following a Terrorist Attack
    2005
    Co-Authors: Charles Doyle, Jennifer K. Elsea
    Abstract:

    AbstrAct : The Constitution empowers to the President to Act as Commander in Chief of the armed forces and to see to the execution of federal law. It gives Congress the authority to make federal law, including laws for the regulation of the armed forces. The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the use of the armed forces to perform civilian governmental tasks unless explicitly authorized to do so. There are statutory exceptions to ensure continued enforcement of state and federal law, to provide disaster assistance, and to provide technical support for law enforcement. There are constitutional impediments to the use of the military to nationalize an industry, to try civilians, and to compel state officials to perform federally imposed duties. Unlawful use of the armed forces might result in criminal or civil liability for responsible authorities and frustrate prosecution of terrorists. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, prompted some calls for the increased use of the military to fight terrorism. While the USA PATRIOT Act (Public Law 107-56) broadened the permissible circumstances for the use of the military to assist law enforcement agencies in countering terrorism, Congress also reaffirmed its determination to maintain the principle of the Posse Comitatus law. This report discusses specific statutory exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act and inherent Presidential authority to use troops to enforce the law. For a more complete discussion, see CRS Report 95-964, "The Posse Comitatus Act and Related Matters: The Use of the Military to Execute Civilian Law."

Nicholas S. Bolduc - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Global insecurity: how risk theory gave rise to global police militarization
    Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 2016
    Co-Authors: Nicholas S. Bolduc
    Abstract:

    Today, across the globe, police agencies are militarizing to confront modern-day threats. This gradual shift towards militarized policing stems from the concept of risk--risk has driven nations to amend their laws so that their law enforcement agencies may militarize to meet whatever risk they face. In the United States, the gradual shift towards militarized police occurred after the crippling of the Posse Comitatus Act in the face of the developing "War on Drugs". However, America is a late development in this trend; the majority of the Western world militarized themselves through the concept of "gendarmes", while the Chinese militarized their police immediately after the Communist Revolution. Moreover, the Chinese militarized police are becoming more relevant today because of the Umbrella Revolution in Hong Kong that threatens the Communist regime. Language: en

Bolduc, Nicholas S. - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Global Insecurity: How Risk Theory Gave Rise to Global Police Militarization
    Digital Repository @ Maurer Law, 2016
    Co-Authors: Bolduc, Nicholas S.
    Abstract:

    Today, across the globe, police agencies are militarizing to confront modern-day threats. This gradual shift towards militarized policing stems from the concept of risk-risk has driven nations to amend their laws so that their law enforcement agencies may militarize to meet whatever risk they face. In the United States, the gradual shift towards militarized police occurred after the crippling of the Posse Comitatus Act in the face of the developing \u27War on Drugs However, America is a late development in this trend; the majority of the Western world militarized themselves through the concept of \u27gendarmes , while the Chinese militarized their police immediately after the Communist Revolution. Moreover, the Chinese militarized police are becoming more relevant today because of the Umbrella Revolution in Hong Kong that threatens the Communist regime