The Federalist Papers

[tarlhawk]

This full text of the Federalist Papers is available and I find it interesting as a perspective on why certain debated ideas were incorporated into the structure of our Constitution by our founding Fathers...in particular correspondence between James Madison and Thomas Jefferson.

From the Library of Congress

The Federalist, commonly referred to as the Federalist Papers, is a series of 85 essays written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison between October 1787 and May 1788. The essays were published anonymously, under the pen name "Publius," in various New York state newspapers of the time.

The Federalist Papers were written and published to urge New Yorkers to ratify the proposed United States Constitution, which was drafted in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787. In lobbying for adoption of the Constitution over the existing Articles of Confederation, the essays explain particular provisions of the Constitution in detail. For this reason, and because Hamilton and Madison were each members of the Constitutional Convention, the Federalist Papers are often used today to help interpret the intentions of those drafting the Constitution.

The Federalist Papers were published primarily in two New York state newspapers: The New York Packet and The Independent Journal. They were reprinted in other newspapers in New York state and in several cities in other states. A bound edition, with revisions and corrections by Hamilton, was published in 1788 by printers J. and A. McLean. An edition published by printer Jacob Gideon in 1818, with revisions and corrections by Madison, was the first to identify each essay by its author's name. Because of its publishing history, the assignment of authorship, numbering, and exact wording may vary with different editions of The Federalist.

[RiverDog]

Thanks for the tip. I have to admit that I have never read the Federalist Papers in their entirety, but perhaps I should. Hopefully I can get it on my Kindle app.

But what's your point in starting a thread about it?

[Aseahawkfan]

That would be an interesting read. I have read some papers here and there, but never all of them.

[tarlhawk]

But what's your point in starting a thread about it?

Several years ago I added this to my Kindle to find out some truths about the "right to bear arms" and use of militia while skirting the Posse Comitatus Act. This excerpt concerning this Act is from Joseph Nunn Published: October 14, 2021

The Posse Comitatus Act Explained

The law generally prevents the president from using the military as a domestic police force.



Published: October 14, 2021


The Posse Comit­atus Act bars federal troops from parti­cip­at­ing in civil­ian law enforce­ment except when expressly author­ized by law. This 143-year-old law embod­ies an Amer­ican tradi­tion that sees milit­ary inter­fer­ence in civil­ian affairs as a threat to both demo­cracy and personal liberty. However, recent events have revealed danger­ous gaps in the law’s cover­age that Congress must address.

[RiverDog]

But what's your point in starting a thread about it?

Several years ago I added this to my Kindle to find out some truths about the "right to bear arms" and use of militia while skirting the Posse Comitatus Act. This excerpt concerning this Act is from Joseph Nunn Published: October 14, 2021

The Posse Comitatus Act Explained

The law generally prevents the president from using the military as a domestic police force.



Published: October 14, 2021


The Posse Comit­atus Act bars federal troops from parti­cip­at­ing in civil­ian law enforce­ment except when expressly author­ized by law. This 143-year-old law embod­ies an Amer­ican tradi­tion that sees milit­ary inter­fer­ence in civil­ian affairs as a threat to both demo­cracy and personal liberty. However, recent events have revealed danger­ous gaps in the law’s cover­age that Congress must address.

Ahh, I see. Thanks for clarifying that.

So how does the Posse Comitatus Act square with a number of domestic incidents, such as when Eisenhower ordered the 82 Airborne to enforce school desegregation in Little Rock, AK, where Presidents have used the military to 'interfere' with civilian affairs?

[tarlhawk]

So how does the Posse Comitatus Act square with a number of domestic incidents, such as when Eisenhower ordered the 82 Airborne to enforce school desegregation in Little Rock, AK, where Presidents have used the military to 'interfere' with civilian affairs?

Found this (from 4 years ago) :

The Posse Comitatus Act has a loophole bolded for your convenience.

From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress ;

The act of Congress under which he mobilized the 101st Airborne was one of the Enforcement Acts passed by Congress after the American Civil War which allowed the President to call up military forces when state authorities are unable or unwilling to suppress violence directed at the constitutional rights of the people.

This is another excerpt from Joseph Nunn Published: October 14, 2021

Today, the Posse Comit­atus Act oper­ates as an exten­sion of these consti­tu­tional safe­guards. Moreover, there are stat­utory excep­tions to the law that allow the pres­id­ent to use the milit­ary to suppress genu­ine rebel­lions and to enforce federal civil rights laws.
There are many stat­utory excep­tions to the Posse Comit­atus Act, but the most import­ant one is the Insur­rec­tion Act. Under this law, in response to a state govern­ment’s request, the pres­id­ent may deploy the milit­ary to suppress an insur­rec­tion in that state. In addi­tion, the Insur­rec­tion Act allows the pres­id­ent — with or without the state govern­ment’s consent — to use the milit­ary to enforce federal law or suppress a rebel­lion against federal author­ity in a state, or to protect a group of people’s civil rights when the state govern­ment is unable or unwill­ing to do so.

[RiverDog]

Found this (from 4 years ago) :

The Posse Comitatus Act has a loophole bolded for your convenience.

From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress ;

The act of Congress under which he mobilized the 101st Airborne was one of the Enforcement Acts passed by Congress after the American Civil War which allowed the President to call up military forces when state authorities are unable or unwilling to suppress violence directed at the constitutional rights of the people.

This is another excerpt from Joseph Nunn Published: October 14, 2021

Today, the Posse Comit­atus Act oper­ates as an exten­sion of these consti­tu­tional safe­guards. Moreover, there are stat­utory excep­tions to the law that allow the pres­id­ent to use the milit­ary to suppress genu­ine rebel­lions and to enforce federal civil rights laws.
There are many stat­utory excep­tions to the Posse Comit­atus Act, but the most import­ant one is the Insur­rec­tion Act. Under this law, in response to a state govern­ment’s request, the pres­id­ent may deploy the milit­ary to suppress an insur­rec­tion in that state. In addi­tion, the Insur­rec­tion Act allows the pres­id­ent — with or without the state govern­ment’s consent — to use the milit­ary to enforce federal law or suppress a rebel­lion against federal author­ity in a state, or to protect a group of people’s civil rights when the state govern­ment is unable or unwill­ing to do so.

So in other words, at least as it applies to the use of federal power to address civil incidents, the Act is essentially a blue law as the statutory exceptions leaves it completely up to the President to determine "when state authorities are unable or unwilling to suppress violence...

[c_hawkbob]

So in other words, at least as it applies to the use of federal power to address civil incidents, the Act is essentially a blue law as the statutory exceptions leaves it completely up to the President to determine "when state authorities are unable or unwilling to suppress violence...

Not sure why you chose to end the quote there Riv, it seems most importantly to me "directed at the constitutional rights of the people".

It's not just suppressing violence, it's quite specifically suppressing violence directed at constitutionally protected rights. That's why it was applicable in that specific incident.

[tarlhawk]

It's not just suppressing violence, it's quite specifically suppressing violence directed at constitutionally protected rights. That's why it was applicable in that specific incident.

Well stated...just to quell violence would be akin to when Seattle allowed a siege of city blocks (by gun toting protesters) and our state governor didn't seem to have a handle on the situation which gained traction until a murder occurred forcing reaction to stop the "takeover".
Then President Trump threatened the use of Federal response if Washington didn't get control of the situation...the fact that he didn't get involved may have been this Posse Comitatus Act .

[RiverDog]

So in other words, at least as it applies to the use of federal power to address civil incidents, the Act is essentially a blue law as the statutory exceptions leaves it completely up to the President to determine "when state authorities are unable or unwilling to suppress violence...

Not sure why you chose to end the quote there Riv, it seems most importantly to me "directed at the constitutional rights of the people".

It's not just suppressing violence, it's quite specifically suppressing violence directed at constitutionally protected rights.

Fair enough.

However, my point is that the law doesn't really prevent the POTUS from the use of the military in domestic affairs as most situations where it would be used w/o state approval would be a civil rights issue where the POTUS and Governor would be most likely to disagree on, or an insurrection, in which case he'd be authorized anyway under his oath to "preserve, protect, and defend" the Constitution. It also doesn't prevent him/her from using the military if it involves federal property, like a riot at a federal courthouse or army base, as federal property is outside the jurisdiction of the states.

There's other situations that would give the federal government power to act w/o state approval, such as a violation of the thousands of federal laws that are on the books, or crimes that cross state boundaries, which is where the FBI derives their authority.

Bottom line is that I regard the Act as being more or less irrelevant or redundant.