[flagged]
But is not. Invasions are military offensives involving combatants of a geopolitical entity [1].
If this is an invasion, every rally in which a Confederate flag is waived is a rebellion. Also, § 4 concludes with "and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence." The Constitution is very clear about the scope of executive military power within the United States because they weren't illiterate and knew how Rome's republics fell [2].
Hell, even when Hamilton argued for federal control of militias, he underscored that its risk "to the liberties of the people" was mitigated by the fact that the states "have the SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS," emphasis his [3].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion
and God forbid if the English team crashes out early...or worse, ends up winning.
For sake of argument, let's grant this.
"A first-time illegal entry is a federal misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to $250 and a maximum jail sentence of six months" [1]. Assaulting a federal police officer carries a maximum jail sentence of 5 [2] to ten years [3].
The first category, petty misdemeanors, includes things like DUIs, cyberbullying and vandalism [4]. It also, conveniently, doesn't require a jury trial [5]. Based on your standard, if a tourist is caught driving under the influence, or is suspected of cyberbullying or vandalism, it triggers the threshold upon which, if any violence of any kind is suspected in their vicinity, troops can be deployed against American citizens. (And then they get no jury trial.) Because I will love to see that precedent explored the next time the far right whips up an election-denial conspiracy.
[1] https://legalclarity.org/18-u-s-c-1325-illegal-entry-and-its...
[2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/111
[3] https://medvinlaw.com/federal-assault-on-law-enforcement-pen...
[4] https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/classes-of-mi...
[5] https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-6/p...
but people who are in country illegally are not domestic.
"The Clause uses the term 'domestic violence' in the now-archaic sense of '[i]nsurrection or unlawful force fomented from within a country,” and not the modern usage meaning violence between romantic partners or within a household" [1][2].
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-4/sec...
Is the fact that someone is present in the country illegally more likely to be presented as evidence that that person doesn't count as a source of insurrection "from within the country", or as evidence that the person isn't beating his wife?
The point is domestic isn't qualifying violence, it's referring to a particular category of threat.
> the fact that someone is present in the country illegally
Illegal immigrants aren't "from within [the] country."
The people who are from within the United States are protesting. Mostly peacefully. They're the ones the Marines are being deployed against.
But that is the way TiredOfLife presented it. He says that people who are illegally present don't fall into that category. You respond that he shouldn't be talking about wife beaters. Where did that come from?
(Also, of course, "domestic" is qualifying "violence". It's just doing it in Merriam-Webster's sense 2 rather than sense 3.)
The term domestic violence cannot be decomposed into domestic and violence. It's a term of art referring to "[i]nsurrection or unlawful force fomented from within a country."
> of course, "domestic" is qualifying "violence"
No, it's not. It would be like arguing that a law that talks about the United States of America doesn't apply if the states aren't united at the time of its application. (It's even stupider, since this is not only a term of art, but an archaic one as well. Decomposing it is akin to using the modern definition for domestic violence to interpret that text.)
This is such a tabloid and uneducated take. These are riots or unrest, not an invasion. An invasion is a military offensive by a nation-state or global entity. If this was in fact an invasion, the US should invoke NATO article 5.
If that's the bar, then I'm wondering how you'd classify the J6 mob? Remember, the president explicitly pardoned each and every J6 protester who was duly convicted in a court of law by a jury so at best there are some extreme double standards being applied.
No, it doesn't.
What country is using what army to invade USA?