The People only granted an extremely limited element of the police power to the Federal government under Article 4, Section 4: "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence."

"Against invasion" refers only to military invasion by a foreign nation. "Against domestic violence" requires a request by the state to the federal government.

There has never been a national police force because none was authorized by the Constitution. The three letter agencies are a recent development purposed with limited jurisdiction to enforce specific federal laws.

"Against invasion" refers only to military invasion by a foreign nation.

I think it just says invasion. We are being invaded.

I think it just says invasion. We are being invaded.

You are correct in the words it says, but the flawed interpretation cannot stand.

In order for a state to be afforded the protections of the Invasion Clause, it must be exposed to armed hostility from another political entity, such as another state or foreign country that is intending to overthrow the state's government. See The Federalist No. 43 (James Madison) (stating that the reason for the Invasion Clause is to protect the states from "foreign hostility" and from "ambitious or vindictive enterprises" on the part of other states or foreign nations).

Article IV, Sec. 4:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Article I, Sec. 8:

The Congress shall have Power … To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.

Article I, Section 10, cl. 3:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Article I, Sec. 9, cl. 2:

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

- - - - - - - - - -

https://law.justia.com/cases/ federal/appellate-courts/ F3/82/23/485206/

Padavan v. United States, 82 F.3d 23 (2d Cir. 1996)

In Count V, the plaintiffs contend that the federal government violated the Invasion Clause because the influx of legal and illegal aliens into New York State represents an "invasion," and the federal government has failed to protect New York State from this invasion. We think that this count was properly dismissed by the district court.

Assuming, arguendo, that the plaintiffs' Invasion Clause claim is justiciable, the claim still must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In order for a state to be afforded the protections of the Invasion Clause, it must be exposed to armed hostility from another political entity, such as another state or foreign country that is intending to overthrow the state's government. See The Federalist No. 43 (James Madison) (stating that the reason for the Invasion Clause is to protect the states from "foreign hostility" and from "ambitious or vindictive enterprises" on the part of other states or foreign nations). Clearly, New York State is not being subjected to the sort of hostility contemplated by the Framers.

https://law.justia.com/cases/ federal/appellate-courts/ F3/104/1086/548228/

California v. United States, 104 F.3d 1086 (9th Cir. 1997)

In this case, the issue of protection of the States from invasion implicates foreign policy concerns which have been constitutionally committed to the political branches. The Supreme Court has held that the political branches have plenary powers over immigration. Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787, 792, 97 S. Ct. 1473, 1477-78, 52 L. Ed. 2d 50 (1977). For this Court to determine that the United States has been "invaded" when the political branches have made no such determination would disregard the constitutional duties that are the specific responsibility of other branches of government, and would result in the Court making an ineffective non-judicial policy decision. See Barber v. Hawaii, 42 F.3d 1185, 1199 (9th Cir. 1994) (dismissing an Invasion Clause claim as a nonjusticiable political question). Additionally, even if the issue were properly within the Court's constitutional responsibility, there are no manageable standards to ascertain whether or when an influx of illegal immigrants should be said to constitute an invasion. The Court notes that the other Circuits that have addressed the issues before us in similar suits against the United States have reached the same conclusions that we do. Padavan v. United States, 82 F.3d 23, 28 (2nd Cir. 1996); Chiles v. United States, 69 F.3d 1094, 1097 (11th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S. Ct. 1674, 134 L. Ed. 2d 777 (1996); New Jersey v. United States, 91 F.3d 463 (3rd Cir. 1996); Texas v. United States, No. B-94-228 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 7, 1995), appeal pending, No. 95-40721 (5th Cir).

Moreover, California ignores the conclusion set forth by our Founders. In The Federalist No. 43, James Madison referred to the Invasion Clause as affording protection in situations wherein a state is exposed to armed hostility from another political entity. Madison stated that Article IV, § 4 serves to protect a state from "foreign hostility" and "ambitious or vindictive enterprises" on the part of other states or foreign nations. The Federalist No. 43 at 293 (Cooke ed.1961). It was not intended to be used as urged by California.

https:// caselaw.findlaw.com/ court/us-3rd- circuit/1205572.html

New Jersey v. United States (3rd Cir., 1996)

4. Invasion Clause

In Count III New Jersey alleges that the failure of the United States to prevent the entry of illegal aliens into that state violates the federal government's obligation under the Constitution to “protect each of [the states] against Invasion.” U.S. Const. art. IV, § 4. It offers no support whatsoever for application of the Invasion Clause to this case or for its reading of the term “invasion” to mean anything other than a military invasion. See Padavan, 82 F.3d at 28 (“In order for a state to be afforded the protections of the Invasion Clause, it must be exposed to armed hostility from another political entity, such as another state or foreign country that is intending to overthrow the state's government.” (citing The Federalist No. 43 (James Madison))).

"Against invasion" refers only to military invasion by a foreign nation.

1. United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) — Commerce Clause limits clarified Even though the Court struck down the Gun‑Free School Zones Act, it explicitly reaffirmed that Congress may criminalize and federally prosecute:

Drug trafficking

Weapons trafficking

Organized crime

Cross‑border criminal enterprises

Because these activities substantially affect interstate and international commerce, federal enforcement is constitutional.

Why it matters: The Court recognized that transnational criminal groups fall squarely within federal jurisdiction.

2. Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005) — Federal power over drug cartels The Supreme Court held that Congress may regulate all drug production and distribution under the Commerce Clause, even intrastate marijuana.

Implication: If Congress can regulate a single marijuana plant grown at home, it can certainly regulate — and enforce laws against — international drug cartels.

3. United States v. Alvarez‑Machain, 504 U.S. 655 (1992) — Cross‑border cartel enforcement The Court upheld the federal government’s authority to:

Apprehend a Mexican national involved in the Guadalajara Cartel

Bring him to the U.S. for trial

Prosecute him under federal law

Why it matters: The Court recognized federal authority to act outside U.S. borders against cartel members involved in crimes against U.S. agents.

Federal Intervention Against Paramilitary or Militia‑Type Groups 4. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) — Federal regulation of armed groups The Court upheld the National Firearms Act, affirming Congress’s power to regulate:

Weapons used by paramilitary groups

Arms trafficking across state lines

Why it matters: Federal authority extends to armed groups whose activities cross state or national boundaries.

5. United States v. Rahman (1995) — Prosecution of non‑state militant groups The federal government successfully prosecuted the “Blind Sheikh” and his followers for:

Conspiracy to wage war against the U.S.

Terrorist plots involving non‑state actors

Federal courts upheld broad federal authority to intervene against paramilitary and extremist groups, even when not tied to a foreign government.

Federal Intervention Against Non‑State Actors (Terrorism, Insurgency, Transnational Crime) 6. Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (2010) — Federal power over foreign non‑state groups The Court upheld federal authority to regulate and criminalize support to:

Foreign terrorist organizations

Non‑state armed groups

Why it matters: The Constitution allows federal action against non‑state actors, not just foreign armies.

7. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) — Non‑state combatants The Court recognized federal authority to detain individuals associated with:

Non‑state militant groups

Paramilitary organizations

Even when not tied to a nation‑state.

8. United States v. Verdugo‑Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990) — Federal action against foreign criminal organizations The Court upheld federal authority to:

Conduct searches abroad

Target members of Mexican drug cartels

Enforce U.S. criminal law extraterritorially

There has never been a national police force because none was authorized by the Constitution. The three letter agencies are a recent development purposed with limited jurisdiction to enforce specific federal laws.

This is just historically wrong. The Constitution absolutely allows federal law enforcement, and the U.S. has had a national police force since 1789.

The U.S. Marshals Service was created by the First Congress in 1789, right alongside the Constitution itself. If a “national police force” were unconstitutional, the Founders wouldn’t have created one immediately.

Federal law enforcement authority comes from the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause, not from a requirement that the Constitution list “police force” by name.

The FBI, DEA, ATF, and others aren’t constitutional outliers — they’re the modern evolution of powers the federal government has exercised since the beginning.

Their jurisdiction is limited to federal law, but that doesn’t mean the federal government lacks police power. It means state and federal police powers overlap, which is exactly how the system was designed.

Bottom line: Federal law enforcement isn’t a “recent development” and it isn’t unconstitutional. It’s been part of the American system since day one.

Washington appointed the first 13 U.S. Marshals, one for each federal judicial district. These men carried responsibilities as broad as they were vital. They served writs, subpoenas, and warrants; managed federal jails; secured courtrooms; and enforced orders of the new federal courts. In many cases, they became the most visible representation of federal authority in the young republic. Their work provided stability, lending credibility to the rule of law at a time when the United States was still proving itself on the world stage.

Guardians of Justice Through the Centuries From the earliest days, U.S. Marshals embodied the principle that law enforcement exists to ensure justice is not just written but carried out. In the 19th century, they enforced laws during turbulent times, from combating piracy to upholding court orders during civil unrest. They played a central role in enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act, a chapter that remains controversial but underscores their place at the heart of America’s most difficult struggles. Later, Marshals stood alongside civil rights activists to enforce desegregation orders in the 1960s, often facing danger and hostility in service of the law.

usmsa.com/historical-timeline

There has never been a national police force because none was authorized by the Constitution. The three letter agencies are a recent development purposed with limited jurisdiction to enforce specific federal laws.

This is just historically wrong. The Constitution absolutely allows federal law enforcement, and the U.S. has had a national police force since 1789.

The U.S. Marshals Service was created by the First Congress in 1789, right alongside the Constitution itself. If a “national police force” were unconstitutional, the Founders wouldn’t have created one immediately.

The Judiciary Act of 29 Sept 1789, 1 Stat. 73, created the Judicial branch and established the "Office of the United States Marshal" as part of the Judicial branch, under the district courts. The Marshals created by the Judiciary Act primary function was to execute all lawful warrants issued to him under the authority of the United States. The Marshals acted as officers of the courts charged with assisting federal courts in their law-enforcement functions.

Section 27. And be it further enacted, That a marshal shall be appointed in and for each district for the term of four years, but shall be removable from office at pleasure, whose duty it shall be to attend the district and circuit courts when sitting therein, and also the Supreme Court in the District in which that court shall sit.(b) And to execute throughout the district, all lawful precepts directed to him, and issued under the authority of the United States, and he shall have power to command all necessary assistance in the execution of his duty, and to appoint as there shall be occasion, one or more deputies,(c) who shall be removable from office by the judge of the district court, or the circuit court sitting within the district, at the pleasure of either; and before he enters on the duties of his office, he shall become bound for the faithful performance of the same, by himself and by his deputies before the judge of the district court to the United States, jointly and severally, with two good and sufficient sureties, inhabitants and freeholders of such district, to be approved by the district judge, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, and shall take before said judge, as shall also his deputies, before they enter on the duties of their appointment, the following oath of office: "I, A. B., do solemnly swear or affirm, that I will faithfully execute all lawful precepts directed to the marshal of the district of _____ under the authority of the United States, and true returns make, and in all things well and truly, and without malice or partiality, perform the duties of the office of marshal (or marshal’s deputy, as the case may be) of the district of _____, during my continuance in said office, and take only my lawful fees. So help me God."

Section 28. And be it further enacted, That in all causes wherein the marshal or his deputy shall be a party, the writs and precepts therein shall be directed to such disinterested person as the court, or any justice or judge thereof may appoint, and the person so appointed, is hereby authorized to execute and return the same. And in case of the death of any marshal, his deputy or deputies shall continue in office, unless otherwise specially removed; and shall execute the same in the name of the deceased, until another marshal shall be appointed and sworn: And the defaults or misfeasances in office of such deputy or deputies in the mean time, as well as before, shall be adjudged a breach of the condition of the bond given, as before directed, by the marshal who appointed them; and the executor or administrator of the deceased marshal shall have like remedy for the defaults and misfeasances in office of such deputy or deputies during such interval, as they would be entitled to if the marshal had continued in life and in the exercise of his said office, until his successor was appointed, and sworn or affirmed: And every marshal or his deputy when removed from office, or when the term for which the marshal is appointed shall expire, shall have power notwithstanding to execute all such precepts as may be in their hands respectively at the time of such removal or expiration of office; and the marshal shall be held answerable for the delivery to his successor of all prisoners which may be in his custody at the time of his removal, or when the term for which he is appointed shall expire, and for that purpose may retain such prisoners in his custody until his successor shall be appointed and qualified as the law directs.(a)

The United States Marshals Service (USMS) was established in 1969 in the Department of Justice, under the Attorney General.

At the time of the Framers, the U.S. Marshals Service did not exist, just as the Department of Justice did not exist.

#7: The offices of U.S. Marshal and Deputy Marshals were created more than 200 years ago by the first Congress in the Judiciary Act of 1789,

When Washington took office, there were eleven (11) states in the Union. The Department of Justice was created in 1870. The U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) within the Department of Justice, in the Executive Branch, under the Attorney General, was created in 1969. The U.S. Marshals were created in 1789 as part of the Judicial Branch. The government agency called the U.S. Marshals Service was created in 1969 within the Executive Branch.

When Washington took office, there were eleven (11) states in the Union.

The argument tries to dispute this by saying there were only 11 states when Washington took office. But the number of states is irrelevant.

Why? The Judiciary Act of 1789 created 13 federal judicial districts, not 11. These districts included:

11 districts for the 11 states

PLUS

Kentucky District (then part of Virginia)

Maine District (then part of Massachusetts)

So there were 13 districts, and Washington appointed one marshal per district, exactly as stated.

The U.S. Marshals were created in 1789 as part of the Judicial Branch.

The Judiciary Act of 1789 created the office of U.S. Marshal to support the federal courts, but:

Marshals were appointed by the President, not by the courts.

Marshals served at the pleasure of the President, not the judiciary.

Marshals executed executive functions (census-taking, law enforcement, tax collection, etc.).

Historically, the Marshals were considered part of the Executive Branch, even though their duties were tied to the courts. The Supreme Court has repeatedly described them as executive officers.

The U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) within the Department of Justice, in the Executive Branch, under the Attorney General, was created in 1969.

Important distinction: The office of U.S. Marshal → created in 1789

The U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) → created in 1969 as an administrative agency within DOJ

Marshals existed for 81 years before DOJ was created. They were simply moved under DOJ when it was formed.

This does not change their founding date or their constitutional status.

The creation of the modern agency does not change the fact that the office itself dates back to 1789.

It’s like saying:

“The U.S. Army didn’t exist until the Department of Defense was created.”

Regards...MUD

Regards...MUD

Regards...MUD

Regards...MUD

Spanberger SUCKS...MUD

Regards...MUD

Mass Deportation ROCKS...MUD

Regards...MUD