Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.
Ravenman is essentially contending that the president’s body belongs to the government in the same manner as does the White House lawn. In other words, that its care and protection has been assumed officially and exclusively by the government. Certainly, I cannot supply a citation establishing that this argument is wrong, but I suspect that that comes largely from no one ever having seriously advanced it anywhere. On the other hand, to be fair, no one’s ever really suggested hiring a private security force in addition to the Secret Service either.
I was thinking that this question should simply be emailed to the White House. Now I’ve read the rest of thread and see there is some contention, it seems doubly worth doing. Just don’t forget the bit about the pensioner.
The title of the code in question is “31 U.S. Code Chapter 13 - APPROPRIATIONS”
And here is the definition of Appropriations
Notice the words “public funds” used in the definition. It seems YOU are the one adding words to the statute that simply aren’t there, namely “personal funds”
No, that is totally incorrect. The laws I’ve cited have literally nothing to do with personhood or any related concept. It all has to do with whether private funds can be used to augment or replace functions performed by ththe Federal government. As I’ve said several times before, a President can’t privately hire someone to act as White House Counsel but not be on the government’s payroll. That doesn’t mean that the President’s mind belongs to the government. It just means that the law doesn’t allow shadow government agencies to operate beyond the scope of congressional oversight, checks and balances, etc.
This must be the disconnect, but I don’t think anyone is saying that. I know I’M not. You are correct, the President couldn’t hire someone and that person be called “White House Counsel” or have the authorities vested in that position.
The president, CAN, however, hire a lawyer to advise him on anything he wants, as long as he doesn’t call that person White House Counsel. Same with the private security force. Nobody is saying the President would hire security guys and CALL them the Secret Service, nor would they have the inherent authorities the Secret Service has.
Ok, cite, please.
How can I provide a cite for something that is LEGAL? Seems like you should provide at least one cite of a federal employee charged with a crime for expending personal funds in the futherance of government business. If you cannot, the conclusion is clear - such actions are NOT illegal. The cite I posted above contains years worth of reported violations of the Antideficiency Act, NONE of which involve a federal employee using personal funds for government business. Obvious conclusion - using personal funds is NOT a violation of the Antideficiency Act.
OK, here’s a question: Is a federal employee allowed to send a personal package via FedEx? If yes, cite for that?
Is this question for me?
What if he pays his private guards with counterfeit money? They’re not Secret Service; they might not notice.
If he can’t hire security guards could he hire hookers in places where it is legal as long as he paid with his own money? Could he open up a brothel in Nevada with his own money and call it the western White House?
What about soldiers who buy their own gear because the standard government issue equipment isn’t adequate? AFAIK this is happening (and has always happened) on a large scale.
Just mingle the whores in with the lobbyists, nobody will notice.
They are compelled to. I don’t care to spend any more time looking this up than I have to, but here is one cite specifically for DoD:
My God, I have just provided a cite to show that something is LEGAL! Wow! In GQ, no less!
Depends on what it is. The Army banned the use of body armor that didn’t meet the standards of the government-provided body armor. In terms of buying sunglasses, gloves, boots or whatnot, that is no different than me using the nice pen I bought while I’m sitting in my government-issued office.
Surprisingly enough, if you do not have any appropriated funds left to send official mail, you can use your own personal funds to do it!
Yes, this is legal, despite what Ravenman is spouting.
Post 56.
Can you point out where in Post #56 that you state it is a violation of the Antideficiency Law, which is what you said prevented these types of purchases?
And per your own cite, the Army didn’t ban them because of illegal augmentation of appropriated funds, which was originally the crux of your argument. I guess we are moving goal posts now.