Select Page

Schiff Proposal Would Remove Congressional Oversight from Military for Domestic Police Action 

Schiff Proposal Would Remove Congressional Oversight from Military for Domestic Police Action 

House lawmakers this week voted in favor of an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that removes lawmakers’ oversight capacity during some cases of domestic deployment. 

The amendment was first introduced by California Rep. Adam Schiff (D) in 2020 in response to then-President Trump’s never-fulfilled threat to deploy the US Army to calm social justice protests. The proposal passed the House, but was eliminated during a House-Senate compromise in December 2021. 

Republican lawmakers claim Schiff is re-introducing the proposal now in order to preemptively block their oversight abilities if the GOP wins Congressional majority in November. 

If signed into law, the amendment could impact the resolution of the Jan. 6th hearings and Republicans’ planned investigation into the Biden Administration’s mishandling of the migrant crisis at the southern border. 

“This un-American amendment will fundamentally and irreparably erode Congress’ constitutional oversight responsibility,” argues Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY). “Democrats led by Adam Schiff are attempting to cover up for the national security crises of the weakest commander in chief in US history.”

“I’m very concerned about it, and Republicans need to fight back against it in the House and Senate to make sure it doesn’t pass,” adds Rep. Jim Banks (R-IN).“Democrats know we are going to take back the majority and are already trying to tie our hands when we do.”

Lauren French, a spokesperson for Rep. Schiff, accused Republicans of misrepresenting the proposal.

“The measure prevents  presidents, of any party, from unlawfully using our nation’s armed forces in a domestic law enforcement capacity against Americans exercising their constitutionally protected rights,” said French. “This is something both parties should support…This amendment deters violations of the law by prohibiting the use of unlawfully obtained evidence by the government in a court or other legal proceeding.”

Schiff’s amendment won support from the Brennan Center for Justice, which said it would “establish clear consequences to deter the government” from unlawfully deploying the military during civil law enforcement situations and suppress any evidence obtained during such events. 

The 2023 National Defense Authorization Act, approved by House lawmakers this week, includes a total of 8 amendments authored by Rep. Schiff. In addition to the proposal discussed above, the 2023 proposal includes amendments seeking to:

  • Force Azerbaijan to release Armenian POWs and civilians that were detained following the 2020 war in Nagorno-Karabakh. 
  • Convince Iran to end its human rights violations and release political prisoners and prisoners of conscience.
  • Expand human rights protections for journalists.
  • Review the implementation of a 2010 law designed to identify and criticize governments that silence media opposition.
  • Honor the “Lost 74” (crew of the USS Frank E. Evans who perished during a training exercise in the South China Sea in 1969).
  • Authorize military judges to make public military commission proceedings available online (including Guantanamo Bay).

Author’s Note: This is an irrational development. Congressional oversight is an integral part of the checks and balances system that keeps a government balanced. Reducing oversight means that presidential power could go unchecked.

And while we certainly do not want to encourage military deployment during law enforcement situations, removing oversight is just plain stupid.

Editor’s Note: The deployment of the military for domestic purposes is one of the most sensitive Constitutional issues, only to be done in dire emergencies. Why on God’s green earth would you want less oversight on something like this?


Congressman Schiff on Passage of 2023 National Defense Authorization Act

Schiff seeks rule that would block oversight of some military operations

About The Author


  1. MiLes collins

    I guess it’s up to us to protect our lives and towns. Of course the democrats want violence and lawlessness. My advice? Don’t bring that shit to me This is evidence that the left agrees with mob rule. Stay armed and stay ready

    • poorgrandchildren

      MiLes, they are very concerned about losing mob rule. They constantly talk about threats to our democracy, the system of government our brilliant founders rejected and mandated a republic. De-mob-ocracy allows the best organized mob to force everyone to march in lockstep with it.

  2. frank stetson

    You guys are funny.

    This story dropped about five days ago in the Washington Times; it’s so bad that it only got picked up by couple of blogosphere rags of the niche variety like “douchebag defense daily,” and Alice.

    Perhaps that’s because the amendment does not do what Alice bravely proclaims it does. The amendment merely clarifies the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 and the Insurrection Act of 1807. These acts dictate circumstances in which federal troops can be deployed on American soil, including natural disaster, terrorist attack, epidemic or domestic violence. However, until Trump, the process for doing this most often included State request, Congressional advise, and the like — by custom, not by law. Trump, on a number of occasions, including 1/6, threatened to use the Insurrection Act to unilaterally decide to send in Federal Troops without even so much as a request from State authorities. The last time these laws were used was the LA riots of 1992, after Governor Pete Wilson made the request — that’s what was the norm — until Trump.

    Funnier yet is you Republicans lining up to say: “hey, we need less restrictions so the President can decide himself to unleash the power of the military to qwell domestic issues,” something that I am pretty sure the Founding Fathers would be frothing at the mouth rabid dog attack against. Perhaps you also want to toss the third amendment so these folks will have places to stay as they invade our own towns: “No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law,” now there’s a bad piece of Constitution —- teacher, leave those soldiers alone :>)

    Is this a power you want the Joe Biden’s of the world to wield? Silly Trumplicants.

    The act only looks to clarify the current law which, before Trump, customarily stopped Presidents from sending in Federal troops, or Federalizing State Troops. It does not, that I can see, and that no one besides Washington Times and Alice can see, provide the powers they suggest. Can’t see that at all in the amendment. Can not only NOT SEE that it strips Congress of it’s authorities, it seems to do the exact opposite and strengthen Congressional oversight, you be the judge:

    • Ben

      Hell no we don’t want a dumb ass like Biden to be left unchecked.

  3. mojo

    Pencil neck needs to be taken behind the barn and given an American Constitutional Attitude Adjustment.