Graham: I'd Use Military Force Against Congress

While not yet an announced first-in-the-nation Republican presidential hopeful, U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham’s visit to New Hampshire and some of his comments, have already begun to stir controversy.

The first came last week after he stated that despite being in Congress for 20 years, he had not used email to communicate with anyone. The questions about not using email have arisen in the wake of revelations that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was dealing with all her official email from a private account routed through a personal server at her home in Chappaqua, NY, something that is unprecedented for a state department official.

In New Hampshire this weekend, he followed up the explanation saying he likes to speak with people directly and the next president, “needs to be good with people, not just technology.”

One has to wonder if being good with people also means ordering the military to force elected officials to act on his potential, future policies, something he also suggested this weekend.

At an event in Concord, Graham stated that he would use force against lawmakers if they didn’t do what he proposed, specifically increasing Pentagon and intelligence spending.

“And here’s the first thing I would do if I were President of the United States,” he was recorded saying. “I wouldn’t let Congress leave town until we fix this. I would literally use the military to keep ‘em in if I had to. We are not leaving town until we restore these defense cuts. We’re not leaving town until we restore the intel cuts.”

Musician and former Republican state representative candidate Ron Noyes posted the audio and the no comment response he received from Graham’s office after trying to follow-up on the comment in a post on BenSwann.com.

As most people know, what Graham is proposing, even jokingly, is a violation of the separation of powers and possibly illegal, depending on your reading of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which limits the power of the federal government to use the military against its citizens or to enforce laws. The act has been amended a number of times, most recently, to allow armed forces to “restore public order” during natural disasters or terrorist attacks, or any major public emergency. It’s unknown whether increasing defense spending – which even the Heritage Foundation admits is $200 billion more than what President Bill Clinton spent in his last year in office – would be considered a public emergency or not.

While some of Graham’s supporters wouldn’t speak about the comment, Noyes was able to grab one from his most recent Republican primary opponents, state Sen. Lee Bright, who said Graham’s proposal, if serious, was “a threat to the Republic.”

Patch has requested clarification from Graham’s staff via his Twitter account, since we know he doesn’t answer emails, but we haven’t received a response as of post time.