82 years ago today, Roosevelt issued an Executive Order 6102 mandating confiscation of all privately held gold. It was upheld as valid. Is there any reasonable constraint on the power of the President to order confiscation of property?

The insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan don't have tanks or aircraft but they sure put up a hell of a fight.

No they didn't. Thinking what they did applies at all to the scenario above is ridiculous. The military summarily crushed the military powers in Iraq and Afghanistan. The militants would have been destroyed in months had the US government taken the leash off the military. Instead the military was turned into glorified police, local relationship managers, logistics providers, and border guards.

We were trying to "win hearts and minds" and weren't trying to crush a people into obedience and "peace," which we were more than capable of.

Imagine how quickly the insurgency dies if the military can destroy any stronghold town or city block. I don't mean bomb. I mean remove from the face of the earth. You support the insurgents? You, everyone around you, and everyone related to you is dead. If they can conduct regular house by house raids of whole cities and execute anyone with a weapon or insurgent literature. You inform against a verified insurgent or insurgent cell? You're rich beyond your wildest dreams.

The insurgents were able to take pot shots at us with IEDs and small scale raids because we muzzled our dog. And we had to for the particular mission in those countries.

In the scenario outlined above where the US government has moved far enough toward outright tyranny to actually make a move for [whatever their end goal is], the population is divided, and the military supports the government, you aren't going to see the "nice guy" military we saw in Iraq and Afghanistan. It'd be the rebel killing, town destroying, death-machine military. It'd also be supported by 30-50% of the population, at least for awhile.

/r/NeutralPolitics Thread Parent