Ummm... close, but no. The Posse Comitatus Act is a law signed in the late 1800's and is not included in the Constitution. There are also no specific guidlines governing the use of the military in disaster scenarios in the Constitution. Here is the current wording:

"Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1385.html

Posse Comitatus means the power (or force) of the country. This refers to raising a militia. It was originally written to stop the government from grabbing able bodied citizens and forcing them into service, or a posse, for the purpose riot control, keeping the peace, arresting criminals, etc. This was part of English common law at the time. Prior to 1878 when the law was originally signed, it was a regular occurance to see the US Army enforcing law. The law was later amended to prohibit the US Army and Air Force from being used to execute law, but it's original purpose was to prevent local governments from forming a posse, or taking control of the military for purposes of law enforcement. Although it can be overridden in situations expressly authorized by the Constitution, or when authorized by Congress. This has happened many times before in the past in the case of disaster relief. For example, in the 1930's the Army Corp of Engineers performed disaster relief operations and aided communities in preventing and repairing flood damage.
http://www.lrp.usace.army.mil/pm/johnlfpp.htm

I'm still trying to find out more information on exactly how this whole dwell-time mission thing began and who is authorizing what. As of now, the article only references training in case they are called up for support. If it is approved by Congress, then they are legally allowed to deploy. Since this has happened in the past without incident, it is reasonable to assume it could happen again. Going on what I know from talking to the unit, they were ready to deploy for Ike, but were never called. I can only assume this means that since Congress didn't say they should go, they didn't go. It would be illegal if they just started deploying without approval since the changes were repealed from the Insurrection Act in January of 2008. I'm not exactly too happy with the idea myself, but I'm not seeing this as the doomsday scenario other people seem to be visualizing. It looks more like a response to continued reports and complaints about Federal shortcomings in aid during recent natural disasters.

http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/posse%20comit.htm
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/cc/baker1.html

Rule number 1 in big red letters Please do not self link

See the Posting Guidlines

OMFG, dag there have been so many times I've wanted to through Macs out Windows (no pun intended), that I considered it a safety hazard that the original iMac had a convenient "grab and throw off roof" handle.

Vista's actually working quite nicely. Then again, any computer where I exercise absolute control will generally work quite nicely. As opposed to, say, my work system (running XP), which has to run work-related utilities. Although I can't complain about its performance as of late, except for the monthly update program which delivers new accounting guidlines to me with all the grace and finesse of a drunken Heavy in TF2.

Speaking of which, I want to play some TF2 now.

The first rule of VideoSift is absolutely no self-linking. Please read the posting guidlines before posting again. We are happy to see new members join the sift but we ask that you adhere to the rules and the no self-linking rules is the primary rule of the sift.

In reply to this comment by Slaphead:
Just wondered why you'd banned my breakdancing video? I'm new to videosift - and a bit bemused why you did that. It's been really well received on YouTube - loads of positives. What did I do wrong?

Jason aka Jasonb80s (clip url: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpWATMtTPkk)

totally, thanks jonny

In reply to this comment by jonny:
Raven - thought you might want to add FRONTLINE's entire series of reports on the war on terror to your del.icio.us list.

But yes Dag, that seems to be a good summation of things thus far:

1. A RAW filter similar to the NSFW filter (strictly defined of course to make sure submitters understand that this applies to footage of real events.

2. A 'War on Terror' Channel is obviously needed and as soon as I hear back from Silvercord or find a taker for the HorrorShow I will definitely be starting this up.

3. A rewriting of the guidlines to allow violence and death in War footage, the actual wording of this I am sure will need to be refined over the next few days as more people add their voices to this thread.

More from me on points 2 & 3 shortly...

I've fixed the code now, thanks joedirt. I tried to find this clip on another site but was unsuccessful. I know this is an entire episode and therefore against the posting guidlines (I really only wanted the opening 9 minutes), but I thought this really deserved to be on the sift. So I apologize in advance for the 3 second ad in front of the video.

good idea swampy... from now on I'll honor this request, and next time I've got touch of insomnia or a few minutes to spare I'll go back and change the tags on any vintage clips I've submitted.

PS. Personally, I only do vintage if its older than myself, so essentially that falls under choggie's 25 year guidline... I'm just not yet prepared for the 80s to be vintage.

Farhad has a point, we can't begin to censor anyone... that would go against everything I personally believe in... and everything I hope the sift stands for... I guess maybe I was suggesting just some sort of formal statement within the guidlines/rules urging everyone to play nice on this matter... once again, a shame you have to do such, but, obviously quite necessary...

and yeah, grspec is right, this post was not nearly as offensive or hateful as some of the others I've seen here... whoever wrote that letter must not get out much.

@BL Perhaps, but if he doesn't bother to operate within the guidlines of the sift, is it really okay to let it go unpunished just because he is a known quantity? Also, is it really fair to have one person become 'the face' of an entire community? Where does that leave those who do not agree with the TAYTV agenda? It's kind of like how O'Reilly has become the face of FOX News, and Olbermann the face of MSNBC... do we want that for our community?

There's a big red message on the submission page that says "DO NOT SUBMIT SELF-PROMOTION OF ANY KIND"; the first rule of the posting guidlines, if you'd bothered to read them, is Please do not self-link.

*discard

This violates posting guidlines because some might find this racial..and therefore offensive. It should be deleted in regard to our policy too.

This has the "n" word. I find it offensive, yet I overlook it because this guy is funny. But in my opinion it violates posting guidlines so it should be deleted.

Hi Lisa, welcome to videosift. Please post your videos to regular videosift. This is the blog where videos are discussed. Videos posted to the blog are *discarded

The correct link for video submissions is http://www.videosift.com/submit.php

On another note, although nothing "happens" in this vid, it is right on the borderline of violating the non-porn policy at Videosift, please make a note of submission guidlines:

http://www.videosift.com/faq-en.php#posting_guidelines