Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 130

Thread: Are cops constitutional?

  1. #61
    "let them search you,touch you,violate your Rights,just don't be a dick!"~ cdc482
    "For Wales. Why Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world. But for Wales?"
    All my life I've been at the mercy of men just following orders... Never again!~Erik Lehnsherr
    There's nothing wrong with stopping people randomly, especially near bars, restaurants etc.~Velho



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #62

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pericles View Post
    No - Barron v. Baltimore overturned the original principle - that is why it is an important case, and then the 14th Amendment overturned Barron v. Baltimore, Dred Scot, etc.
    Did you completely miss my Madison observation? The intent of the Bill of Rights were to place them specifically into the document itself in the respective limitations.
    Only one was a regulation on the states:
    Fifthly. That in article 1st, section 10, between clauses 1 and 2, be inserted this clause, to wit:
    No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases.
    Why did they choose to not incorporate new amendments directly into the constitution as Madison proposed? For shear historical purposes: They felt that to add new stuff to the Constitution via sticking them in their respective section and articles would besmirch the names of the hallowed men that signed the original document. So the listing of Amendments became the chosen method to add new amendments. It was a style choice... nothing more.

    If the all encompassing bill of rights in the federal constitution protects the people in the states from the states why do new states that came in after their ratification in 1789 still provide their own? Redundancy? I don't think so

    A state coming into the union comes in the same condition as the original thirteen... Sovereign entities who delegate specific powers to the federal government by accepting the conditions of the union. Therefore the federal government has no say in the internal on goings of a state and should the federal government gets altered or abolished it will be the states with their constitutions picking up as sovereign entities once again. States created the federal government.
    The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite.
    The prevailing view...
    That all I needed to hear. Prevailing view from Nationalists who wanted nothing more than to see the death of the states.

    You can quote Story all you want Abel Upshur destroyed his arguments in 1840. It still doesn't change the fact that the ratifying conventions understood that the Bill of Rights only retained to what the federal government could and could not do...just like the rest of the constitution.
    Last edited by demolama; 05-19-2011 at 10:29 PM.

  4. #63

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by demolama View Post
    Did you completely miss my Madison observation? The intent of the Bill of Rights were to place them specifically into the document itself in the respective limitations.
    Only one was a regulation on the states:


    Why did they choose to not incorporate new amendments directly into the constitution as Madison proposed? For shear historical purposes: They felt that to add new stuff to the Constitution via sticking them in their respective section and articles would besmirch the names of the hallowed men that signed the original document. So the listing of Amendments became the chosen method to add new amendments. It was a style choice... nothing more.

    If the all encompassing bill of rights in the federal constitution protects the people in the states from the states why do new states that came in after their ratification in 1789 still provide their own? Redundancy? I don't think so

    A state coming into the union comes in the same condition as the original thirteen... Sovereign entities who delegate specific powers to the federal government by accepting the conditions of the union. Therefore the federal government has no say in the internal on goings of a state and should the federal government gets altered or abolished it will be the states with their constitutions picking up as sovereign entities once again. States created the federal government.


    That all I needed to hear. Prevailing view from Nationalists who wanted nothing more than to see the death of the states.

    You can quote Story all you want Abel Upshur destroyed his arguments in 1840. It still doesn't change the fact that the ratifying conventions understood that the Bill of Rights only retained to what the federal government could and could not do...just like the rest of the constitution.
    You obviously have not read Rawle - for he devoted an entire chapter in his book on how states have the right to leave the Union. This leaves me still wondering what is your point. You seem to state the view that the Constitution is a restriction on the federal government, and then refer to sources that show the opposite.
    Out of every one hundred men they send us, ten should not even be here. Eighty will do nothing but serve as targets for the enemy. Nine are real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, upon them depends our success in battle. But one, ah the one, he is a real warrior, and he will bring the others back from battle alive.

    Duty is the most sublime word in the English language. Do your duty in all things. You can not do more than your duty. You should never wish to do less than your duty.

  5. #64

    Default

    Of course delegation of sovereignty comes with some "restrictions." By being part of this new compact you agree to not do the follow:...The whole point of the Constitution was to fix the holes in the articles such as each state taxing each others exports or creating a standing army to invade their neighbor. All found under article 1 section 10.

    My point was the intent of limiting the state via incorporating Madison's proposal into the Constitution was rejected by Congress and it was understood at the time of the ratification that the new federal constitution was limiting only upon the federal government except for the few items in article 1 section 10. The Bill of Rights having limits on the states were not part of that deal since any limiting factor placed on the states was rejected by Congress. The perfect example is why does it say "Congress should make no law" instead of "There should be no law"

    Go back and read the Antifeds rejection of the original constitution without a bill of rights. They were afraid of federal usurpation and abuse against the people not state because the states already had their bill of rights.

    The preamble says it best:
    THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added:

    http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/...dead-and-gone/
    Last edited by demolama; 05-20-2011 at 03:32 AM.

  6. #65

    Default

    This is turning into yet another debate over state "rights" (I prefer state sovereignty, States have NO rights) and Federal authority.

    This is not the issue of this discussion originally.

    The issue is about the Concept of Police . And the FACT that they did not exist nor was it conceived that they would when the country was formed.
    http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm
    The Constitution contains no explicit provisions for criminal law enforcement. Nor did the constitutions of any of the several states contain such provisions at the time of the Founding. Early constitutions enunciated the intention that law enforcement was a universal duty that each person owed to the community, rather than a power of the government. Founding-era constitutions addressed law enforcement from the standpoint of individual liberties and placed explicit barriers upon the state.
    Law enforcement in the Founders' time was a duty of every citizen. Citizens were expected to be armed and equipped to chase suspects on foot, on horse, or with wagon whenever summoned. And when called upon to enforce the laws of the state, citizens were to respond "not faintly and with lagging steps, but honestly and bravely and with whatever implements and facilities [were] convenient and at hand."
    Last edited by pcosmar; 05-20-2011 at 07:23 AM.
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom

  7. #66
    "let them search you,touch you,violate your Rights,just don't be a dick!"~ cdc482
    "For Wales. Why Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world. But for Wales?"
    All my life I've been at the mercy of men just following orders... Never again!~Erik Lehnsherr
    There's nothing wrong with stopping people randomly, especially near bars, restaurants etc.~Velho

  8. #67

    Default

    Bump.
    "let them search you,touch you,violate your Rights,just don't be a dick!"~ cdc482
    "For Wales. Why Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world. But for Wales?"
    All my life I've been at the mercy of men just following orders... Never again!~Erik Lehnsherr
    There's nothing wrong with stopping people randomly, especially near bars, restaurants etc.~Velho

  9. #68

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PaulConventionWV View Post
    What good is the law without enforcement?
    What good is a republic if We the People have delegated all responsibility of civic duty and have become so far removed from their own government?
    Last edited by Live_Free_Or_Die; 06-04-2011 at 04:10 AM.

  10. #69
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    284

    Default

    Thankfully, I don't have to get knee deep into this one. Looks like the consesus on this forum is: Yes, Cops are Constitutional. All the other technicalities being debated remind me of when Ron Paul called out Mitt/Huck/McCain at the 2008 debate ... they all agreed on the same thing with Iraq yet they were bickering on technicalities. Remember that part of the debate?

    I'm pretty sure if aGameOfThrones and Anti-Federalist were getting gang-raped by a group of thugs in a dark alley, they would be very appreciative of a conservative 'ol fellow like myself doing them a favor and calling the local police to come help.

  11. #70

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by andrewd View Post
    thankfully, i don't have to get knee deep into this one. Looks like the consesus on this forum is: Yes, cops are constitutional. All the other technicalities being debated remind me of when ron paul called out mitt/huck/mccain at the 2008 debate ... They all agreed on the same thing with iraq yet they were bickering on technicalities. Remember that part of the debate?

    I'm pretty sure if agameofthrones and anti-federalist were getting gang-raped by a group of thugs in a dark alley, they would be very appreciative of a conservative 'ol fellow like myself doing them a favor and calling the local police to come help.

    lol.
    "let them search you,touch you,violate your Rights,just don't be a dick!"~ cdc482
    "For Wales. Why Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world. But for Wales?"
    All my life I've been at the mercy of men just following orders... Never again!~Erik Lehnsherr
    There's nothing wrong with stopping people randomly, especially near bars, restaurants etc.~Velho

  12. #71
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    284

    Default

    "I'm pretty sure if aGameOfThrones and Anti-Federalist were getting gang-raped by a group of thugs in a dark alley, they would be very appreciative of a conservative 'ol fellow like myself doing them a favor and calling the local police to come help.~AndrewD with love"

    Haha you put my quote in your signature! Awesome lol. But your advertising my standpoints, you know that right?

  13. #72

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AndrewD View Post
    "I'm pretty sure if aGameOfThrones and Anti-Federalist were getting gang-raped by a group of thugs in a dark alley, they would be very appreciative of a conservative 'ol fellow like myself doing them a favor and calling the local police to come help.~AndrewD with love"

    Haha you put my quote in your signature! Awesome lol. But your advertising my standpoints, you know that right?
    I liked it lol
    "let them search you,touch you,violate your Rights,just don't be a dick!"~ cdc482
    "For Wales. Why Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world. But for Wales?"
    All my life I've been at the mercy of men just following orders... Never again!~Erik Lehnsherr
    There's nothing wrong with stopping people randomly, especially near bars, restaurants etc.~Velho

  14. #73

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AndrewD View Post
    Thankfully, I don't have to get knee deep into this one. Looks like the consesus on this forum is: Yes, Cops are Constitutional.
    Consensus is irrelevant.
    http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm
    please provide your references (from the Constitution) on how Police or enforcement is mandated by the Constitution of the United States.

    Quote Originally Posted by AndrewD View Post
    I'm pretty sure if aGameOfThrones and Anti-Federalist were getting gang-raped by a group of thugs in a dark alley, they would be very appreciative of a conservative 'ol fellow like myself doing them a favor and calling the local police to come help.
    What makes you think 1. they would be any help at all. and 2.that the thugs attacking them are not the police?

    In my case,,either shoot the bastards, join the fight, or stay the hell out of it.
    Do Not call the police.
    http://pcosmar.blogspot.com/2006/08/...gone-well.html
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom

  15. #74

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AndrewD View Post
    Thankfully, I don't have to get knee deep into this one. Looks like the consesus on this forum is: Yes, Cops are Constitutional. All the other technicalities being debated remind me of when Ron Paul called out Mitt/Huck/McCain at the 2008 debate ... they all agreed on the same thing with Iraq yet they were bickering on technicalities. Remember that part of the debate?

    I'm pretty sure if aGameOfThrones and Anti-Federalist were getting gang-raped by a group of thugs in a dark alley, they would be very appreciative of a conservative 'ol fellow like myself doing them a favor and calling the local police to come help.


    I'd be willing to bet both Game and AF can MORE than handle themselves in a dark alley, and would not have to worry about being "gangraped".

    I, on the other hand, do have to worry about these things, since I may be the type to be disproportionally subjected to this situation.

    And I'm pretty sure that I would feel more safe with one of those guys in my presence than any cop that I don't know.

  16. #75

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kylie View Post
    I'd be willing to bet both Game and AF can MORE than handle themselves in a dark alley, and would not have to worry about being "gangraped".

    I, on the other hand, do have to worry about these things, since I may be the type to be disproportionally subjected to this situation.

    And I'm pretty sure that I would feel more safe with one of those guys in my presence than any cop that I don't know.
    +a zillion
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul
    The government is incapable of doing what it's supposed to do. A job like the provision of security is something best left to private institutions.
    My music/art page is here"government is the enemy of liberty"-RP
    That which doesn't kill me has made a grave tactical error
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    This whole board is a thoughtcrime in progress.
    Quote Originally Posted by danke View Post
    I carry my man purse for fashion, not function.

  17. #76

    Default What kind of help?

    Quote Originally Posted by AndrewD View Post
    Thankfully, I don't have to get knee deep into this one. Looks like the consesus on this forum is: Yes, Cops are Constitutional. All the other technicalities being debated remind me of when Ron Paul called out Mitt/Huck/McCain at the 2008 debate ... they all agreed on the same thing with Iraq yet they were bickering on technicalities. Remember that part of the debate?

    I'm pretty sure if aGameOfThrones and Anti-Federalist were getting gang-raped by a group of thugs in a dark alley, they would be very appreciative of a conservative 'ol fellow like myself doing them a favor and calling the local police to come help.


  18. #77
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    284

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kylie View Post
    I'd be willing to bet both Game and AF can MORE than handle themselves in a dark alley, and would not have to worry about being "gangraped".

    I, on the other hand, do have to worry about these things, since I may be the type to be disproportionally subjected to this situation.

    And I'm pretty sure that I would feel more safe with one of those guys in my presence than any cop that I don't know.
    The tough guy act is the weakest card you can play. Maybe some of the sheep here buy it, I don't. What's next, aGameOfThrones and Anti-Federalist are so tough they can just start roaming the streets taking on cops and singlehandedly bringing down the police force? Lol. Hey do me a favor, since so many of you been living in Hollywood land, give Q Tarantino a call, i'm sure you could come up with some interesting scripts.

  19. #78

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AndrewD View Post
    What's next, aGameOfThrones and Anti-Federalist are so tough they can just start roaming the streets taking on cops and singlehandedly bringing down the police force? Lol.
    If what we are witnessing continues down the current path, they won't be doing it "singlehandedly."

    And you won't be posting "Lol."
    Last edited by Danke; 06-06-2011 at 11:35 AM. Reason: typo
    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!

    Short Income Tax Video

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of apportionment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.

  20. #79

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kylie View Post
    I'd be willing to bet both Game and AF can MORE than handle themselves in a dark alley, and would not have to worry about being "gangraped".

    I, on the other hand, do have to worry about these things, since I may be the type to be disproportionally subjected to this situation.

    And I'm pretty sure that I would feel more safe with one of those guys in my presence than any cop that I don't know.
    In many cases the pigs make people less safe by enforcing unconstitutional laws that attempt to prevent decent citizens from carrying weapons for self-protection. I don't respect or obey such laws, but many people do because they fear arrest more than they fear being victimized by common criminals. If those people DO end up being attacked by knife- or gun-wielding thugs or assaulted by a gang, they can thank both the bastards who write laws against carrying weapons AND those bastards' henchmen (i.e., the police).
    "Man lives freely only by his readiness to die." -- Mohandas K. Gandhi

    "Generally speaking, the way of the warrior is resolute acceptance of death." -- Miyamoto Musashi

  21. #80

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AndrewD View Post
    The tough guy act is the weakest card you can play.


    Perhaps you would like to cut and split my firewood for me this year. And I burn a LOT of wood.
    But before that, check out this thread.
    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...os-only-please!
    There are more than a few here that are both ready and quite able to defend themselves.

    It might be wise to spend more time reading than posting shit you obviously know nothing about.
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom

  22. #81
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Land of Indians
    Posts
    25,626

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pcosmar View Post


    Perhaps you would like to cut and split my firewood for me this year. And I burn a LOT of wood.
    But before that, check out this thread.
    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...os-only-please!
    There are more than a few here that are both ready and quite able to defend themselves.

    It might be wise to spend more time reading than posting shit you obviously know nothing about.
    Yes , I have spent three days in the past two weeks cutting wood . Seems to be getting harder as I get older , but I will continue til I drop

  23. #82

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oyarde View Post
    Yes , I have spent three days in the past two weeks cutting wood . Seems to be getting harder as I get older , but I will continue til I drop
    My fires burn from October to March or April. 24/7 nonstop.




    Guy thinks he's talking to some kids. And talking shit at that.

    But what the hell, I'm just a Forum Bully.
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom

  24. #83
    Needs a bigger boat Anti Federalist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    In a Nine Line Bind
    Posts
    55,865
    Blog Entries
    12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AndrewD View Post
    The tough guy act is the weakest card you can play. Maybe some of the sheep here buy it, I don't. What's next, aGameOfThrones and Anti-Federalist are so tough they can just start roaming the streets taking on cops and singlehandedly bringing down the police force? Lol. Hey do me a favor, since so many of you been living in Hollywood land, give Q Tarantino a call, i'm sure you could come up with some interesting scripts.
    What the fuck are you talking about?

    You're the one running around here, beating your chest, talking internet tough guy shit about "calling everybody out" like you were The Undertaker or something.

    I already told you that I used my CCW to break up two armed robberies, in both cases nobody got shot either, even though both myself and the "bad guys" were armed.

    You can believe that or not, it's up to you.

    But that was against crooks.

    I'll be the first to admit that, failing complete, total, and utter compliance and submission to cops, I will be rendered dead in about 2.5 seconds these days.

    I sort of thought that was the point of these arguments and that said point had been made very clear.
    Last edited by Anti Federalist; 06-06-2011 at 11:31 AM.

  25. #84

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    I sort of thought that was the point of these arguments and that said point had been made very clear.
    It was.
    The point being the Police as both a concept and most especially in practice are unneeded and unnecessary.
    The very concept of state enforcers is contrary to the writing of the Founders and that they did not exist till many years after the Founders of this country were dead.

    Both Law enforcement and Liberty would be better without them.
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom

  26. #85

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    I'll be the first to admit that, failing complete, total, and utter compliance and submission to cops, I will be rendered dead in about 2.5 seconds these days.
    That's generally how it works out if the piggies surround and gang up on someone they want. They like having the odds 20-to-1 in their favor, all the while imagining that they're total bad-asses. But if they keep abusing the authority they've been entrusted with, I suspect the shoe is going to start ending up on the other foot a lot more often. Like in this case:

    http://www.officer.com/news/10277847...-in-patrol-car
    Last edited by GuerrillaXXI; 06-06-2011 at 12:30 PM.
    "Man lives freely only by his readiness to die." -- Mohandas K. Gandhi

    "Generally speaking, the way of the warrior is resolute acceptance of death." -- Miyamoto Musashi

  27. #86

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by pcosmar View Post
    It was.
    The point being the Police as both a concept and most especially in practice are unneeded and unnecessary.
    The very concept of state enforcers is contrary to the writing of the Founders and that they did not exist till many years after the Founders of this country were dead.

    Both Law enforcement and Liberty would be better without them.
    qft, +100000000000000000
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul
    The government is incapable of doing what it's supposed to do. A job like the provision of security is something best left to private institutions.
    My music/art page is here"government is the enemy of liberty"-RP
    That which doesn't kill me has made a grave tactical error
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    This whole board is a thoughtcrime in progress.
    Quote Originally Posted by danke View Post
    I carry my man purse for fashion, not function.

  28. #87

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AndrewD View Post
    The tough guy act is the weakest card you can play. Maybe some of the sheep here buy it, I don't. What's next, aGameOfThrones and Anti-Federalist are so tough they can just start roaming the streets taking on cops and singlehandedly bringing down the police force? Lol. Hey do me a favor, since so many of you been living in Hollywood land, give Q Tarantino a call, i'm sure you could come up with some interesting scripts.

    There's nothing "tough" about it.

    They are men, I am a woman. They would be less likely to be gangraped in the alley than I.

    Now, would I rather have some guys that I know I can trust around to help me protect myself.....or some guys that I don't know(who happen to wear a blue uniform)?

    I'm gonna pick the guys I know. No chestbeating, no posturing. Simply stated my OPINION.

    I don't live in a movie, or a protected base in another country. You, on the other hand, do live in a protected area that should be pretty safe. If not, then you have your gun...or any of the other thousands that are on your base.

    I have are my fists, my voice and my friends. All of which are pretty fucking important to me.

  29. #88

  30. #89

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fraulein View Post
    Good read, bump.
    jawohl
    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!

    Short Income Tax Video

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of apportionment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.

  31. #90

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tangent4ronpaul View Post
    +1

    cops are state based.

    The Constitution is federal based.

    Some things transfer - like the 4th amendment.
    Isn't that the 14th amendment?
    "I am, therefore I'll think" - Ayn Rand

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast




« Previous Thread | Next Thread »


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •