Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 130

Thread: Are cops constitutional?

  1. #31
    Chester Copperpot
    Member

    I know its before the time of the constitution.. but Ben Franklin had started a program in philadelphia to hire a night watchman to make the rounds at night time. He may have also doubled as a lamplighter.. I dont remember exactly.. But I digress I suppose.. a watchman making rounds is a bit different than what we have going on today



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by FrankRep View Post
    -> State/Locals Cops are Constitutional.

    -> Federal Cops, Unconstitutional.
    Technically, the Militia (you and I) are called to be the executors of the "Laws of the Union." —Article I, Section 8 U.S. Constitution.
    Last edited by AFPVet; 02-22-2011 at 07:29 PM.



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #33
    The constitution limits the powers of the federal government, not state.
    "Integrity means having to say things that people don't want to hear & especially to say things that the regime doesn't want to hear.” -Ron Paul

    "Bathtub falls and police officers kill more Americans than terrorism, yet we've been asked to sacrifice our most sacred rights for fear of falling victim to it." -Edward Snowden

  6. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by ItsTime View Post
    The discussion is starting to confuse the idea of a police for with the unconstitutional actions of that police force.
    Police didn't even exist before 1850s by and large. There is a huge difference between having an elected sheriff in charge of local deputies calling a posse out when needed, and unelected law enforcement.

    Police are "policy enforcers" with standing orders, like a standing army, to do certain things. Traditionally, policy enforcers have been either collection agents or military with "standing orders". Peace officers, elected by the local citizens, only become active when witnessing actual crimes. There is no difference between what are called "police" now and what was called a "standing army" in colonial days. Changing the name does not make it legal.

    If the police are not what is a standing army, then it would be elected and by the local citizens. There is no excuse in a democracy to have any law enforcement that is not elected by the citizens - except the United States does now, and it didn't use to. Elected law enforcement is slowly being eliminated in America, and Americans haven't even seen it happening. "Gun control" is only one part of two parts. The other part is police control, so all force is unelected and out of the hands of the people.

    More easy to see perhaps is private prosecution. Public prosecutors didn't even use to exist. Victims, and only victims, complain and initiate criminal suits. This eliminates all victimless crimes and "crimes against the state", and also makes it impossible for charges to be ignored for establishment figures.

    Our justice system is where the real damage has occured while everyone has been focusing on national issues. Why can't criminals be brought to justice in the government? The above two things plus real grand juries is the answer.

    Perhaps government could still try to create crimes against the state, but in a pure form of private prosecution, it couldn't. Nor would police be able to harm citizens without the sherieff or chief being recalled in an instant. That is what needs to be striven for. It's arguable, it makes sense, and it's historical and how it use to be.
    Last edited by SpiritOf1776_J4; 02-22-2011 at 09:50 PM.

  7. #35

  8. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by aGameOfThrones View Post
    That's an easy one. To kill Americans...
    "I shall bring justice to Westeros. Every man shall reap what he has sown, from the highest lord to the lowest gutter rat. They have made my kingdom bleed, and I do not forget that."
    -Stannis Baratheon

  9. #37

    Standing Armies: The Bane of Liberty

    Elbridge Gerry at the convention asked:

    What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.
    In a letter to Francis Hopkinson (March 13, 1789), Thomas Jefferson wrote that:

    a [federal] bill of rights [must] secure freedom in religion, freedom of the press, [and] freedom from a permanent military..."
    To James Madison, on December 20, 1787, Jefferson wrote that a federal Bill of Rights must:

    "provide clearly...for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, [and] protection against standing armies..."
    Again to Madison, on July 31, 1788, Jefferson wrote that:

    It seems generally understood that [a federal Bill of Rights] should go to Juries, Habeas corpus, [and] Standing Armies..."
    Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776):

    standing armies...should be avoided as dangerous to liberty.
    Nearly every state bill of rights includes the right to be free from jack booted government thugs.

  10. #38
    This brings up an interesting topic. Waaaay to often people refer to things as unconstitutional when they are mentioning something that they don't like or don't think the founders would approve of etc... But for something to be constitutional or not, it is either a granted power or a denied power in the constitution. The states are not prohibited anywhere in the document from having cops, the federal gov't however is a different story....

  11. #39

    check your state bill of rights

    dbill27, Read your state bill of rights. I'll bet you that it acknowledges your right to be free from armed government tax feeders. Not that an enumeration of such an inherent right is necessary of course.

    I live within the occupied Paiute country known as Nevada and section 11 of its bill of rights says:

    "No standing army shall be maintained by this State in time of peace, and in time of War, no appropriation for a standing army shall be for a longer time than two years."

  12. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolfgang Bohringer View Post
    dbill27, Read your state bill of rights. I'll bet you that it acknowledges your right to be free from armed government tax feeders. Not that an enumeration of such an inherent right is necessary of course.

    I live within the occupied Paiute country known as Nevada and section 11 of its bill of rights says:

    "No standing army shall be maintained by this State in time of peace, and in time of War, no appropriation for a standing army shall be for a longer time than two years."
    I assumed that this was a federal constitutional question since the thread title did not hint towards state specifics and was not in a specific state thread?



  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #41
    Either way if you're going to talk about what the federal constitution doesn't apply to, then you should explain what does apply. Too often it is assumed that since the federal constitution applies only to the federal government, then the state government mafias have unlimited powers. But that is not the case at all.

    And when it comes to the ancient right of being free from tax-feeding goons with guns, you really have to consider at least the English Bill of Rights (1689) which enumerates this right, the revolutionary state constitutions of 1776 which also enumerated this right, as well as the federal constitution and bill of rights.

  15. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolfgang Bohringer View Post
    Either way if you're going to talk about what the federal constitution doesn't apply to, then you should explain what does apply. Too often it is assumed that since the federal constitution applies only to the federal government, then the state government mafias have unlimited powers. But that is not the case at all.

    And when it comes to the ancient right of being free from tax-feeding goons with guns, you really have to consider at least the English Bill of Rights (1689) which enumerates this right, the revolutionary state constitutions of 1776 which also enumerated this right, as well as the federal constitution and bill of rights.
    My apologies brother, . You are right, the Fed constitution limits the states powers for sure. Indiana can't make gun ownership illegal as it goes against The federal Bill of Rights. I consider the income tax unconstitutional regardless of the 16th amendment because the 13th has never been repealed and i see direct wage tax as the same as slavery. My point though was that i hear people on the left and right use the term "constitutional" in place of moral and it pisses me off!

  16. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by aGameOfThrones View Post
    [B]ARE COPS CONSTITUTIONAL?
    Very good article. Thank you.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  17. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by dbill27 View Post
    My apologies brother, . You are right, the Fed constitution limits the states powers for sure. Indiana can't make gun ownership illegal as it goes against The federal Bill of Rights. I consider the income tax unconstitutional regardless of the 16th amendment because the 13th has never been repealed and i see direct wage tax as the same as slavery. My point though was that i hear people on the left and right use the term "constitutional" in place of moral and it pisses me off!
    Article VI

    All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwith-standing.
    The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
    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.

  18. #45

  19. #46
    ///
    "IF GOD DIDN'T WANT TO HELP AMERICA, THEN WE WOULD HAVE Hillary Clinton"!!
    "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

  20. #47
    ///
    "IF GOD DIDN'T WANT TO HELP AMERICA, THEN WE WOULD HAVE Hillary Clinton"!!
    "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

  21. #48
    Good time to bump this thread.
    and to post the link again.
    http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm
    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. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  23. #49
    Great thread!

  24. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by pcosmar View Post
    Damn, I did a quick scan (speed read) and that is really good.
    It seems to mirror the position that I have often taken on this board.
    I have often read and really like http://www.constitution.org/
    I will have to re read this slowly and in detail, but I suspect it will only reinforce my views.

    The very concept of "police" is abhorrent.
    I don't know. It seems to me that it would be okay at least for local authorities to have some form of law enforcement. I don't see the public ever doing it for fear of getting involved. This is one of those concepts that I have a hard time with. It seems libertarianism almost goes too far here. I mean, sure, the CIA and the FBI are unconstitutional, but why can't states and other local offices establish law enforcement?
    I'm an adventurer, writer and bitcoin market analyst.

    Buy my book for $11.49 (reduced):

    Website: http://www.grandtstories.com/

    Twitter: https://twitter.com/LeviGrandt

    Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/grandtstori...homepage_panel

    BTC: 1NiSc21Yrv6CRANhg1DTb1EUBVax1ZtqvG

  25. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by pcosmar View Post
    No it is my position that they are unneeded and unnecessary in a free society. And that a free people should not tolerate even the Idea of police.

    I would like the very concept of police to vanish like the concept of the sun moon and stars revolving around the earth.
    What good is the law without enforcement? The Framers made many mentions of the rule of law as a fundamental part of society. How can there be a rule of law if people are really free to do what they want? How would that even be practical in today's world? Furthermore, why would it be unconstitutional to have local law enforcement authorities? I'm all for gun rights and the rights of citizens to have the same weapons as cops, but what's wrong with cops, themselves?
    I'm an adventurer, writer and bitcoin market analyst.

    Buy my book for $11.49 (reduced):

    Website: http://www.grandtstories.com/

    Twitter: https://twitter.com/LeviGrandt

    Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/grandtstori...homepage_panel

    BTC: 1NiSc21Yrv6CRANhg1DTb1EUBVax1ZtqvG

  26. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by PaulConventionWV View Post
    What good is the law without enforcement? The Framers made many mentions of the rule of law as a fundamental part of society. How can there be a rule of law if people are really free to do what they want? How would that even be practical in today's world? Furthermore, why would it be unconstitutional to have local law enforcement authorities? I'm all for gun rights and the rights of citizens to have the same weapons as cops, but what's wrong with cops, themselves?
    Who said No Law Enforcement? I certainly did not.
    You did not read the article posted did you?

    You did not read of how law enforcement was accomplished BEFORE police were imposed. About how they came about and evolved into what we have today.
    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

  27. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by SpiritOf1776_J4 View Post
    Police didn't even exist before 1850s by and large. There is a huge difference between having an elected sheriff in charge of local deputies calling a posse out when needed, and unelected law enforcement.

    Police are "policy enforcers" with standing orders, like a standing army, to do certain things. Traditionally, policy enforcers have been either collection agents or military with "standing orders". Peace officers, elected by the local citizens, only become active when witnessing actual crimes. There is no difference between what are called "police" now and what was called a "standing army" in colonial days. Changing the name does not make it legal.

    If the police are not what is a standing army, then it would be elected and by the local citizens. There is no excuse in a democracy to have any law enforcement that is not elected by the citizens - except the United States does now, and it didn't use to. Elected law enforcement is slowly being eliminated in America, and Americans haven't even seen it happening. "Gun control" is only one part of two parts. The other part is police control, so all force is unelected and out of the hands of the people.

    More easy to see perhaps is private prosecution. Public prosecutors didn't even use to exist. Victims, and only victims, complain and initiate criminal suits. This eliminates all victimless crimes and "crimes against the state", and also makes it impossible for charges to be ignored for establishment figures.

    Our justice system is where the real damage has occured while everyone has been focusing on national issues. Why can't criminals be brought to justice in the government? The above two things plus real grand juries is the answer.

    Perhaps government could still try to create crimes against the state, but in a pure form of private prosecution, it couldn't. Nor would police be able to harm citizens without the sherieff or chief being recalled in an instant. That is what needs to be striven for. It's arguable, it makes sense, and it's historical and how it use to be.
    My county still has elections for sheriff. I didn't realize there were any that didn't have elections. Exactly how far are you willing to take this principle? The federal government can't have a standing army, but that doesn't limit local law enforcement officials.
    I'm an adventurer, writer and bitcoin market analyst.

    Buy my book for $11.49 (reduced):

    Website: http://www.grandtstories.com/

    Twitter: https://twitter.com/LeviGrandt

    Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/grandtstori...homepage_panel

    BTC: 1NiSc21Yrv6CRANhg1DTb1EUBVax1ZtqvG

  28. #54
    What's the point of a constitution if no one listen to the reasons behind why it was ratified in the first place? Why have a written constitution if it can be interpreted anyway you choose?

    Every state that entered this union had a constitution and a state government. Some had a bill of rights substantially better than that of the federal constitution; others had no bill of rights. The federal bill of rights introduced to the Congress in 1789 by Madison contained ideas they wanted to incorporate right into the current Constitution.

    Fourthly. That in article 1st, section 9, between clauses 3 and 4, be inserted these clauses, to wit:
    All the Bill of Rights were supposed to be added in the sections of the Constitution that dealt with the federal government not the states. The only regulation on the states was

    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.
    This idea of restricting the states was struck down as it was known at the time that the idea behind the federal bill of rights was to restrict the federal government only. Barron V Baltimore (1833) confirms this. 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. To sit here and say well they wanted all people within the boundaries of the United States and no state should violate it is absolutely false. Should states violate that civil right? No, but it wasn’t the power of the federal government to tell the states that were once free and independent states what to do with their own citizens.

    No one even believed the federal government could force the states to comply with their orders. Using military troops to force states to comply was not even possible according to Madison in the Federalist papers.

    In reading the Madison notes from the convention, a national judicial having review of state laws was quickly dismissed, as well as a national legislature to overturn state laws they disliked.

    Now I don’t understand how anyone could really think a nation full of hunters and Indian fighters would think to disarm their citizenry. Especially when the militia, composed of the same citizens were to be proficient in their weapons. Remove the militia, remove the hunting, remove the fear of attack and it is no wonder they want to disarm the citizens. Police agencies and professional armies now take over their roles which were contrary to the vision of the founders. They are the epitome of standing armies that the founders feared. Why was Concord and Lexington fought? Because the British Regulars were coming to take their supply of munitions. The next day why did the militia lead by Patrick Henry stop Dunmore in Williamsburg? Because he came to take the munitions. Had these citizens not had arms… we would be British today.

    Do states have the right to disarm their citizens?… depending on the state constitution. Positive law says yes but it is very much against natural law of self defense. However, there is nothing legitimate about the police force, it is a construction of the mid 19th-century. Local constables and sheriffs are the only legitimate law enforcement entity that dates back to Roman times. What we consider law enforcement today is no different than the standing army that Britain imposed upon the colonies after the French and Indian war-- garrisoned troops functioning as local law enforcement. We may call them police but they are essentially soldiers in all but name.

    They get special treatment for what they do as a job. British soldiers who shot and killed innocent civilians were shipped back to England to face trial so that they could easily get off. Today local law enforcement kill people... they get paid leave, internal reviews, and nothing remotely close to a trial.

    They are a special group of citizens because they work for government... they are not accountable to the people at all... we do not elect them... they are hired.

    Sheriffs and constables are the only law enforcement we elect.

  29. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by PaulConventionWV View Post
    My county still has elections for sheriff. I didn't realize there were any that didn't have elections. Exactly how far are you willing to take this principle? The federal government can't have a standing army, but that doesn't limit local law enforcement officials.
    Read the Link.
    Damn
    Why do you want to argue against something you have NOT EVEN READ???
    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.
    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

  30. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by pcosmar View Post
    Read the Link.
    Damn
    Why do you want to argue against something you have NOT EVEN READ???
    http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm
    Sorry, brother. I hadn't even gotten to your last post before posting that response. I was just skimming throug the thread because I just got here.
    I'm an adventurer, writer and bitcoin market analyst.

    Buy my book for $11.49 (reduced):

    Website: http://www.grandtstories.com/

    Twitter: https://twitter.com/LeviGrandt

    Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/grandtstori...homepage_panel

    BTC: 1NiSc21Yrv6CRANhg1DTb1EUBVax1ZtqvG



  31. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  32. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by PaulConventionWV View Post
    Sorry, brother. I hadn't even gotten to your last post before posting that response. I was just skimming throug the thread because I just got here.
    Cool,
    I understand that it is difficult for some folks to grasp. Police have "always"been. But in reality they haven't.
    They are a creation of authoritarian thinking.

    There is another way (a better way) to do things.
    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

  33. #58
    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

  34. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by demolama View Post
    What's the point of a constitution if no one listen to the reasons behind why it was ratified in the first place? Why have a written constitution if it can be interpreted anyway you choose?
    Good question. The whole noption of "government" is problematic because it always boils down to force of one groups against another. This is not necessarily a bad thing, were people trustworthy to employ such force only when appropriate. Sadly, people have proven themselves unworthy is trust time and again.

    Every state that entered this union had a constitution and a state government.
    So? Imagine you live in some place where the people around you suddenly claim that you now live in a place called EveryState and that it has a government of type X. You were not consulted on this, yet if you refuse to play their game the most likely result will be that you will be threatened with force and if you continue to resist, violent action will be taken against you. Even if you agree, what of your children? How can they be bound by the arbitrary dictates of a group without consent? There exists no moral authority for one mob to so force its opinions upon the rest. This is tyranny in the purest and most precisely literal sense of the word.

    Any law, policy, mandate, etc. that is not derived directly from the most basic principles of interpersonal propriety is invalid, carries no moral authority whatsoever, and whose imposition and enforcement constitutes criminal action. It is the very definition of "felony".

    Should states violate that civil right? No, but it wasn’t the power of the federal government to tell the states that were once free and independent states what to do with their own citizens.
    Cannot agree. "states" as such do not exist in any material way whatsoever. "States" are mental constructs that have no reality of their own. "States", therefore, have no interests, no rights, no powers, no authority or anything else you may care to name. There is no authority for a mob to act against people who have not violated any of the basic principles of living amongst one's fellows.

    The "United States" was a concept for free living. As such, I believe that entry into the "club" required members to meet a minimal standard of limitation of so-called "state powers" such that the rights of individuals would be most fully protected. Stricture of the states would, therefore, be eminently legitimate where member states failed to uphold the standard of good governance, particularly where individual human rights are concerned. The ONLY legitimate role of government, if it indeed can be said to have one, is the guaranty and protection of human rights. Any government that fails to do this is invalid and should be removed from effect. Sadly, this basically never occurs.

    The best solution is to remove government as such as let people govern themselves. It is not perfect, but it is far and away better than what we now enjoy.

    In reading the Madison notes from the convention, a national judicial having review of state laws was quickly dismissed, as well as a national legislature to overturn state laws they disliked.

    Police agencies and professional armies now take over [militia] roles which were contrary to the vision of the founders. They are the epitome of standing armies that the founders feared.
    Agreed.

    Do states have the right to disarm their citizens?…
    No, Not ever. Not for any reason or under any circumstance.

    depending on the state constitution.
    See above.

    Positive law says yes but it is very much against natural law of self defense.
    "Law", as Jefferson wrote, is naught but the will of the tyrant. Principle is what counts.

    However, there is nothing legitimate about the police force, it is a construction of the mid 19th-century. Local constables and sheriffs are the only legitimate law enforcement entity that dates back to Roman times.
    They are not legitimate if they violate individual rights. Labels mean nothing. Action means everything.

    What we consider law enforcement today is no different than the standing army that Britain imposed upon the colonies after the French and Indian war-- garrisoned troops functioning as local law enforcement. We may call them police but they are essentially soldiers in all but name.
    Agreed.

    They are a special group of citizens because they work for government... they are not accountable to the people at all... we do not elect them... they are hired.

    Sheriffs and constables are the only law enforcement we elect.
    They need to be apprehended, tried, and if convicted, punished by real people and not hacks of so-called "government". They need to be stopped. They need to be stopped without equivocation. They need to be held accountable for their actions and punishments need to be draconian in order to make it plain to such people that the rest will not tolerate their criminal acts. I have no problem with executing any government official who is found guilty of violating the rights of another.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  35. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by demolama View Post
    What's the point of a constitution if no one listen to the reasons behind why it was ratified in the first place? Why have a written constitution if it can be interpreted anyway you choose?

    Every state that entered this union had a constitution and a state government. Some had a bill of rights substantially better than that of the federal constitution; others had no bill of rights. The federal bill of rights introduced to the Congress in 1789 by Madison contained ideas they wanted to incorporate right into the current Constitution.

    All the Bill of Rights were supposed to be added in the sections of the Constitution that dealt with the federal government not the states. The only regulation on the states was


    This idea of restricting the states was struck down as it was known at the time that the idea behind the federal bill of rights was to restrict the federal government only. Barron V Baltimore (1833) confirms this. 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. To sit here and say well they wanted all people within the boundaries of the United States and no state should violate it is absolutely false. Should states violate that civil right? No, but it wasn’t the power of the federal government to tell the states that were once free and independent states what to do with their own citizens.

    No one even believed the federal government could force the states to comply with their orders. Using military troops to force states to comply was not even possible according to Madison in the Federalist papers.

    In reading the Madison notes from the convention, a national judicial having review of state laws was quickly dismissed, as well as a national legislature to overturn state laws they disliked.

    Now I don’t understand how anyone could really think a nation full of hunters and Indian fighters would think to disarm their citizenry. Especially when the militia, composed of the same citizens were to be proficient in their weapons. Remove the militia, remove the hunting, remove the fear of attack and it is no wonder they want to disarm the citizens. Police agencies and professional armies now take over their roles which were contrary to the vision of the founders. They are the epitome of standing armies that the founders feared. Why was Concord and Lexington fought? Because the British Regulars were coming to take their supply of munitions. The next day why did the militia lead by Patrick Henry stop Dunmore in Williamsburg? Because he came to take the munitions. Had these citizens not had arms… we would be British today.

    Do states have the right to disarm their citizens?… depending on the state constitution. Positive law says yes but it is very much against natural law of self defense. However, there is nothing legitimate about the police force, it is a construction of the mid 19th-century. Local constables and sheriffs are the only legitimate law enforcement entity that dates back to Roman times. What we consider law enforcement today is no different than the standing army that Britain imposed upon the colonies after the French and Indian war-- garrisoned troops functioning as local law enforcement. We may call them police but they are essentially soldiers in all but name.

    They get special treatment for what they do as a job. British soldiers who shot and killed innocent civilians were shipped back to England to face trial so that they could easily get off. Today local law enforcement kill people... they get paid leave, internal reviews, and nothing remotely close to a trial.

    They are a special group of citizens because they work for government... they are not accountable to the people at all... we do not elect them... they are hired.

    Sheriffs and constables are the only law enforcement we elect.
    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.

    The prevailing view (except in a state court decision in Arkansas) was this as expressed by William Rawle (Washington's first choice for AG - Rawle declined):

    "Of the amendments already adopted, (for which see the appendix,) the eight first in order fall within the class of restrictions on the legislative power, some of which would have been implied, some are original, and all are highly valuable. Some are also to be considered as restrictions on the judicial power.
    The constitutions of some of the states contain bills of rights; others do not. A declaration of rights, therefore, properly finds a place in the general Constitution, where it equalizes all and binds all.
    Each state is obliged, while it remains a member of the Union, to preserve the republican form of government in all its strength and purity. The people of each state, by the amended constitution, pledge themselves to each other for the sacred preservation of certain detailed principles, without which the republican form would be impure and weak.
    They will now be viewed in succession."


    To make it explicit:


    "In the second article, it is declared, that a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free state; a proposition from which few will dissent. Although in actual war, the services of regular troops are confessedly more valuable; yet, while peace prevails, and in the commencement of a war before a regular force can be raised, the militia form the palladium of the country. They are ready to repel invasion, to suppress insurrection, and preserve the good order and peace of government. That they should be well regulated, is judiciously added. A disorderly militia is disgraceful to itself, and dangerous not to the enemy, but to its own country. The duty of the state government is, to adopt such regulations as will tend to make good soldiers with the least interruptions of the ordinary and useful occupations of civil life. In this all the Union has a strong and visible interest.
    The corollary, from the first position, is, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
    The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both."


    Or, how about Justice Story:

    From this supremacy of the constitution and laws and treaties of the United States, within their constitutional scope, arises the duty of courts of justice to declare any unconstitutional law passed by congress or by a state legislature void. So, in like manner, the same duty arises, whenever any other department of the national or state governments exceeds its constitutional functions. But the judiciary of the United States has no general jurisdiction to declare acts of the several states void, unless they are repugnant to the constitution of the United States, notwithstanding they are repugnant to the state constitution. Such a power belongs to it only, when it sits to administer the local law of a state, and acts exactly, as a state tribunal is bound to act. But upon this subject it seems unnecessary to dwell, since the right of all courts, state as well as national, to declare unconstitutional laws void, seems settled beyond the reach of judicial controversy.

    But it may not appear to all persons quite so clear, why the officers of the state governments should be equally bound to take a like oath, or affirmation; and it has been even suggested, that there is no more reason to require that, than to require, that all of the United States officers should take an oath or affirmation to support the state constitutions. A moment's reflection will show sufficient reasons for the requisition of it in the one case, and the omission of it in the other. The members and officers of the national government have no agency in carrying into effect the state constitutions. The members and officers of the state governments have an essential agency in giving effect to the national constitution. The election of the president and the senate will depend, in all cases, upon the legislatures of the several states; and, in many cases, the election of the house of representatives may be affected by their agency. The judges of the state courts will frequently be called upon to decide upon the constitution, and laws, and treaties of the United States; and upon rights and claims growing out of them. Decisions ought to be, as far as possible, uniform; and uniformity of obligation will greatly tend to such a result. The executive authority of the several states may be often called upon to exert powers, or allow rights, given by the constitution, as in filling vacancies in the senate, during the recess of the legislature; in issuing writs of election to fill vacancies in the house of representatives; in officering the militia, and giving effect to laws for calling them; and in the surrender of fugitives from justice. These, and many other functions, devolving on the state authorities, render it highly important, that they should be under a solemn obligation to obey the constitution. In common sense, there can be no well-founded objection to it. There may be serious evils growing out of an opposite course. One of the objections, taken to the articles of confederation, by an enlightened state, (New-Jersey,) was, that no oath was required of members of congress, previous to their admission to their seats in congress. The laws and usages of all civilized nations, (said that state,) evince the propriety of an oath on such occasions; and the more solemn and important the deposit, the more strong and explicit ought the obligation to be.
    Last edited by Pericles; 05-19-2011 at 11:10 AM.
    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.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Is a constitutional monarchy better than a constitutional republic?
    By nodeal in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 12-12-2014, 09:20 PM
  2. MD-Cops, knocking on doors passing out flyers about how great cops are, shoot family dog.
    By Anti Federalist in forum Individual Rights Violations: Case Studies
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 08-09-2013, 08:36 AM
  3. OK-Home alarm dispatches cops. Cops show up and shoot family dog dead.
    By Anti Federalist in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-30-2011, 08:30 PM
  4. Fed. App. Court says: Constitutional Right To Openly Record Cops
    By bobbyw24 in forum Individual Rights Violations: Case Studies
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-30-2011, 02:01 PM
  5. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 06-29-2011, 10:55 AM

Posting Permissions

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