# Think Tank > U.S. Constitution >  Are cops constitutional?

## aGameOfThrones

*ARE COPS CONSTITUTIONAL?

Roger Roots*

ABSTRACT

Police work is often lionized by jurists and scholars who claim to employ "textualist" and "originalist" methods of constitutional interpretation. Yet professional police were unknown to the United States in 1789, and first appeared in America almost a half-century after the Constitution's ratification. The Framers contemplated law enforcement as the duty of mostly private citizens, along with a few constables and sheriffs who could be called upon when necessary. This article marshals extensive historical and legal evidence to show that modern policing is in many ways inconsistent with the original intent of America's founding documents. The author argues that the growth of modern policing has substantially empowered the state in a way the Framers would regard as abhorrent to their foremost principles.

PART I

INTRODUCTION......................................  ..........................686

THE CONSTITUTIONAL TEXT..............................................  688

PRIVATE PROSECUTORS.......................................  .............689

LAW ENFORCEMENT AS A UNIVERSAL................................692

POLICE AS SOCIAL WORKERS...........................................  ..695

THE WAR ON CRIME.............................................  .............696

THE DEVELOPMENT OF DISTINCTIONS................................698

RESISTING ARREST............................................  ................701

THE SAFETY OF THE POLICE PROFESSION............................711

PROFESSIONALISM?..................................  ........................713

DNA EVIDENCE ILLUSTRATES FALLIBILITY OF POLICE........716

COPS NOT COST-EFFECTIVE DETERRENT.............................721

PART II

POLICE AS A STANDING ARMY...........................................722

THE SECOND AMENDMENT........725

THE THIRD AMENDMENT.........................................  ..........727

THE RIGHT TO BE LEFT ALONE...........................................72  8

THE FOURTH AMENDMENT.........................................  .......729

WARRANTS A FLOOR, NOT A CEILING.................................733

PRIVATE PERSONS AND THE FOURTH AMENDMENT..............734

ORIGINALISTS CALL FOR CIVIL DAMAGES...........................739

DEVELOPMENT OF IMMUNITIES........................................  ..743

THE LOSS OF PROBABLE CAUSE, AND THE ONSET OF PROBABLE SUSPICION.........................................  .......744

POLICE AND THE "AUTOMOBILE EXCEPTION"......................745

ONE EXCEPTION: THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE?......................747

THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.........................................  ...........751

DUE PROCESS...........................................  ........................752

ENTRAPMENT........................................  ...........................754

CONCLUSION...................................757*

Continue... http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

----------


## QueenB4Liberty

Most cops enforce unconstitutional laws. I can't recall reading anything in the Constitution about having cops either.

----------


## Nate-ForLiberty

This will be a good read. Can't wait!

----------


## AFPVet

> Most cops enforce unconstitutional laws. I can't recall reading anything in the Constitution about having cops either.


Limited federal law enforcement is under Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. State's have their own constitutions; however, most state constitutions mandate an elected sheriff.

----------


## aGameOfThrones

Bump!

----------


## Pericles

I suspect this is going to be really good.

----------


## micahnelson

10th amendment. Yes, cops are constitutional because they are established by local authorities. Would the FBI and CIA be constitutional? No probably not- but that said with a government this size I wish the FBI was merely an organization to investigate and prosecute corruption in the federal government.

----------


## pcosmar

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.

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

> Limited federal law enforcement is under Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. State's have their own constitutions; however, most state constitutions mandate an elected sheriff.


+1

cops are state based.

The Constitution is federal based.

Some things transfer - like the 4th amendment.

----------


## aGameOfThrones

*THE CONSTITUTIONAL TEXT

The Constitution contains no explicit provisions for criminal law enforcement.11 Nor did the constitutions of any of the several states contain such provisions at the time of the Founding.12 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.13 Founding-era constitutions addressed law enforcement from the standpoint of individual liberties and placed explicit barriers upon the state.14*

----------


## specsaregood

> +1
> cops are state based.


I thought most were city-based?  And are really just private security forces since cities are incorporated? no?

----------


## ItsTime

> I thought most were city-based?  And are really just private security forces since cities are incorporated? no?


There are state, county and city (town) cops.

Seems pretty clear that they are constitutional 




> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

----------


## pcosmar

> There are state, county and city (town) cops.
> 
> Seems pretty clear that they are constitutional


Where do you get that from the article or the writings of the Founders.

*Read The Article*

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm



> Yet the dissident English colonists who framed the United States Constitution would have seen this modern 'police state' as alien to their foremost principles. Under the criminal justice model known to the Framers, professional police officers were unknown.3 The general public had broad law enforcement powers and only the executive functions of the law (e.g., the execution of writs, warrants and orders) were performed by constables or sheriffs (who might call upon members of the community for assistance).4 *Initiation and investigation of criminal cases was the nearly exclusive province of private persons.*

----------


## Dr.3D

> *THE CONSTITUTIONAL TEXT
> 
> The Constitution contains no explicit provisions for criminal law enforcement.11 Nor did the constitutions of any of the several states contain such provisions at the time of the Founding.12 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.13 Founding-era constitutions addressed law enforcement from the standpoint of individual liberties and placed explicit barriers upon the state.14*


At this time, people who enforce the law as originally intended end up being labeled a vigilante and often fined by those they apprehended and turned in to the authorities.   This reminds me of the ranch owner along our southern border who has been fined by illegal aliens for holding them and calling the border patrol to take them off of his land.

----------


## ItsTime

> Where do you get that from the article or the writings of the Founders.
> 
> *Read The Article*
> 
> http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm


I dont see in the Constitution where it limits state government from those actions?

----------


## pcosmar

> At this time, people who enforce the law as originally intended end up being labeled a vigilante and often fined by those they apprehended and turned in to the authorities.   This reminds me of the ranch owner along our southern border who has been fined by illegal aliens for holding them and calling the border patrol to take them off of his land.


I am more and more convinced that we are living in Bizzaro World.

----------


## Dr.3D

> I am more and more convinced that we are living in Bizzaro World.


I am starting to wonder if the ranch owner has learned his lesson.   Perhaps he is now thinking, dead people can't sue.

----------


## pcosmar

> I dont see in the Constitution where it limits state government from those actions?


Do you find any call for , or recommendation of, in the writings of the Founders? Or in the constitution that strictly defines and limits the Federal enforcement powers.

In my reading I have found none, and warnings against such.

----------


## ItsTime

The discussion is starting to confuse the idea of a police for with the unconstitutional actions of that police force.

----------


## pcosmar

> I am starting to wonder if the ranch owner has learned his lesson.   Perhaps he is now thinking, dead people can't sue.


I was told that by a Cop years ago, In regards to personal carry.

----------


## Dr.3D

> I was told that by a Cop years ago, In regards to personal carry.


So was I.

----------


## ItsTime

Should the federal government forbid states from having a police force? If so why?

----------


## Dr.3D

> Should the federal government forbid states from having a police force? If so why?


What is the difference between a police force and a standing army?

----------


## ItsTime

> What is the difference between a police force and a standing army?


So your argument is that the federal government should control local police?

----------


## Dr.3D

> So your argument is that the federal government should control local police?


That would still be a standing army.   There is not supposed to be a standing army.

----------


## ItsTime

Well they are not a standing army.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Well they are not a standing army.


Right, they just look like one and act like one.
Both wear uniforms and carry weapons civilians are not allowed to have.

Prey tell, what is the difference between the two?

----------


## pcosmar

> So your argument is that the federal government should control local police?


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.

----------


## aGameOfThrones

Bump!

----------


## FrankRep

-> State/Locals Cops are Constitutional. 

-> Federal Cops, UnConstitutional.

----------


## Chester Copperpot

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

----------


## AFPVet

> -> 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.

----------


## sailingaway

The constitution limits the powers of the federal government, not state.

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

> 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.

----------


## aGameOfThrones

Why do America's police need an armored tank?

----------


## Philhelm

> Why do America's police need an armored tank?


That's an easy one.  To kill Americans...

----------


## Wolfgang Bohringer

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.

----------


## dbill27

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....

----------


## Wolfgang Bohringer

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."

----------


## dbill27

> 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?

----------


## Wolfgang Bohringer

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.

----------


## dbill27

> 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!

----------


## osan

> [B]ARE COPS CONSTITUTIONAL?


Very good article.  Thank you.

----------


## Pericles

> 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.

----------


## aGameOfThrones

Hmm...

----------


## aGameOfThrones

///

----------


## aGameOfThrones

///

----------


## pcosmar

Good time to bump this thread.
and to post the link again.
http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

----------


## Sola_Fide

Great thread!

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> 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?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> 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?

----------


## pcosmar

> 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.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> 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.
> ...


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.

----------


## demolama

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.

----------


## pcosmar

> 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.*

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> 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.

----------


## pcosmar

> 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.

----------


## pcosmar

Dead Marine Bump
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...WAT-in-Arizona
4th Amendment Bump
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...searches-quot-

----------


## osan

> 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.

----------


## Pericles

> 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 - 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.

----------


## aGameOfThrones

Bump for the 84 year old man http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...aking-his-nose.

----------


## demolama

> 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.

----------


## Pericles

> 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.
> ...


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.

----------


## demolama

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/

----------


## pcosmar

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."

----------


## aGameOfThrones

Bump:

Mundane to cops - “Why are you shooting me?” as he dies - blood boiling case out of GA.

Tasered to death by cops for running a stop sign

Tucson SWAT Team Defends Shooting Iraq Vet 60 Times

Handicapped man body slammed out of wheelchair and bleeding on the sidewalk by cops


Arizona SWAT Team Shoots Iraq War Veteran 60 times.

----------


## aGameOfThrones

Bump.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> 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?

----------


## AndrewD

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.

----------


## aGameOfThrones

> 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.

----------


## AndrewD

"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?

----------


## aGameOfThrones

> "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

----------


## pcosmar

> 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.




> 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

----------


## Kylie

> 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.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> 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

----------


## Dr.3D

> 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*.

----------


## AndrewD

> 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.

----------


## Danke

> 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."

----------


## GuerrillaXXI

> 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).

----------


## pcosmar

> 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 $#@! you obviously know nothing about.

----------


## oyarde

> 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 $#@! 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

----------


## pcosmar

> 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 $#@! at that.

But what the hell, I'm just a Forum Bully.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> 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 $#@! are you talking about?

*You're* the one running around here, beating your chest, talking internet tough guy $#@! 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.

----------


## pcosmar

> 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.

----------


## GuerrillaXXI

> 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

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> 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

----------


## Kylie

> 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 $#@!ing important to me.

----------


## Fraulein

Good read, bump.

----------


## Danke

> Good read, bump.


	 jawohl

----------


## No Free Beer

> +1
> 
> cops are state based.
> 
> The Constitution is federal based.
> 
> Some things transfer - like the 4th amendment.


Isn't that the 14th amendment?

----------


## John F Kennedy III

Goosebumps

----------


## No Free Beer

I didn't read much of it.

But, I have to be honest...

Whether we like it or not, cops are important in the community. Yes, anywhere/everywhere there is corruption. 

Most cops that I have come across have been good people. Yes, you get your occasional $#@!s, but for the most part...good people. 

I know all the anarchists are going to come after me, and that's fine. They have that right.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I didn't read much of it.
> 
> But, I have to be honest...
> 
> Whether we like it or not, cops are important in the community. Yes, anywhere/everywhere there is corruption. 
> 
> Most cops that I have come across have been good people. Yes, you get your occasional $#@!s, but for the most part...good people. 
> 
> I know all the anarchists are going to come after me, and that's fine. They have that right.

----------


## No Free Beer

> 


You're so clever with your picture.

I have an idea, why don't I put up a picture in response to a comment, without saying anything other than demeaning the person.

Yep, I'll do that.

----------


## Travlyr

> I didn't read much of it.
> 
> But, I have to be honest...
> 
> Whether we like it or not, cops are important in the community. Yes, anywhere/everywhere there is corruption. 
> 
> Most cops that I have come across have been good people. Yes, you get your occasional $#@!s, but for the most part...good people. 
> 
> I know all the anarchists are going to come after me, and that's fine. They have that right.


If only the cops would go after the counterfeiters. Most of the unemployed and homeless are on the streets because central bankers are mismanaging the economy. The cops harass and enforce the law on the indigent while they let the real thieves (banker bailouts) go free.

----------


## No Free Beer

> If only the cops would go after the counterfeiters. Most of the unemployed and homeless are on the streets because central bankers are mismanaging the economy. The cops harass and enforce the law on the indigent while they let the real thieves (banker bailouts) go free.


And I wouldn't even disagree with that statement. By viewing a lot of your comments lately, I can see that the economic/bank/monetary issue is your biggest one (or it seems to be). 

I'm talking about in local communities.

----------


## pcosmar

> I didn't read much of it.


But you are going to pull an opinion out of your ass anyway.

Why not just read and consider.. Perhaps educate yourself.

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm



> Police work is often lionized by jurists and scholars who claim to employ "textualist" and "originalist" methods of constitutional interpretation. Yet professional police were unknown to the United States in 1789, and first appeared in America almost a half-century after the Constitution's ratification. *The Framers contemplated law enforcement as the duty of mostly private citizens,* along with a few constables and sheriffs who could be called upon when necessary. This article marshals extensive historical and legal evidence to show that modern policing is in many ways inconsistent with the original intent of America's founding documents. *The author argues that the growth of modern policing has substantially empowered the state in a way the Framers would regard as abhorrent to their foremost principles.*


This is not anarchy. This is Law and Order as it was intended.

----------


## Travlyr

> And I wouldn't even disagree with that statement. By viewing a lot of your comments lately, I can see that the economic/bank/monetary issue is your biggest one (or it seems to be).


It is what Mises, Mullins, Rothbard, Paul, and a whole lot of others all wrote about. Our freedom was taken from us by counterfeiters. Cops came onto the scene to protect the counterfeiters. They work for them. Remember a couple of weeks ago at St. Charles, MO the scene where the cops guarded the status quo from the people? Eventually they handcuffed the Ron Paul guy. The cops work for the counterfeiters.




> I'm talking about in local communities.


That is the job of the county sheriff.

----------


## pcosmar

> That is the job of the county sheriff.


Not exactly. It is the job of the local people.(and is limited by the Constitution) The Sheriff is simply an elected servant to the people. He has no more authority than the local people and is in fact their representative,, not their "leader".

----------


## No Free Beer

> But you are going to pull an opinion out of your ass anyway.
> 
> Why not just read and consider.. Perhaps educate yourself.
> 
> http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm
> 
> 
> This is not anarchy. This is Law and Order as it was intended.


I wasn't claiming that the article was promoting anarchy.

----------


## Travlyr

> Not exactly. It is the job of the local people.(and is limited by the Constitution) The Sheriff is simply an elected servant to the people. He has no more authority than the local people and is in fact their representative,, not their "leader".


Perhaps I don't understand how it is supposed to work. I agree the Sheriff is not the leader, but his job is to make sure that the Constitution is strictly followed and enforce the law. It is the job of the Grand Jury to determine if the law has been violated to the degree enforcement is necessary. It is the job of the Judge to issue the warrant. It is the job of the county Sheriff to serve the warrant and apprehend the suspect to face the jury. It is the job of the District Attorney to defend the rule of law. That's the way I understand it.

----------


## azxd

I love reading the cop hater responses and how they hide behind the U.S. Constitution in an attempt to circumvent State Rights and State Constitutions.

Obama and those like him must really love that some will so easily toss State Rights out the door 

People within States develop systems, and allow local governments to operate as they see fit ... Leave the States alone !!!

Argue the FBI, CIA, and all those other alphabet agencies, but do not twist the U.S. Constitution and diminish States Rights via deceptive interpretation ... UNLESS you are after an award from the POTUS.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Aren't perceptions strange, how one person can see things one way, and another see the same thing, but take it in a completely different way?

I had forgotten all about *this* jackass, who made it his mission to "call out" my "Big Billy Bad Ass" attitude.




> 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.


Yet azxd takes it completely different, and has the perception that I'm a quivering, chicken$#@! coward, sniveling and fear mongering my worthless days away:




> Speak for yourself !!!
> 
> The man has conversed in the Oval Office a few times, so it's only impossible for the self defeatist, fearmongering type of individual 
> 
> Translation = If you really think this ... Why are you here ?





> Boogie man is strong, it seems.





> See AF's chicken $#@! communist manifesto for how I feel about your comments 
> 
> I know who Black water is ... Did you even watch that fake video ?


When all along my message has been consistent and unchanging.

Weird how that is.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I love reading the cop hater responses and how they hide behind the U.S. Constitution in an attempt to circumvent State Rights and State Constitutions.
> 
> Obama and those like him must really love that some will so easily toss State Rights out the door 
> 
> People within States develop systems, and allow local governments to operate as they see fit ... Leave the States alone !!!
> 
> Argue the FBI, CIA, and all those other alphabet agencies, but do not twist the U.S. Constitution and diminish States Rights via deceptive interpretation ... UNLESS you are after an award from the POTUS.


What makes you think states have rights? (much less the right to create police?)  Study the history of law enforcement in this country.  It's not rational to give this job to the government at any level.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Aren't perceptions strange, how one person can see things one way, and another see the same thing, but take it in a completely different way?
> 
> I had forgotten all about *this* jackass, who made it his mission to "call out" my "Big Billy Bad Ass" attitude.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet azxd takes it completely different, and has the perception that I'm a quivering, chicken$#@! coward, sniveling and fear mongering my worthless days away:
> 
> 
> ...


qft.  Mucho respect for ya, brother.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> You're so clever with your picture.
> 
> I have an idea, why don't I put up a picture in response to a comment, without saying anything other than demeaning the person.
> 
> Yep, I'll do that.


When all logic, rationality, morality, and common sense is lost on someone, like in your case in this thread, a facepalm is about all one can do.

----------


## Travlyr

> Aren't perceptions strange, how one person can see things one way, and another see the same thing, but take it in a completely different way?
> 
> I had forgotten all about *this* jackass, who made it his mission to "call out" my "Big Billy Bad Ass" attitude.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet azxd takes it completely different, and has the perception that I'm a quivering, chicken$#@! coward, sniveling and fear mongering my worthless days away:
> 
> 
> ...


Indeed.

----------


## azxd

> What makes you think states have rights? (much less the right to create police?)  Study the history of law enforcement in this country.  It's not rational to give this job to the government at any level.


It might not be rational, but it is what it is, and the last time I checked States had rights.

Playing a game with symantics does not change this.

----------


## Individualism

In some states if they don't follow the constitution it could be the end for them since some states allow folks to shoot cops that come on to property illegally and claim self defense and some states have stand your ground which can apply to cops as well, depending on the state.

----------


## pcosmar

> It might not be rational, but it is what it is, and the last time I checked States had rights.
> 
> Playing a game with symantics does not change this.


Individuals Have Rights. A state is a concept.or a legal boundary.  It is abstract and can not posses rights.
It has no rights.

Perhaps you are thinking or "State Sovereignty" which I both accept and agree with.

----------


## azxd

> Individuals Have Rights. A state is a concept.or a legal boundary.  It is abstract and can not posses rights.
> It has no rights.
> 
> Perhaps you are thinking or "State Sovereignty" which I both accept and agree with.


Playing a game with symantics does not change this.

----------


## Danke

> Playing a game with symantics does not change this.


OK, go ahead and explain "rights"

Then explain how an abstraction has rights.

----------


## -C-

It makes it far harder to say that they, town cops and state police, are not constitutional when you consider there are elected officials that they answer to. After all who arrests the police chief if he screws up? The Sheriff. Who appoints/hires/pays the police chief? The town council/mayor. Both elected by local people.

I find that the real issue with town/state police is that most often they aren't from the area they are policing, and usually haven't been in the area that long. So they police differently than the local culture is used to, creating rifts in the community.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *It makes it far harder to say that they, town cops and state police, are not constitutional when you consider there are elected officials that they answer to. After all who arrests the police chief if he screws up? The Sheriff. Who appoints/hires/pays the police chief? The town council/mayor. Both elected by local people.*
> 
> I find that the real issue with town/state police is that most often they aren't from the area they are policing, and usually haven't been in the area that long. So they police differently than the local culture is used to, creating rifts in the community.


There's no uniform way for this to be done (yet).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheriff#United_States
In the United States, the relationship between the sheriff and other police departments varies widely from state to state, and indeed in some states from county to county. In the northeastern United States, the sheriff's duties have been greatly reduced with the advent of state-level law enforcement agencies, especially the state police and local agencies such as thecounty police. In Vermont, for instance, the elected sheriff is primarily an officer of the County Court, whose duties include running the county jail and serving papers in lawsuits and foreclosures.[_clarification needed_] Law enforcement patrol is performed as well, in support of State Police and in the absence of a municipal police agency in rural towns.
By contrast, in other municipalities, the sheriff's office may be merged with most or all city-level police departments within a county to form a consolidated city-county or metropolitan police force responsible for general law enforcement anywhere in the county. The sheriff in such cases serves simultaneously as sheriff and chief of the consolidated police department. Examples include the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office in Florida, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and the Miami-Dade Police Department.

I maintain that cops are unconstitutional and unnecessary.

----------


## azxd

> OK, go ahead and explain "rights"
> 
> Then explain how an abstraction has rights.


You know the meaning, you know the phrasing, no need to explain what you already know, except to further an argument that does not need to occur.

----------


## pcosmar

> You know the meaning, you know the phrasing, no need to explain what you already know, except to further an argument that does not need to occur.


Translated.= no clue..just arguing for argument sake.
*
States do not have rights.*
Individuals have rights.  A state is NOT an individual.

But back to the subject at hand,,
How is a group or organization who's very purpose is to violate rights even vaguely constitutional?
And why would any here attempt to justify their existence?

----------


## pcosmar

> But back to the subject at hand,,
> How is a group or organization who's very purpose is to violate rights even vaguely constitutional?
> And why would any here attempt to justify their existence?


ARE COPS CONSTITUTIONAL?
http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

I would suggest reading this,




> Police work is often lionized by jurists and scholars who claim to employ "textualist" and "originalist" methods of constitutional interpretation. Yet professional police were unknown to the United States in 1789, and first appeared in America almost a half-century after the Constitution's ratification. The Framers contemplated law enforcement as the duty of mostly private citizens, along with a few constables and sheriffs who could be called upon when necessary. This article marshals extensive historical and legal evidence to show that modern policing is in many ways inconsistent with the original intent of America's founding documents. *The author argues that the growth of modern policing has substantially empowered the state in a way the Framers would regard as abhorrent to their foremost principles*.





> THE CONSTITUTIONAL TEXT
> 
> 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.

----------


## Zippyjuan

The Constitution does not cover what State and Local governments can do (beyond saying that powers not enumerated in the Constitution are left to the states) and police are under the jurisdiction of the states so I would say no- police are not un-Constitutional. If there was a national police force that would have to be examined to see if it was Constitutional.  That appears to be covered under Article 1 Section 8

Congress shall have the power to:



> *To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union*, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> 
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

----------


## azxd

> Translated.= no clue..just arguing for argument sake.
> *
> States do not have rights.*
> Individuals have rights.  A state is NOT an individual.
> 
> But back to the subject at hand,,
> How is a group or organization who's very purpose is to violate rights even vaguely constitutional?
> And why would any here attempt to justify their existence?


Who do you prefer to hold the power ... The Federal Government, or your Local Government ?

----------


## azxd

> The Constitution does not cover what State and Local governments can do (beyond saying that powers not enumerated in the Constitution are left to the states) and police are under the jurisdiction of the states so I would say no- police are not un-Constitutional. If there was a national police force that would have to be examined to see if it was Constitutional.  That appears to be covered under Article 1 Section 8
> 
> Congress shall have the power to:


And herein lies the flaw of arguing that the U.S. Constitution superceeds a State's Constitution.

----------


## pcosmar

> Who do you prefer to *hold the power* ... The Federal Government, or your Local Government ?


*The people.*
My friends, family and neighbors.
I would also like the same to be responsible and self-policing.

There is no need for (and never has been a need for) a goon squad to do that for them.

----------


## Weston White

Heh, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions, oh so that explains what the state and local police think they are doing 24/7, with their endless detain to talk and frisk, DUI checkpoints, etc., etc.

Lets not forget about Posse Comitatus, we sure dont need another Ruby Ridge or Waco anytime soon.  However, the federal government holds police powers only within the 10-square miles known as the Seat of the federal government, including its territories, etc.

An elected sheriff represents those within their elected county as a whole, while cities, townships, etc. derive from counties through state articles of incorporation.  When we talk about law enforcement, what we are really referring to is the powers of a court to enforce those laws, which is where the sheriff comes in, they are directly obliged to the authoritative powers of the court to enforce its rulings.  As such a sheriff can refuse to enforce an issued writ or warrant of execution and if the people do not like it they can vote the sheriff out (which happened recently, I think back East with regards to out of control foreclosure evictions).  Ultimately, the senior law enforcement official within a county is in fact the elected sheriff, not individual magistrates or judges, not the chief of police, not the mayor of a city, and not the federalize.

----------


## PierzStyx

This is a non-issue, well it was until recently. Cops are actually branches of local government or state government. Under the Tenth, since The Constitution doesn't expressly forbid a police force, the states and local counties and cities could constitutionally have police forces. The idea of a national police force though is illegal. The closest thing the Fedgov could have to a police force was the national army. What calls into question teh constitutionality of current police forces is their union with Fedgov powers to form a de facto national police force guided more from Washington than by local governments.

----------


## PierzStyx

> 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.


You mean perfect society. If you remoce the police and strict regulations, then the only force you have to respond to those who would violate people's rights (such as murderers, rapists, etc.) or even to those who are ACCUSED of doing so is mob action. And mobs have no rules and acknowledge none. In a perfect society that would be fine since no one would ever lose their cool or get caught up in mob violence. In the real world this simply isn't the case. Mobs tend towards emotional, illogical, reactions of violence as opposed to establishing the innocence or guilt of an accused person. A police force with detailed regulations and rules on the other hand, strictly controlled at the local level, can be a useful tool in establishing justice. The problem with modern police forces though is that the police receive to many special treatments and are more loyal to federal powers than state or local powers. This needs to be rectified. But let us take care not to throw the baby out with the athwater and thereby create a whoel new set of social ills and problems.

P.S.-The moon does revolve around the Earth.

----------


## pcosmar

> P.S.-The moon does revolve around the Earth.




Yes,, true. But the universe does not revolve around the earth,, as was once thought.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> You mean perfect society. *If you remoce the police and strict regulations, then the only force you have to respond to those who would violate people's rights (such as murderers, rapists, etc.) or even to those who are ACCUSED of doing so is mob action.* And mobs have no rules and acknowledge none. In a perfect society that would be fine since no one would ever lose their cool or get caught up in mob violence. In the real world this simply isn't the case. Mobs tend towards emotional, illogical, reactions of violence as opposed to establishing the innocence or guilt of an accused person. A police force with detailed regulations and rules on the other hand, strictly controlled at the local level, can be a useful tool in establishing justice. The problem with modern police forces though is that the police receive to many special treatments and are more loyal to federal powers than state or local powers. This needs to be rectified. But let us take care not to throw the baby out with the athwater and thereby create a whoel new set of social ills and problems.
> 
> P.S.-The moon does revolve around the Earth.


Where do you think these people come from?  Society, of course!  They have no more legitimate authority to do what they do than I.  To paraphrase TJ, if men were angels, it would be perfectly reasonable to create police and give them the rights they currently enjoy.

----------


## pcosmar

> You mean perfect society.


No,, Not a perfect society
A FREE Society.

I have posted a link (several times) that goes into the history and creation of police. 
And also some of a time when they DID NOT EXIST.

And yet no one even comments on the information provided.
Police as a concept (and as a reality) should not exist in a free society.
The very *concept* of police should not exist in a free society.
It is an Authoritarian concept and is in direct opposition to Liberty.

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm
Read it.

----------


## APAT Warrior

> No,, Not a perfect society
> A FREE Society.
> 
> I have posted a link (several times) that goes into the history and creation of police. 
> And also some of a time when they DID NOT EXIST.
> 
> And yet no one even comments on the information provided.
> Police as a concept (and as a reality) should not exist in a free society.
> The very *concept* of police should not exist in a free society.
> ...



You sir are correct. The link that you have posted several times throughout this thread since 2011 is very informative and educational. I came across this thesis back in early February of this year as I decided to do further research into the Constitutionality of the police departments and officers. I have spent extensive amounts of time on this subject also. I have come to some conclusions about it of which I have discussed with some other patriot's and one who is a former police officer. I have alot of things to say about this but I am not sure that I will post them here right now. But.... this thread is very good because not alot of people in this country up until these last few years have even questioned the authority of which the police agencies derive from. Some say the States rights under the 10th Amendment, but I am at odds with what the "police" actually would mean to be under the 10th Amendment rights for the State (which is really not a "thing", or "form", but made up of The People.) For that info, I will wait to talk about for now.

----------


## bolil

> Well they are not a standing army.


Bearcat.

----------


## Feelgood

> I am starting to wonder if the ranch owner has learned his lesson.   Perhaps he is now thinking, dead people can't sue.


Dead people don't need to sue, as long as they have living next of kin that wish to. Ask OJ Simpson.

----------

