Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 60

Thread: constitution.org article: "Are cops constitutional?"

  1. #1
    Regular Member minarchist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    495

    Thumbs up constitution.org article: "Are cops constitutional?"

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

    This article really puts the LEO-worshipping statists in their place (not that they still pretend to respect the Constitution)!

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Except for federal cops, the existence of police has nothing to do with the US Constitution.

  3. #3
    Regular Member minarchist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    495
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Except for federal cops, the existence of police has nothing to do with the US Constitution.
    Some activities of municipalities, counties (or equivalents thereto), and states are subject to the Constitution.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by minarchist View Post
    Some activities of municipalities, counties (or equivalents thereto), and states are subject to the Constitution.
    The activities might be. The simple existence of police is not.

  5. #5
    Regular Member minarchist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    495
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    The activities might be. The simple existence of police is not.
    I have a B.S. and M.S. in electrical engineering, and so my mind is geared toward things wholly unrelated to the realm of legal theory. I do think that, for a layman, I know a lot about legal matters, but regarding the topic of this thread, I will defer to Roger Roots, the author of the article that I linked to in the OP. Apparently, Mr. Roots thinks that the Constitution is germane to the existence of non-federal LEAs.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by minarchist View Post
    I have a B.S. and M.S. in electrical engineering, and so my mind is geared toward things wholly unrelated to the realm of legal theory. I do think that, for a layman, I know a lot about legal matters, but regarding the topic of this thread, I will defer to Roger Roots, the author of the article that I linked to in the OP. Apparently, Mr. Roots thinks that the Constitution is germane to the existence of non-federal LEAs.
    He is free to be wrong.

  7. #7
    Regular Member minarchist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    495
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    He is free to be wrong.
    Please read his article and then elaborate on your position.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    No.

  9. #9
    Regular Member minarchist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    495
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    No.
    Why did you offer an opinion on an Internet discussion board and then refuse to defend that opinion?

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by minarchist View Post
    Why did you offer an opinion on an Internet discussion board and then refuse to defend that opinion?
    I defend my opinions when I respect the person to whom I am defending it.

  11. #11
    Regular Member minarchist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    495
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    I defend my opinions when I respect the person to whom I am defending it.
    When you offer an opinion and then refuse to defend said opinion, is that an indication that you do not respect the person with whom you're communicating?

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by minarchist View Post
    When you offer an opinion and then refuse to defend said opinion, is that an indication that you do not respect the person with whom you're communicating?
    I leave it to you to figure that one out.

  13. #13
    Regular Member minarchist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    495
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    I leave it to you to figure that one out.
    Ok.

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Except for federal cops, the existence of police has nothing to do with the US Constitution.
    I'm not so sure. I first read the article about four or five years ago. The more I percolate on it, the less inclined I am to say police are constitutional.

    Dr. Roots lays out a pretty good case. Especially in light of the 14th Amendment.

    And, I cannot imagine that a buncha states changed their state constitutions in order to authorize municipal PDs, nor shifting the powers formerly exercised by citizens to police.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by minarchist View Post
    When you offer an opinion and then refuse to defend said opinion, is that an indication that you do not respect the person with whom you're communicating?
    There is no reasoning with that one. He has to be correct even when he is not.

    Unless your state's constitution allowed for the creation of a police force then there is no power to create a police force same on your county level.

    Unless the chief of police in your town is elected then your local pd has no legitimacy either.

    cop 2 (kp) Slang
    tr.v. copped, copĚping, cops
    1. To take unlawfully or without permission; steal. See Synonyms at steal.


    Or try SNOPES

    So, in short I would have to say that cops as we know them are not constitutional.

    Local marshals and Sheriffs are fine because they were officers of the peace.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    I'm not so sure. I first read the article about four or five years ago. The more I percolate on it, the less inclined I am to say police are constitutional.

    Dr. Roots lays out a pretty good case. Especially in light of the 14th Amendment.

    And, I cannot imagine that a buncha states changed their state constitutions in order to authorize municipal PDs, nor shifting the powers formerly exercised by citizens to police.
    Someone worth responding to!

    The Constitution, except in a very few very explicit ways was never intended to be a restriction on the States. Hell, if California and Massachusetts want to be People's Democratic Republics, they can have at it! It is up to the People of those States to check their governments. I, for one, love the idea of the Framers that each State be sovereign. It creates a marketplace of States, where the most efficacious government (the most Liberty-loving, IMO) would attract the best people and the wealth. The others would either have to change, or shrivel and die.

    Unfortunately, centralist thinking, thinking that the central government needs to check the sovereign governments that created it have done away with this idea. Some who purport to be for minimal government urge the use of the document creating the federal government as a central control of the sovereign governments.

    The way to achieve minimal government is to return to the federal model the Framer's originally intended and to return sovereignty to the States, even if that ironically means that a few will become despotic. Folks just need then to vote with their feet.

  17. #17
    Regular Member minarchist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    495
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    It creates a marketplace of States, where the most efficacious government (the most Liberty-loving, IMO) would attract the best people and the wealth.
    I would be interested in learning what you think constitutes liberty-loving.

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by minarchist View Post
    I would be interested in learning what you think constitutes liberty-loving.
    I would not be interested in discussing it with you.

  19. #19
    Regular Member minarchist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    495
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    I would not be interested in discussing it with you.
    That's fine. I have a general idea of what you think, but I wanted to give you a chance to flesh out your ideas on liberty in this liberty-related thread (e.g., LEO abolition or near-abolition is a path to greater liberty being the idea behind the OP).

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by minarchist View Post
    That's fine. I have a general idea of what you think, but I wanted to give you a chance to flesh out your ideas on liberty in this liberty-related thread (e.g., LEO abolition or near-abolition is a path to greater liberty being the idea behind the OP).
    My ideas are "fleshed out." That you are ill-informed as to how they are is your own damned fault.

  21. #21
    Regular Member minarchist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    495
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    My ideas are "fleshed out." That you are ill-informed as to how they are is your own damned fault.
    That you think that my failure to read > 8,000 posts constitutes some sort of indictment (as evidenced by your use of harsh language ("damned") and your assertion that I am ill-informed) is quite peculiar.

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by minarchist View Post
    That you think that my failure to read > 8,000 posts constitutes some sort of indictment (as evidenced by your use of harsh language ("damned") and your assertion that I am ill-informed) is quite peculiar.
    That you jumped to the conclusion that I meant that you had not read 8000 posts is a perfect example of why it is your own damned fault. But, keep it up. You'd rather "win" a discussion than fix the problem you created.

  23. #23
    Regular Member minarchist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    495

    Talking

    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    That you jumped to the conclusion that I meant that you had not read 8000 posts is a perfect example of why it is your own damned fault.
    I don't know every last detail of what you think (which you alluded to with the "ill-informed" accusation) precisely because I haven't read all of your posts.

    But, keep it up. You'd rather "win" a discussion than fix the problem you created.

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by minarchist View Post
    I don't know every last detail of what you think (which you alluded to with the "ill-informed" accusation) precisely because I haven't read all of your posts.
    No, you haven't because you chose to shut down adult conversation that would have yielded exactly what you want to know. Like I said, it's your own damned fault. So, keep trying to "win" the discussion. I'll play that game with you for years. Or, fix the problem you created. Your choice. I'm cool with either way it goes.

  25. #25
    Regular Member minarchist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    495
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    No, you haven't because you chose to shut down adult conversation that would have yielded exactly what you want to know.
    When?

    Like I said, it's your own damned fault. So, keep trying to "win" the discussion. I'll play that game with you for years. Or, fix the problem you created. Your choice. I'm cool with either way it goes.
    If our adversarial exchange is a problem, then I'll state something pleasant in an attempt to have you disengage (e.g., bilateral disengagement).

    I like your avatar.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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