• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

constitution.org article: "Are cops constitutional?"

minarchist

minarchist

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
473
Location
Fredericksburg, VA
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...........................................728

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
Click to expand...

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)!
 
minarchist

minarchist

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
473
Location
Fredericksburg, VA
eye95 said:
The activities might be. The simple existence of police is not.
Click to expand...

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.
 
eye95

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
minarchist said:
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.
Click to expand...

He is free to be wrong.
 
C

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
eye95 said:
Except for federal cops, the existence of police has nothing to do with the US Constitution.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Freedom1Man

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
minarchist said:
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?
Click to expand...

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, cop·ping, 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.
 
eye95

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Citizen said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
minarchist

minarchist

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
473
Location
Fredericksburg, VA
eye95 said:
I would not be interested in discussing it with you.
Click to expand...

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).
 
eye95

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
minarchist said:
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).
Click to expand...

My ideas are "fleshed out." That you are ill-informed as to how they are is your own damned fault.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top