minarchist
Regular Member
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.
-
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.
-
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?"
- Thread starter minarchist
- Start date
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.
eye95
Well-known member
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.
minarchist
Regular Member
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.
eye95
Well-known member
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.
minarchist
Regular Member
When?
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.
eye95
Well-known member
Figure that one out for yourself or decide that you want to fix the problem.
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.
The current exchange is not the problem. It is a symptom, a reaction to the problem.
I will disengage when I see a genuine desire to fix the problem.
minarchist
Regular Member
What is the problem?
eye95
Well-known member
Time to move to PM. Shoot me a message, and I'll reply in the AM. I'm tired and am going to bed.
I am tired. That's funny. I'll reply to the PM in the AM.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
I like his Article and it has many good cites.
My feeling that "proactive policing" is unconstitutional. In a legal system supposedly base on English common law, you need three components to be a "crime". Cruising around looking for people not harming anyone but breaking some arbitrary state law.....bad....
My feeling that "proactive policing" is unconstitutional. In a legal system supposedly base on English common law, you need three components to be a "crime". Cruising around looking for people not harming anyone but breaking some arbitrary state law.....bad....
OC for ME
Regular Member
The question is flawed.
The premise is not "what authorizes a cop shop to exist" but "what prevents a cop shop from being authorized."
There is no constitutional mandate one way or the other. The intentions and omissions of our Founders is irrelevant. A representative republic can either make a cop shop, or not. Or, the representative republic can dissolve a existing cop shop.....even today. The views of that representative republic's citizenry must then be addressed, one way or the other.
Anyone who values the Constitution, and their state constitution(s), must accept the fact that the federal AND the 50 respective republican forms of governments have, and by extension the citizenry, approved of and desire a cop shop to be close at hand.
If you don't like cop shops work within your state to dissolve them, or the offending cop shop......and please let us know how things are going on that front from time to time.
The premise is not "what authorizes a cop shop to exist" but "what prevents a cop shop from being authorized."
There is no constitutional mandate one way or the other. The intentions and omissions of our Founders is irrelevant. A representative republic can either make a cop shop, or not. Or, the representative republic can dissolve a existing cop shop.....even today. The views of that representative republic's citizenry must then be addressed, one way or the other.
Anyone who values the Constitution, and their state constitution(s), must accept the fact that the federal AND the 50 respective republican forms of governments have, and by extension the citizenry, approved of and desire a cop shop to be close at hand.
If you don't like cop shops work within your state to dissolve them, or the offending cop shop......and please let us know how things are going on that front from time to time.
eye95
Well-known member
You highlight the tyranny of those who would enforce Liberty on those who do not want it. That is just as wrong--and anti-Liberty--as enforcing the removal of Liberty on those who want it!
Yeah, it is a paradox, but one that our brilliant Constitution solves--if folks will just allow it to do so. If they did, there would actually be an increase in the Liberty they claim to so love.
Yeah, it is a paradox, but one that our brilliant Constitution solves--if folks will just allow it to do so. If they did, there would actually be an increase in the Liberty they claim to so love.
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
Constitutional Republic.....
If the power to create a police force is not laid out in the constitution of the creating governmental entity then the power to create a police force does not exist. A sheriff/marshal are local/county elected positions that exist at the whim of the people.
OC for ME
Regular Member
I'm not sure how liberty can be "enforced" upon anyone. I can work with like minded citizens to remove the infringement by government upon liberty. Once liberty is available a citizen must take part in exercising their regained liberty.
Unless, of course, you are referring to the "state" mandating that all law abiding citizens must go armed in public as a "enforced" liberty. There, I must agree with you.
Unless, of course, you are referring to the "state" mandating that all law abiding citizens must go armed in public as a "enforced" liberty. There, I must agree with you.
eye95
Well-known member
When some try to use the hammer of the Constitution to say that a local community cannot constitutionally create a police force, they are enforcing their brand of liberty (little "l") on others, which is ironically anti-Liberty (capital "L"). The Constitution deliberately left out a lot of mandates on the entities that created it and the federal government--the States. It is up to the People of the States to maintain desired levels of Liberty. That choice is true Liberty.
The net upshot is that you get 50 different definitions of the levels of Liberty that balance competing interests. This creates a marketplace of Liberty in which individuals can shop for the system that suits them. In such a system, the most Liberty-loving States will draw the most enlightened and creative, magically producing increased wealth and well-being for all. The less Liberty-loving will shrivel and die as they become magnets for the wagon-riders and repel wagon-pullers. They can change or perish.
I don't want the central power in the nation defining Liberty. That needs to be defined as close to the People as possible. That is what our Constitution implemented, but what we have lost. Ironically, those who cheer for liberty want centrally-enforced liberty, rather than fighting for Liberty from the bottom up.
The net upshot is that you get 50 different definitions of the levels of Liberty that balance competing interests. This creates a marketplace of Liberty in which individuals can shop for the system that suits them. In such a system, the most Liberty-loving States will draw the most enlightened and creative, magically producing increased wealth and well-being for all. The less Liberty-loving will shrivel and die as they become magnets for the wagon-riders and repel wagon-pullers. They can change or perish.
I don't want the central power in the nation defining Liberty. That needs to be defined as close to the People as possible. That is what our Constitution implemented, but what we have lost. Ironically, those who cheer for liberty want centrally-enforced liberty, rather than fighting for Liberty from the bottom up.
minarchist
Regular Member
One problem with this is that people just passing through authoritarian states (a protected activity in the Constitution) can be adversely affected by the authoritarianism of that state.
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
That is why cops are supposed to have limited authority and that crimes were once defined as a knowingly committed violation of the law.
So, if a stranger was passing through a town the sheriff would only have authority if they were causing a problem in the town (e.g. theft, murder, starting fights).
Certain things are against natural law.
OC for ME
Regular Member
Thanks for the clarification.
OC for ME
Regular Member
I think this has occurred in Illinois. That state's supreme court held that a non-Illinois resident could not be held in criminal violation of Illinois' FOID card requirement. Whether or not that citizen was aware of the FOID requirement is a moot point. The justices clearly reminded Illinois LE that out of staters who were not otherwise prohibited and who is otherwise lawfully carrying could not be prosecuted for not complying with Illinois law re FOID card.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
You make some good points, Eye.
Do keep in mind that the hammer-swingers are themselves responding to the anti-liberty actions of the community. The problem isn't that a community can or can't establish a police force. The problem is the community enforces its laws on everybody. A fella can't opt-out of the "protection". Even hard-core anarcho-libertarians recognize that any group of people are free to establish a security/police force. The divergance is whether the group that establishes police can foist those police on others who do not want their protection, or do not want to be a part of the association/group that establishes the police force.
palerider116
Regular Member
Each state is a republic to itself. The Constitution (I refer to the writings of St. George Tucker) is the limitations placed on the federal government (federal republic).
Why?
You can effect change better the closer you are to the government. Federal government needs more restrictions because it immensely removed from the people. The Bill of Rights is not aimed at state or local government. As the preamble states:
"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: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."
The declaratory and restrictive clauses are only for the federal government. To use the Bill of Rights to address state or local issues was never the intention.
After with speaking with Constitutional scholar David Bozarth, I've been the writings of St. George Tucker, who was the leading jurist for constitutional studies until 1875. Then we got detailed and went on this living document tangent.
Why?
You can effect change better the closer you are to the government. Federal government needs more restrictions because it immensely removed from the people. The Bill of Rights is not aimed at state or local government. As the preamble states:
"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: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."
The declaratory and restrictive clauses are only for the federal government. To use the Bill of Rights to address state or local issues was never the intention.
After with speaking with Constitutional scholar David Bozarth, I've been the writings of St. George Tucker, who was the leading jurist for constitutional studies until 1875. Then we got detailed and went on this living document tangent.