Roger Roots, an extremely interesting person in his own right has offered a very thought endearing treatise on the subject of the constitutionality of police. This first paragraph is but the abstract of what is to be offered. It is not a short treatise, but well worth reading. It covers many areas and compares to the original intent of the founders. As the introduction sets the stage, it becomes possible to start to see how the movement of population to large city environments and the fear of fire in such close quarters started this march to the police state as we know it today. But as this transformation has taken place, so has the loss of personal freedom and increase in misjustice that has become so prevalent. This thread is for the discussion of those changes and their impacts, good or bad?
Of course police are constitutional (at least at the state and local levels). They can be constitutional at federal, if they are involved in a constitutionally given power of the federal government.
Historians have said that Ben Franklin organized a police force in Philadelphia and volunteer fire department before 1776. However, NYC did not have a police force until 1825. While these forces are constitutional, their abuse of power is not.
This is the correct answer. The People are free to lobby their state and local governments to organize a police force, (or a fire brigade, or a state or local militia, or whatever) or not. Federal police are to be limited in jurisdiction to enforcement of federal laws. The People can also force a change in their leadership through the voting process, or (theoretically) abolish them all together if a strong enough consensus can be reached.
You say "of course" at the state and local levels and "can be" at the federal levels but all you offered was supposition not facts. Why are they constitutional, how did they get their powers? And then you quote the 10th Amendment, what does that have to do with it?
Throughout history there has always been sheriffs and constables which was covered in the introduction part of the OP. The concept of large cities, mainly made of wood, with the nightly watch was also covered. And the concept of when police started is not a part of the question. But now you are on to the real issue, but not just the abuse of power but where the constitution allows that power to be abused. According to Roger Roots, he could find no explicit provision in the constitution nor can I for criminal law enforcement, so just what was the authority for all these police powers of the federal government? As I have not at this point read the original constitutions of the original states, I can not testify to what was or was not enunciated but the concept was in line with the history of the early era.
Correct answer, not likely. First, where are these free people you so gallantly try to project? By what right do they have to corporate any kind of force? Federal, have you ever actually read the constitution? Where is the ability for the federal government to have any kind of police?
You are one of them, whether you care to admit it or not. You (presumably) cast your vote for the State Attorney General, and County Sheriff where you live. You placed them into power. If they do not work to The People's interests, The People can send them back to whence they came at the next election cycle. The People have a right to self defense, and freedom of association, and freedom of contract. They have the ability to assemble any sort of organizations they need, including a police force, a fire brigade, a militia, or a quilting clutch. They also have the ability to dissolve those organizations if they wish, though it would be really tough for them to do so. The necessity for an enforcement organization is implied in the ability to create federal laws. Laws that cannot be enforced are not very valuable. Government overreach is out of control, and I'm right with you there. I, however, do not believe attacking the constitutionality of local or federal police will gain any traction. They exist, not because of some authority delegated by the Constitution, but because The People allow them to exist. Indeed, The People require them to exist, else they would not. The courts ruled the federal police constitutional in the early 1900's. Unfortunate proof that "The Constitution is [...] a mere thing of wax in the hands of the Judiciary".
Our Founding Fathers dealt with the police of their day in their own creative way: 1) tar-and-feather 2) water boarding 3) hanging tree three easy steps to stop police violence
The bit I was very interested in was the immunities. I never realised Americans let their police get away with that sort of behaviour. That's a threat to your freedoms. It seems the police are heavily enmeshed in the political adminstration of a jurisdiction and are protected by it, as long as they don't threaten said administration of course.
I would suggest you take a look at my signature, I'm not one of them. First, I'm a political athesist and believe nothing political except they all lie and most are either sociopathic or psychopathic. Next I am a full electorate not a qualified electorate. To vote one must first become qualified, in some way diminished. I am in no manner diminished nor need representation. So your assumption I placed anyone in power would be totally incorrect. The state Attorney General in today's world is a complete joke. Obviously you didn't read the treatise. The Attorney General of old had a very limited function not a god like ability. His thoughts and actions matter little in private prosecution. Also, the Sheriff had a very limited function as a process server for warrants and executions. No, you placed them in power as a qualified elector better know as a voter. As a state electorate I command and correct them when they misbehave in anything that affects me. You use the voting booth, I use Writs, Affidavits, and Notice & Praecipe to do my business with any government servant. Absolutely they do not. "The People" have a cornucopia of rights limited only by not infringing upon the rights of others. But citizens surrender their rights and only have the privileges and immunities so authorized by their elected representatives. While what passes for a citizens freedom of association and even contracts are very limited, you may still within limits assemble organizations but not police or fire or militia, only your elected representatives can do that. Also, those organization have no powers that a normal person would have as your can not delegate something you don't have. If you believe that you can dissolve those organizations once assembled you do indeed have a very naive view of reality and politics. Where is their any authority to create federal laws much less an enforcement branch? Likewise what authority do they have to create these so called laws? Do you really know what a law would be? Now you state that government overreach is out of control, but didn't you just argue for that overreach? Why can't you attack the local sheriff, police, prosecutors or judges? I do all the time and they all have their panties in a twist that I enjoy giving a little jerk here and there. What are they going to do, end up in federal court as the defendant? Their option is to either shoot me or give me a reason to file against them in federal court but the chief judges are not the idiots like their underlings and keep them at bay. "The people" do not allow them to exist. You confuse "the people" with citizens. It is the citizens that allow them to exist because of fear. That fear is based on their limited knowledge of what it takes to not be a slave and obey the master. "The people" are the masters and keep the servants in line at least as regards themselves. The courts can rule nothing, they are but actors in black robes upon a stage with an act that scares most. In my last "special appearance" I was offered 30 days for contempt of court. I challenged with what court, no jurisdiction, no court. I was then dismissed and again offered 30 days if I did not leave so he could scam the next person. But the look of fear on that judges face when challenged and he realized he almost went over the edge was worth the hour I spent on getting it. So don't tell me it's "unfortunate proof of anything other than all the good little citizens too scared to stand for what is rightfully theirs.
There has to be one in every crowd but that implication is not so, that was the common crook including lying politicians and tax collectors. And what the quote does not address was the methodology of handling crime. Under the common law, the plaintiff dictated the punishment required to make him whole. But it was the twelve peers on the petite jury that made the determination. There was no judges just the magistrate that had a responsibility to maintain order and to keep the process moving forward. By the way, the penalty for burglary under common law was death so not many opportunities for repeat offenders.
Immunity is a very interesting subject but they are not as you seem to imply. First, they are only immune within the scope of their constitutionally allowed duties. If they step beyond those bounds, then they have violated their oath of office and are personally responsible. However, for the most part the prosecutor finds ways to not prosecute those that help them with the scams of what has become the American legal system. It is up to the individual to take action and prosecute his own case normally using the civil rather than the legal system. Under the civil system one can first so a collateral attack against their bond. If judgement is beyond the bond, then one can then claim their personal assets using the sheriff to serve the process. It is only those citizens so indoctrinated as to believe they are beyond reach that suffers injustice. It is to them that the current state of affairs can be said to emanate.
An armed citizenry also guarantees that police cannot dare to harass the populace as it often does today. Back in those days the people would torch a judge's house if they felt he was abusing his authority. Therefore, crooked police, politicians, judges, anyone who dared abuse the people risked the punishment shown above. Note as I have written before - the only time in recent decades where the police did not engage in violence and harass the people was in Houston and in Las Vegas where the people were armed to the teeth. All forum conservatives who believe in the 2d Amendment should applaud this TRUTH.
Read for comprehension, it's obvious. The Constitution authorized the states any powers that are either not forbidden by the Constitution or not delegated to the feds. Since nothing about police is mentioned, it's Constitutional for the local/sstates to have police. That power is not delegated to the feds. It's simple English. Amendment X 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.
But this isn't the truth, it was indicative of the actions of vigilantes not due process. But this is outside the scope of the thread wherein the subject matter is the constitutionally of cops, period.
What you fail to understand is that while cops are legal under the Constitution, their atrocious actions are not. Many people are fed up with that and resort to the gun in order to avert more police crimes. If Jefferson was alive today he would applaud the actions of these people.
I would suggest just that, read for comprehension. Perhaps one should start the Bill of Rights that gave the States nothing as they preexisted the constitution and gave certain of their powers to the federal government. The 10th Amendment has nothing to do with that states, nothing at all. You're right, police is not mentioned in the constitution with one exception; Outside those restrictions placed on the states by virtue of delegated power to the federal government in Article I, Section 10, the states are covered in Article IV with a very specific guarantee. This guarantee is for a republican form of government, the power residing in the people, not the government. There are no police powers available from the people as they don't have them to delegate.
