Are Cops Constitutional - Rodger Roots

[MatthewP503]

<broken link removed>

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.

Download link: http://outpost-of-freedom.com/library/AreCopsConstitutional.pdf

Read More

 

[Certaindeaf]

Are you a plant?

 

[Just Jim]

Are you a plant?

I suspect a daffodil .

 

[MatthewP503]

What do you mean. .? I'm a 24 year old landscaper from beaverton, I'm heading to work rite now for the 7th day this week to make up some cash from the AR I just got from a guy I contacted from the classifieds on this site..
Do you not like to read things that might change your perception?

 

[Certaindeaf]

What do you mean. .? I'm a 24 year old landscaper from beaverton, I'm heading to work rite now for the 7th day this week to make up some cash from the AR I just got from a guy I contacted from the classifieds on this site..
Do you not like to read things that might change your perception?

Code plant! Yea, I'm a dick.. neverminds

 

[Certaindeaf]

Did you even ask a queefstion? You did not. Hence the calling. done

 

[elsie]

Police powers would pretty much fall under the 9th and 10th amendments.


elsie

 

[MatthewP503]

Maby you should read this 30 page article in order to understand the answer to the title.

It's ok if you got a kick out of being a dick.. it's fine, at least it gave me the opportunity to give you some insight into myself.

Please read the article, read about committees of safety and how the founding members of this country used them to create a government unlike any other, which sadly didn't last long enough. Read the under one banner petition. Read the plan for restoration of Constitutional government. Read the declaration of dissolution of government.

If you want links I can provide them, just let me know what you want a link to.

 

[Just Jim]

Maby you should read this 30 page article in order to understand the answer to the title.

It's ok if you got a kick out of being a dick.. it's fine, at least it gave me the opportunity to give you some insight into myself.

Please read the article, read about committees of safety and how the founding members of this country used them to create a government unlike any other, which sadly didn't last long enough. Read the under one banner petition. Read the plan for restoration of Constitutional government. Read the declaration of dissolution of government.

If you want links I can provide them, just let me know what you want a link to.

while I don't know certaindeaf personally, you will notice he has posted a great many times and is part of the community. He does seem to have a good judge of new post. Might think about that when you come into a new community and tell an old poster he is a dick.

 

[MatthewP503]

He called himself a dick, I just said it was alright if it made him feel good to do so. My goal was to show that I'm not going to play into that kind of stuff, and that I'm not going to get angry because that is some people's personalities. . Ie. To get laughs on the Internet via Comments like that.

I hope this clears up any confusion.

 

[The Heretic]

I haven't read the article - yet.

It might be interesting, but my question is, say the premise is correct, what do you suggest?

That we eliminate "cops"?

There is what the Founders and writers/signers of the Constitution intended and then there is what we are as a country today - two quite different things.

There is a lot of value in understanding the original intentions and meanings of the Constitution, the philosophy behind it, and the form of government at the beginning of this country, but right from the start there was corruption and misunderstanding and deviation from those ideals.

My point is, that it is unrealistic to assume that by simply pointing out that the original intentions don't match where we are today doesn't mean we can or should return to those intentions - as much as we may wish we could.

I don't have a problem with law enforcement. I do have a problem with how law enforcement is misused, the corruption of law enforcement entities and the justice system, but I don't think eliminating "cops" in general would benefit us in the long run. We do need official law enforcement (i.e., run by a government), and we do need a governmental justice system.

As a libertarian, the one thing I would assert is a valid purpose of government is to protect our individual rights in certain venues that are not protected by individual citizens and very important core venues for protecting our rights are law enforcement and justice systems.

 

[MatthewP503]

You hit alot of topics with that well written and thought out reply.
(I do disagree with some of your logic If you have any specific questions please ask.. I wanted to reply to your comment and address each paragraph but I feel like what I have to say is a bit long winded)

-what do I suggest.
1. Committees of safety and common law courts
2. What the article suggests as the intent of the founding members of this country

Www.Committee.org <-- this site is run by the same person (Gary hunt) who publishes his articles at outpost-of-freedom.com

 

[U201491]

What do you mean. .? I'm a 24 year old landscaper from beaverton, I'm heading to work rite now for the 7th day this week to make up some cash from the AR I just got from a guy I contacted from the classifieds on this site..
Do you not like to read things that might change your perception?

Police take an oath to uphold the Constitution and we hold them to that Oath.

 

[MatthewP503]

The Three Constitutions – Which One do You Defend

http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=835

What we will be looking at is that there are, in the minds of various people, especially those within certain vocations, who perceive the Constitution from a perspective differently than others might. It may appear that when we speak of the Constitution, we think that we are all speaking of the same document. However, we will explore whether there is a document attached, at all, to one of these perspectives; what minimal role the original Constitution plays in another perspective, and finally, the Constitution, as written and intended by the Framers.

........................................................................ Which Constitution Am I Protected By?

http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=768

Do you really want the Federal Government
to protect you from your State Government?

 

[IheartSig]

Maby you should read this 30 page article in order to understand the answer to the title.

It's ok if you got a kick out of being a dick.. it's fine, at least it gave me the opportunity to give you some insight into myself.

Please read the article, read about committees of safety and how the founding members of this country used them to create a government unlike any other, which sadly didn't last long enough. Read the under one banner petition. Read the plan for restoration of Constitutional government. Read the declaration of dissolution of government.

If you want links I can provide them, just let me know what you want a link to.

Dude, I'm not reading a 30 page "article" when you can't even articulate the reasoning behind your initial post. What's the issue you are trying to bring to light? Use your words.

So far what I've seen is another "I hate cops , because freedom" post....

 

[etrain16]

The first thing I would say, without reading the article, is that regardless of whether they are 'constitutional' or not really has nothing to do with whether they should exist. The constitution did not and does not spell out every single aspect of our lives. It provided a framework for the operation of our country and spelled out certain rights and liberties afforded to the citizens. No one can draw the conclusion that simply because the constitution doesn't spell something out, that it can't exist. That's not how it works.

That people found a need to add police agencies was a response to a need. The constitution doesn't call out the formation of fire departments or hospitals either. By your logic, would you then also suggest that we do away with them as well in favor of returning to citizen bucket brigades and in-home healthcare by the local country doctor? I'm sure you'd find that remark a bit ridiculous, just as it's ridiculous to even suggest that we're ever going to do away with police. It's simply not going to happen.

Do cops mess up? Yes. Do they break the law sometimes? Absolutely. Now, if you're unhappy with the police, as many are depending on their use and behavior, then it's up to the citizens to work to make a change. Vote out the political leaders that misuse them. Demand in large numbers that officers that break the law be prosecuted, and push back hard if they are getting extra special protection from prosecution by their union groups.

When it comes down to it, as long as the existence of police are not in some strict violation of the constitution itself, I see no conflict. I don't need to read a long article to help me decide if we should have a police force. We should. They do a lot of good. And they do things the average person is neither willing nor equipped to do. And I don't need the constitution to spell that out for me.

 

[MatthewP503]

LAW ENFORCEMENT AS A UNIVERSAL DUTY:
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. Any person could act in
the capacity of a constable without being one, and when summoned by a law enforcement officer, a private
person became a temporary member of the police department. The law also presumed that any person acting in
his public capacity as an officer was rightfully appointed.

Laws in virtually every state still require citizens to aid in capturing escaped prisoners, arresting criminal
suspects, and executing legal process. The duty of citizens to enforce the law was and is a constitutional one.
Many early state constitutions purported to bind citizens into a universal obligation to perform law enforcement
functions, yet evinced no mention of any state power to carry out those same functions. But the law
enforcement duties of the citizenry are now a long-forgotten remnant of the Framers' era. By the 1960s, only
twelve percent of the public claimed to have ever personally acted to combat crime. The Founders could not have envisioned 'police' officers as we know them today. The term "police" had a
slightly different meaning at the time of the Founding. It was generally used as a verb and meant to watch over
or monitor the public health and safety. In Louisiana, "police juries" were local governing bodies similar to
county boards in other states. Only in the mid-nineteenth century did the term 'police' begin to take on the
persona of a uniformed state law enforcer. The term first crept into Supreme Court jurisprudence even later.
Prior to the 1850s, rugged individualism and self-reliance were the touchstones of American law, culture, and
industry. Although a puritan cultural and legal ethic pervaded their society, Americans had great toleration for
victimless misconduct. Traffic disputes were resolved through personal negotiation and common law tort
principles, rather than driver licenses and armed police patrol. Agents of the state did not exist for the
protection of the individual citizen. The night watch of early American cities concerned itself primarily with the
danger of fire, and watchmen were often afraid to enter some of the most notorious neighborhoods of cities like
Boston.
At the time of Tocqueville's observations (in the 1830s), "the means available to the authorities for the discovery
of crimes and arrest of criminals [were] few,"yet Tocqueville doubted "whether in any other country crime so
seldom escapes punishment. Citizens handled most crimes informally, forming committees to catch criminals
and hand them over to the courts. Private mobs in early America dealt with larger threats to public safety and welfare, such as houses of ill fame. Nothing struck a European traveler in America, wrote Tocqueville, more
than the absence of government in the streets.
Formal criminal justice institutions dealt only with the most severe crimes. Misdemeanor offenses had to be
dealt with by the private citizen on the private citizen's own terms. "The farther back the [crime rate] figures
go," according to historian Roger Lane, "the higher is the relative proportion of serious crimes. In other
words, before the advent of professional policing, fewer crimes -- and only the most serious crimes -- were
brought to the attention of the courts.
After the 1850s, cities in the northeastern United States gradually acquired more uniformed patrol officers. The
criminal justice model of the Framers' era grew less recognizable. The growth of police units reflected a "change
in attitude" more than worsening crime rates. Americans became less tolerant of violence in their streets and
demanded higher standards of conduct. Offenses which had formerly earned two-year sentences were now
punished by three to four years or more in a state penitentiary.

THE ABSENCE OF CONSTITUTIONAL CRIME-FIGHTING POWER
But the constitutions of the Founding Era gave no hint of any thin blue line. Nothing in their texts enunciated
any governmental power to "fight crime" at all. "Crime-fighting" was intended as the domain of individuals
touched by crime. The original design under the American legal order was to restore a semblance of private
justice. The courts were a mere forum, or avenue, for private persons to attain justice from a malfeasor. The
slow alteration of the criminal courts into a venue only for the government's claims against private persons
turned the very spirit of the Founders' model on its head.
To suggest that modern policing is extraconstitutional is not to imply that every aspect of police work is
constitutionally improper. Rather, it is to say that the totality and effect of modern policing negates the
meaning and purpose of certain constitutional protections the Framers intended to protect and carry forward to
future generations. Modern-style policing leaves many fundamental constitutional interests utterly unenforced.
Americans today, for example, are far more vulnerable to invasive searches and seizures by the state than were
the Americans of 1791. The Framers lived in an era in which much less of the world was in "plain view" of the
government and a "stop and frisk" would have been rare indeed. The totality of modern policing also places
pedestrian and vehicle travel at the mercy of the state, a development the Framers would have almost certainly
never sanctioned. These infringements result not from a single aspect of modern policing, but from the whole of
modern policing's control over large domains of private life that were once "policed" by private citizens.

 

[mjbskwim]

Well I didn't read the article and why? There is no way that anyone will ever get rid of any police force until marshal law is in effect, Then all police will just become a branch of the military.
What are you gunna do,tell the cop that pulls you over that he is unconstitutional and can't give you a ticket?
Might work!

 

[etrain16]

Just for future reference, if you don't care for my comment, you're more than welcome to say so here in the thread. No need to do it in a private conversation.

And for once, feel free to share some words that aren't copied and pasted from someone else. You advocate thinking for oneself, you may take some of that advice yourself. Just because someone is published, has a website or has a famous quote does not make them the final say on any issue.

But, since you're a fan of quotes, allow me to add: "The young people think the old people are fools - but the old people know the young people are fools" ~ Agatha Christie

 

[jbett98]

I'm tagging this thread so I can learn something.
I don't know what, but so far it's entertaining.