It's Ashcroft-Metzenbaum vs. NRA

The Plain Dealer - Cleaveland.com ^ | 04/20/2002 | Bill Sloat

[Quila]

I don't approve of many of the laws I would be forced to enforce. I couldn't stand the conflict that would generate.

I always wanted to join to do some good, but I had the same problem. I figured the only thing I could do is Secret Service and make sure I stay of protection detail, just get counterfeiters. I have a family member who joined the sheriff's department in a large city, and had to quit for ethical reasons.

and you were tasked with enforcing a law that violated the constitution, then either your oath would require you to rectify the situation or you should remove yourself from office.

Since it's not your job to decide constitutionality, the only honorable thing to do is resign. Never forget that your constitutionality is another's unconstitutionality. What if a law came out tomorrow subjecting doctors and mothers involved in abortions to prison sentences. Many cops and prosecutors can say "That law's wrong as it violates the right..." and not enforce it.

There has to be only one official voice on that subject concerning enforcement (there is jury veto, but that's not in enforcement, that's the people speaking).

[Tuor]

Never forget that your constitutionality is another's unconstitutionality.

I believe this is true about some laws, but not about all of them. What if there were a law that stated you could not comment in public about a candidate running for office. Can *anyone* doubt the constitutionality of such a law? Alas, in this era of lost common sense, some probably would think such a law was justifiable.

The only flaw in our form of government is that it requires a morally upstanding people to make it work.

Tuor

[Quila]

What if there were a law that stated you could not comment in public about a candidate running for office. Can *anyone* doubt the constitutionality of such a law?

I see your point, but that battle is not to be fought by law enforcement.

Okay, I can make exceptions. But the circumstances would have to be pretty severe and obvious, as in maybe not arresting a black man trying to vote in the Jim Crow days (not sure of the actuality of laws there, just trying to come up with an example). I don't think we're up to that level again yet.

[Tuor]

IMO, it is a battle to be fought by every citizen of this country. My earlier point was meant to lead to such a conclusion: it is not law enforcement or lawyers who, ultimately, decide the constitutionality of any law, but the people: by following and obeying unconstitutional laws and, more importantly, by electing (or worse, re-electing) officials who are either ignorant or contemptuous of the Constitution.

I would like law enforcement officers to consider matters of constitutionality not because they are police officers, but because they are US citizens and it is their right and duty, IMO, to consider such things. Yes, we have a Supreme Court who makes official rulings on such matters. But, unfortunately, they are not unbiased, non-political, or infallible. While government seems to delight in making its workings too complex for the average citizen to understand, we should do the best we can do consider such matters regardless.

On a more pragmatic level, I doubt people have the time to devote to keep abreast of such matters, especially since the government seems to be intentionally obfuscating matters. Also, our educational system seems to leave people without the tools of logic and reason to properly evaluate the various pieces of legislation that effect their lives. I do not think this is mere happenstance, either. Education has become little more than indoctrination. The idea of freeing one's mind to make reasonable choices seems to have mostly died away: emotionalism and mindless obedience seems to be the new intended result of thirteen or more years of schooling.

Tuor