[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

What you don’t know, cannot know is that this issue has been a long standing, running argument between two camps in conservatism. The Law and Order camp and the constitutional conservation camp. I am in the constitutional conservation camp. This post does not occur in a vacuum. It occurs as an ongoing thread.

When the chips are down Psycho, which camp are you in? Law and Order? Constitution?

I wouldn't even say that. A person who is truly "law and order" will first and foremost support the Constitution, and will oppose any police officer or agency that violates that document. You can't be "law and order" if and when you don't support the Constitution. Police do not have the authority to violate the Constitution, even if they sometimes use their access to brute force to do so. "Law and order" does not mean "the police are always right."

The real dichotomy is between those who love liberty, and those who are nothing more than instinctive bootlicks to police and other presumed authority figures. In any society, you will always have people whose first thought is how they can ingratiate themselves with those they perceive to have the most power.

[DariusBane]

I agree with you technically.

However, the Law and Order Conservatives, the old school Southern Democrat tradition that came in during the 80’s are a special breed.