Posted on 01/09/2012 10:54:07 AM PST by djf
I am not bashing cops.
Also take note that the original article has over 400 footnotes, available at linked URL.
This is for historical understanding and reference.
I noticed "militia" was referenced only one time ~
Not sure this is good history.
The ramblings of a criminal don’t make for real legal scholarship.
(The Courts typically laugh at such ramblings as well: (Redman v. City of Columbus, Ga.) “In support of this contention, Plaintiff cites a law review article: Roger Roots, Are Cops Constitutional?, 11 Seton Hall Const. L.J. 685 (2001). Plaintiff points to no evidence or law to support his position that the Columbus police department is unconstitutional, and the Court thus rejects this claim.”)
The Preamble:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
“establish Justice” “insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence”
Amendment 10(Bill of Rights):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.”
Seems to me that a local Police Force would fall into this.
“
The Wild West.
“Not sure this is good history. “
********************
Yeh...would be terrible at this point if someone else were to lie to us too !!!!!!!!!!
Semper Watching!
*********
Under the earlier system, I don’t think we could stop Bonnie and Clyde, much less a Latin American style gang.
The Constitution does not preclude police forces as it does not prohibit sheriffs or constables which were commonly derived from English traditions. If the Consitution does not specifically address the subject then it is left to the states and/or localities. Without sanctioned law enforcement the citizenry could arrest, detain and/or kill criminals on their own or as groups; would that be better for the criminals or would it mean that they could do what they wanted? It might be more efficient in controlling crime but it is not likely.
The “Wild West” is a television and novelist created myth. The “Wild West” - excluding the Indian Wars, which had nothing to do with policing - was, on the whole, far tamer than most American cities today. There are articles by the Hoover Institution’s Terry Anderson and others that discuss spontaneous order and the West. Even Louis L’Amour, who for all his shortcomings as a novelist did a lot of research on the West, has commented on the surprising relative safety of the West when it was allegedly “Wild” (e.g. 1865 to 1890).
Yeah, I’m glad that our “modern” LEOs have MS 13 under control.
Another issue is that the federal constitution, modeled AFTER earlier state constitutions, was originally intended to ONLY form and regulate the federal government and it’s powers.
Not until the 14th Ammendment, after the Civil War, was even part of the Bill of Rights applied directly to the States. Each state had something like a Bill of Rights built into their state Constitutions....which, if they allowed for Constables, Marshals, Sheriffs and their deputies (and they all do...even back into colonial times)—functionally, also allow for police forces—AT the state and local level.
As for an FBI or CIA? Well, I’ll leave that to the legal eagles—but if they were unconstitutional (except in some egghead’s mind...) I’d of thunk a super-high-paid Mafia lawyer would of prevailed in court by now...
That method has been used in the past in many nations in many different ages.
(The Courts typically laugh at such ramblings as well: (Redman v. City of Columbus, Ga.) “In support of this contention, Plaintiff cites a law review article: Roger Roots, Are Cops Constitutional?, 11 Seton Hall Const. L.J. 685 (2001). Plaintiff points to no evidence or law to support his position that the Columbus police department is unconstitutional, and the Court thus rejects this claim.”)
And conflation, exaggeration and contemptuous disingenuousness don't make for a legitimate rebuttal.
First of all, the rejection of the use of a work of legal research by a defendent does not invalidate that work, becuase the court is not ruling on its legitimacy, only its appropriateness to the case in point. That that distinction escaped you is clear evidence of your inability to grasp both the workings of the court, and the argument behind the work.
Even worse, however, is your attempt to multiply your false claim by pluralizing your deceit, through your implications of multiple courts and a supposedly common ruling against this work - none of which being true.
Above all, you obviously seek to hide in plain side the true nature of this analysis of police legitimacy by citing not only that it was a law review article, yet also quoting the judge as remarking that it provided "no evidence or law" to support the defense contention. How is this possible? Do you even know (it would be worse for you if you did). The fact is that the judge was commenting on the failure of the defense to link this article to the support of a defense of lack of administrative jurisdiction towards himself. The judges ruling, therefore, cited this article to point to that lack of link - not anything wrong with the article. In fact, the judge wasn't commenting on the article at all - do you even comprehend that?
"The courts typically laugh"? No - rather, I laugh at you, and your pretend knowledge of law.
Which is exactly what the OWS crowd is trying to become.
I found it very telling that he mentioned that there WERE NO “PROFESSIONAL POLICE” until a minimum of 50 years or so after the ratification of the Constitution.
That says a lot as it is.
Don´t give the resident any ideas.
1. Where did you get your J.D.?
2. Fringe ramblings are not scholarship.
3. The defendant in the case did attempt to make a claim that the Columbus Police Department was illegal. He failed because there is no basis for such a claim.
Would you rather have a society with lawyers, but no cops. Or peace officers with no lawyers?
The Tenth Amendment, IMHO, authorizes the States and/or the People to set up such police structures as suits their perceived needs.
(I also believe that the one and only Federal Crime ought to be Treason, as defined in the Constitution. Not even murder should be a Federal issue.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.