This is very likely correct. I am 99.9% this statement is correct.I'd say that the 10th Ammendment allows states to create a police force like we know today for the most part
Probably an exercise of the Necessary and Proper Clause. Congress, in an effort to ensure adherence and compliance to the laws it passes, may create agencies/bureaus tasked with the responsibility to investigate and prosecute violations of the laws passed by Congress. Unless, of course, one is to believe the framers were exclusively relying upon the honor system for obedience to the laws it passed.I'm not sure about federal police agencies.
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." James Madison, Father of the U.S. Constitution and 4th president of the United States.
if the founders tell you grass is green 1787 it does not change to blue in 2016 because a 20th century body of man say so.
the constitution itself has not changed much over a 200 year span.
the founders made it so that the constitution could be changed by amendments in its structure and government powers.
it did not allow the creation of new powers for the federal government by federal law which have nothing to do with the delegated powers of article 1 section 8
the federal government is not supreme over state governments..the constitution tells us that in article 1 section 8
I am the President see me smile
"He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
"Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.
Are police constitutional? Well let me put it this way: If they aren't, then the Constitution can be toilet paper for all I'm concerned. Not all the topics, questions, and issues of the day can be referenced or solved by a 200+ year old document.
Police powers come with civilization, like access to air and water. It goes back to the beginnings of civilization. In the US, ours is based on English common law and while its limits are constrained by the Constitution, it's existence is assumed.
Freedom is not about the absence of rules – it is about choosing the right rules and even more importantly, the proper application of those rules.
Stigmatizing people is the left's stock in trade. Without that, they are nothing.
I like what you said about the constitution being the document whereby the states define what powers and responsibilities they'll give the federal government. That makes sense and should be unambiguous. Looking around here, though, there isn't a social, legal, political or moral issue that doesn't need to be examined constitutionally. In that sense, it looks like a ball and chain.
"How do I know what I think 'till I hear what I say?"
As it happens though, I wasn't besmirching the intent of the US Constitution, only the literal and direct implementation and treating it as the be-all and end-all to that fundamental idea of how America was meant to be. It'd actually argue that those trying to (ab)use the Constitution to back-up their personal political preferences are the ones besmirching it.
under the articles of confederation the states themselves where their own masters and could do just about anything, the central government was weak it could not tax and it could not solve problems between the states.
the states being their own masters fought each other over trade and created their own problems, like creating inflation because states printed their own money, they each had their own armies and did not work with other states in defense.
to founders intended to fix the articles, but instead wrote a new constitution, fixing the problems the articles with that new constitution.
the states gave some of their powers to the new federal government like printing money, the military, and the congress was given power to regulate commerce among the states to keep states from fighting each other, but congress was not granted power to regulate inside of the states or over the people, the states retained that power.
what the founders wrote about the constitution and what it means can be found in the federalist papers, what an article, section and clause meant in the 18th century, should mean the same thing in 21h century.
but today you have people who want to change the constitution but cannot get an amendment so they try to reinterpret the constitution to allow them to do things the constitution does not authorize.
I am the President see me smile