Are Police Constitutional?

After recently happening upon a paper titled, "Are Cops Constitutional," by Roger Roots, it has caused me to think about this topic. (http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm) He essentially says that firstly, there was no police force like we know today when the Constitution was written. Secondly, that many aspects of ttoday's police force are unconstitutional. I'd say that the 10th Ammendment allows states to create a police force like we know today for the most part, however I'm not sure about federal police agencies. Wanted to get other opinions as well as input onto how true or false the claim that police work is unconstitutional really is. Thanks.

I think you raise a very good point, but it is only academic.

If the Executive Branch is charged with enforcing the laws written by the Legislative, how else to do that but by some sort of police force?

Some Americans seem to get far too precious about the Constitution, especially it’s literal and direct implementation. I suspect that if it was found that breathing was unconstitutional, you’d have a spate of self-asphyxiation suicides for those unconstitutional police to deal with.

They have the choice of either recognising the fundamental principles behind the establishment of your nation (of which the Constitution is only one part) or they will have to ensue pretty much anything invented or significantly altered in the last couple of hundred years and live like the Mormons. It would at least be a whole lot healthier.

i guess we don't really need them, there is one other way to handle the crime problem, one i imagine roughly 13% of the population would not enjoy.

Blades729 said:

After recently happening upon a paper titled, "Are Cops Constitutional," by Roger Roots, it has caused me to think about this topic. (http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm) He essentially says that firstly, there was no police force like we know today when the Constitution was written. Secondly, that many aspects of ttoday's police force are unconstitutional. I'd say that the 10th Ammendment allows states to create a police force like we know today for the most part, however I'm not sure about federal police agencies. Wanted to get other opinions as well as input onto how true or false the claim that police work is unconstitutional really is. Thanks.

Click to expand...

all powers in the constitution are delegated, granted to the federal government and are limited.

all other powers which exist remain the powers the states before the constitution was written.

since the constitution creates federalism a separation of powers, the states and the federal government should never exercise the same powers, however we know the USSC screwed that up.

states have the power to create a police force.

enforcement by federal would include only those things they have authority over as stated in the constitution which are few.

Blades729 said:

After recently happening upon a paper titled, "Are Cops Constitutional," by Roger Roots, it has caused me to think about this topic. (http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm) He essentially says that firstly, there was no police force like we know today when the Constitution was written. Secondly, that many aspects of ttoday's police force are unconstitutional. I'd say that the 10th Ammendment allows states to create a police force like we know today for the most part, however I'm not sure about federal police agencies. Wanted to get other opinions as well as input onto how true or false the claim that police work is unconstitutional really is. Thanks.

Click to expand...

My opinion- this question is just another reason why constitutions are just wordy adornments, unnecessary burdens. A constitution is an expression of the hubris and arrogance of it's authors(s).

Grand Mal said:

My opinion- this question is just another reason why constitutions are just wordy adornments, unnecessary burdens. A constitution is an expression of the hubris and arrogance of it's authors(s).

Click to expand...

all the constitution is, is a simple document setting up the structure of the federal government and delegating them powers, which the states gave over to the federal government.

ernst barkmann said:

all the constitution is, is a simple document setting up the structure of the federal government and delegating them powers, which the states gave over to the federal government.

Click to expand...

That's all it's meant to be. I agree. Somehow it became biblical, and it's authors prophets.

Grand Mal said:

That's all it's meant to be. I agree. Somehow it became biblical, and it's authors prophets.

Click to expand...

well, the authors left us with writings on what they created and what they meant, however we have men who are not interested in the law, but wish to use power to achieve their own goals at the expense of others.

how can a 20th century man, know more then the men who wrote the constitution itself?

Blades729 said:

After recently happening upon a paper titled, "Are Cops Constitutional," by Roger Roots, it has caused me to think about this topic. (http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm) He essentially says that firstly, there was no police force like we know today when the Constitution was written. Secondly, that many aspects of ttoday's police force are unconstitutional. I'd say that the 10th Ammendment allows states to create a police force like we know today for the most part, however I'm not sure about federal police agencies. Wanted to get other opinions as well as input onto how true or false the claim that police work is unconstitutional really is. Thanks.

Click to expand...

Cops are routinely trying to save people's lives while staying alive themselves. In war, soldiers do their best to uphold the Geneva Convention, but the fight or flight instinct sorta dictates their actions in crises.

ernst barkmann said:

well, the authors left us with writings on what they created and what they meant, however we have men who are not interested in the law, but wish to use power to achieve their own goals at the expense of others.

how can a 20th century man, know more then the men who wrote the constitution itself?

Click to expand...

How could the founders have known what kind of path our country has chosen for itself?

Blades729 said:

After recently happening upon a paper titled, "Are Cops Constitutional," by Roger Roots, it has caused me to think about this topic. (http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm) He essentially says that firstly, there was no police force like we know today when the Constitution was written. Secondly, that many aspects of ttoday's police force are unconstitutional. I'd say that the 10th Ammendment allows states to create a police force like we know today for the most part, however I'm not sure about federal police agencies. Wanted to get other opinions as well as input onto how true or false the claim that police work is unconstitutional really is. Thanks.

Click to expand...

I'd say that the 10th Ammendment allows states to create a police force like we know today for the most part

Click to expand...

This is very likely correct. I am 99.9% this statement is correct.

I'm not sure about federal police agencies.

Click to expand...

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.

Unitedwestand13 said:

How could the founders have known what kind of path our country has chosen for itself?

Click to expand...

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

HonestJoe said:

Some Americans seem to get far too precious about the Constitution, especially it’s literal and direct implementation. I suspect that if it was found that breathing was unconstitutional, you’d have a spate of self-asphyxiation suicides for those unconstitutional police to deal with.

They have the choice of either recognising the fundamental principles behind the establishment of your nation (of which the Constitution is only one part) or they will have to ensue pretty much anything invented or significantly altered in the last couple of hundred years and live like the Mormons. It would at least be a whole lot healthier.

Click to expand...

Without the Constitution, the state could put a gun butt through your teeth. So next time you besmirch the original intent of the Constitution, think twice.

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.

Thoreau72 said:

I think you raise a very good point, but it is only academic.

If the Executive Branch is charged with enforcing the laws written by the Legislative, how else to do that but by some sort of police force?

Click to expand...

That would be a federal police force.

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.

ernst barkmann said:

well, the authors left us with writings on what they created and what they meant, however we have men who are not interested in the law, but wish to use power to achieve their own goals at the expense of others.

how can a 20th century man, know more then the men who wrote the constitution itself?

Click to expand...

That's the 'heads' side. The 'tails' side says, "How could the men who wrote it know what would be needed in the 21st. century?"
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.

American said:

Without the Constitution, the state could put a gun butt through your teeth. So next time you besmirch the original intent of the Constitution, think twice.

Click to expand...

They can do that regardless of whether there is a written constitution or not and it doesn't seem to have magically reduced the incidence of those kind of abuses compared to similar countries without one.

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.

Grand Mal said:

That's the 'heads' side. The 'tails' side says, "How could the men who wrote it know what would be needed in the 21st. century?"
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.

Click to expand...

the men who wrote it make it so it could be changed, but the process is not an easy one, and there is a reason for that...the founders wanted long drawn out debate on any changes to the constitution, so that all sides of the situation would have their say.

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.

Blades729 said:

After recently happening upon a paper titled, "Are Cops Constitutional," by Roger Roots, it has caused me to think about this topic. (http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm) He essentially says that firstly, there was no police force like we know today when the Constitution was written. Secondly, that many aspects of ttoday's police force are unconstitutional. I'd say that the 10th Ammendment allows states to create a police force like we know today for the most part, however I'm not sure about federal police agencies. Wanted to get other opinions as well as input onto how true or false the claim that police work is unconstitutional really is. Thanks.

Click to expand...

Synonym for police: Law Enforcement
That should settle your question.

Blades729 said:

After recently happening upon a paper titled, "Are Cops Constitutional," by Roger Roots, it has caused me to think about this topic. (http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm) He essentially says that firstly, there was no police force like we know today when the Constitution was written. Secondly, that many aspects of ttoday's police force are unconstitutional. I'd say that the 10th Ammendment allows states to create a police force like we know today for the most part, however I'm not sure about federal police agencies. Wanted to get other opinions as well as input onto how true or false the claim that police work is unconstitutional really is. Thanks.

Click to expand...

Well,

1. The fact that something wasn't around at the time of the founding doesn't make it unconstitutional.

2. The creation by states of police forces violates no provision in the constitution.

3. Federal "police" agencies like the FBI are established by laws passed through congress.


The only real meat here is the question of whether the vast network of agencies that are under the executive, but have many quasi-legislative (rule-making) and quasi-adjudicative (judicial) functions are unconstitutional delegations of power. Of course, that is rather moot because there simply is no way to have a huge country like America operate as one nation without executive agencies.

There was a time when Americans were leery of police power. The F.B.I. was not a slam dunk as it struggled to come into existence. Policing, and in fact criminal laws, were left to local jurisdictions. Many states, mostly in the west, did not even want state police. When President Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas there was no federal law concerning murder so the case was a state case.

Law enforcement was restricted by geographical boundaries. A police officer in a town had no more authority outside of that town that would any citizen.

Law enforcement was also restricted by which laws they could enforce. For example, when I was working it was illegal for a local police officer to arrest someone for violations of immigration law. Those laws could only be enforced by INS, Immigration and Naturalization Service, employees. Some laws were duplicated by state and federal statutes. Then the feds would generally have first right of refusal.

There are those in the U.S. who want all law enforcement to be federal. In my opinion, that would be a disaster for America.

Grand Mal said:

That's all it's meant to be. I agree. Somehow it became biblical, and it's authors prophets.

Click to expand...

I agree, and what gave them the right to speak for the people? why should we care today about what a group of assholes wrote over 200 years ago. the principles established in the constitution are gone anyway. yet today ignorant people still claim to support it and swear to defend it. there is not a person alive today that is a defender of the constitution. if there was , that person's life would end very quickly. or the person would pull there pants down and bend over, like the rest of the so called defenders of freedom.

hado117 said:

I agree, and what gave them the right to speak for the people? why should we care today about what a group of assholes wrote over 200 years ago. the principles established in the constitution are gone anyway. yet today ignorant people still claim to support it and swear to defend it. there is not a person alive today that is a defender of the constitution. if there was , that person's life would end very quickly. or the person would pull there pants down and bend over, like the rest of the so called defenders of freedom.

Click to expand...

Since you dont belive in the consitution, we should abolish your rights

Grand Mal said:

My opinion- this question is just another reason why constitutions are just wordy adornments, unnecessary burdens. A constitution is an expression of the hubris and arrogance of it's authors(s).

Click to expand...

So you would prefer a free for all?