• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are Police Constitutional?

Gaius46 said:
So you would prefer a free for all?
Click to expand...

(sigh)
Hard to tell which logical fallacy is strongest here- non sequitur, strawman or reductio ad absurdum.
A free-for-all isn't the alternative to a constitution. The Canadian Constitution was brought in by Pierre Trudeau in 1982- before that my rights were well protected by British Common Law. Even now, the Canadian Constitution wouldn't be called that by an American.
Is Great Britain a 'free-for-all'? Unless the Magna Carta counts, which basically takes powers away from the King in favour of the landed aristocracy, there's no constitution in England.
 
Grand Mal said:
(sigh)
Hard to tell which logical fallacy is strongest here- non sequitur, strawman or reductio ad absurdum.
A free-for-all isn't the alternative to a constitution. The Canadian Constitution was brought in by Pierre Trudeau in 1982- before that my rights were well protected by British Common Law. Even now, the Canadian Constitution wouldn't be called that by an American.
Is Great Britain a 'free-for-all'? Unless the Magna Carta counts, which basically takes powers away from the King in favour of the landed aristocracy, there's no constitution in England.
Click to expand...

Perhaps "free-for-all" was a bit harsh.

Our Constitution structures the government and it's relationship to the people. Without a document to lay out how the government is supposed to work it's hard for me to see how the United States could have been workable in short order given the complete split with England and the desire of the people to form a different kind of government.

Certainly Great Britain doesn't have a Constitution but Great Britain also had 1500 or so years to evolve a government and I'd point out that during a good portion of that time the people weren't particularly well protected. Canada as well, was the beneficiary of the evolved British law prior to the creation of it's Constitution.

Maybe it's just me looking at it from a US-centric viewpoint but I have a real hard time seeing any newly created, independent, modern state having any chance of succeeding without some foundational rules for it's government is going to work.
 
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...

A constitution is vital for any government to last longer than one generation.
 
Let the cops go on a national strike for a month, and we will see who gives a crap whether they are constitutional or not.
 
Gaius46 said:
Perhaps "free-for-all" was a bit harsh.

Our Constitution structures the government and it's relationship to the people. Without a document to lay out how the government is supposed to work it's hard for me to see how the United States could have been workable in short order given the complete split with England and the desire of the people to form a different kind of government.

Certainly Great Britain doesn't have a Constitution but Great Britain also had 1500 or so years to evolve a government and I'd point out that during a good portion of that time the people weren't particularly well protected. Canada as well, was the beneficiary of the evolved British law prior to the creation of it's Constitution.

Maybe it's just me looking at it from a US-centric viewpoint but I have a real hard time seeing any newly created, independent, modern state having any chance of succeeding without some foundational rules for it's government is going to work.
Click to expand...

I think the key phrase there is, 'form a different kind of government'. When the Amercan revolutionaries rejected the Parliamentary system, they had to start from scratch. Also, they were trying to design a new kind of country, not a homogenous nation but a group of united states. The Constitution was necessary on those terms but, to an outsider, it looks like a burden. Like I said, my rights were well protected by British Common Law which evolved over centuries and easily adapted to changes in the society. The law reflected the wishes of the majority, without agonizing over how the writers of the constitution would have decided.
 
clownboy said:
A constitution is vital for any government to last longer than one generation.
Click to expand...

Really? How many generations has the British government lasted without a constitution?
 
Master PO said:
Since you dont belive in the consitution, we should abolish your rights
Click to expand...

Believe in?
Ithought those rights were 'God-given'. Natural rights. Does the constitution really bestow those rights? Would that mean that the custodians of the constitution also administer the rights, or do the rights exist separate from the constitution?
 
Master PO said:
Since you dont belive in the consitution, we should abolish your rights
Click to expand...

what does it mean to "believe in" the constitution ? and who do you mean when you say "we" ? as in we should abolish your rights
 
Grand Mal said:
Believe in?
Ithought those rights were 'God-given'. Natural rights. Does the constitution really bestow those rights? Would that mean that the custodians of the constitution also administer the rights, or do the rights exist separate from the constitution?
Click to expand...

believe in ...........meaning...... the law

the constitution does not bestow rights, it only recognizes rights of the people.

all rights are recognized by the constitution or the court, congress has never created a right, they have created privileges per the constitution.
 
Mr Person said:
How could you be so certain of that?

See:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/philo...1-rights-objectively-real.html#post1066212810
Click to expand...

because rights existed before the constitution

the u.s. was founded on certain principles found in the DOI, and the constitution was created from those principles.

even the u.s.federal government recognizes the principles of the DOI, via u.s.enabling laws.

rights do not arise from the constitution, and the federal courts by the constitution can adjudicate cases from natural law.

Section. 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;
 
"Are Police Constitutional?"

Police aren't mentioned in the constitution. Neither are Reuben sandwiches. Should be ban Reuben sandwiches because they aren't constitutional?
 
Master PO said:
because rights existed before the constitution

the u.s. was founded on certain principles found in the DOI, and the constitution was created from those principles.

even the u.s.federal government recognizes the principles of the DOI, via u.s.enabling laws.

rights do not arise from the constitution, and the federal courts by the constitution can adjudicate cases from natural law.

Section. 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;
Click to expand...



Citing the constitution does not prove that "rights existed before the constitution."

That's not how reality works. Please do not respond that you have also quoted generic websites describing what natural law is supposed to be. A website claiming that something is real is not proof that it is real either. Please do not respond that you have cited Roman history. I probably (but may not) know more, and the fact that Romans believed certain things is not proof that those things are real.




Let me repeat: the fact that a person has said a thing is not proof that that thing is real. The fact that somebody has written a thing on a piece of paper does not make that thing real.




Actually, if you're right, then you're about to stop existing. I hereby declare, that neither the internet name "Master PO" nor the person behind it is real.

POOF! You're gone. Tough luck buddy.

:mrgreen:
 
Mr Person said:
Citing the constitution does not prove that "rights existed before the constitution."

That's not how rights work. Please do not respond that you have also quoted generic websites describing what natural law is supposed to be. A website claiming that something is real is not proof that it is real either. Please do not respond that you have cited Roman history. I probably (but may not) know more, and the fact that Romans believed certain things is not proof that those things are real.




Let me repeat: the fact that a person has said a thing is not proof that that thing is real. The fact that somebody has written a thing on a piece of paper does not make that thing real.
Click to expand...

seeing that people had the right to free speech among other rights before Dec. 1791, i think they certainly do!

again you just saying they don't, and not showing any evidence ,just proves you have nothing
 
Samuel Adams

The Report of the Committee of Correspondence to the Boston Town Meeting.

November 20, 1772


Benjamin Franklin's Preface to the English Edition and Editor's Notes and Comments

I. Natural Rights of the Colonists as Men.

Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of
 
Blades729 said:
After recently happening upon a paper titled, "Are Cops Constitutional," by Roger Roots, it has caused me to think about this topic. (Roger Roots, Are Cops Constitutional?) 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...

The Executive Branch is tasked with upholding the law. They need police to do that. Federal police handle federal law. I don't see any problem with them as an organization. Are some cop agencies breaking laws or violating the Constitution? Hell yes...
 
Master PO said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree, with the exception of the States right to create a police force. It is my belief that the only legitimate law enforcement agencies are Sheriffs which are elected by the people and directly answerable to the people for their actions. As you said in another post, the people won their independence and sovereignty from the King which made them free. It takes their agreement to give powers to law enforcement to legitimize that power. Any law enforcement which is not directly answerable to the people from which their power is derived cannot be legitimate.
 
Master PO said:
seeing that people had the right to free speech among other rights before Dec. 1791, i think they certainly do! again you just saying they don't, and not showing any evidence ,just proves you have nothing
Click to expand...

What did you prove, but "saying" and "not showing any evidence"?





jdog said:
I agree, with the exception of the States right to create a police force. It is my belief that the only legitimate law enforcement agencies are Sheriffs which are elected by the people and directly answerable to the people for their actions. As you said in another post, the people won their independence and sovereignty from the King which made them free. It takes their agreement to give powers to law enforcement to legitimize that power. Any law enforcement which is not directly answerable to the people from which their power is derived cannot be legitimate.
Click to expand...

Your personal opinion about how government should be structured has less than ****-all to do with how it in fact is structured, actually, in actual reality
 
jdog said:
I agree, with the exception of the States right to create a police force. It is my belief that the only legitimate law enforcement agencies are Sheriffs which are elected by the people and directly answerable to the people for their actions. As you said in another post, the people won their independence and sovereignty from the King which made them free. It takes their agreement to give powers to law enforcement to legitimize that power. Any law enforcement which is not directly answerable to the people from which their power is derived cannot be legitimate.
Click to expand...

Police in terms to me, means being able to keep the peace among the people, the states had this power before and after the constitution.

the federal government was never granted a power to police among the people, BUT they were granted the power in a areas that requires enforcement of a some constitutional powers.

they are piracy, counterfeiting, treason from 1787, some others were added later
 
Master PO 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...
Fast forwarding 200+ years I wish they had been a bit more wordy in the Constitution itself so we didn't have to piece things together from various other writings.
 
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...
Completely agree, though I am concerned about how now it seems every department and service in the federal government has it's own militaristic police force where they didn't just a few decades ago. Seems like serious overkill to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom