:chinstroke:

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm :

Wonder how Citizens were expected to be armed when only the militia are apparently allowed to have guns.

Yeah for the posse!

Can we bring the posse back?

federal cops like ATF and DEA?


Nope.

No, cops like bearsfan. You know the guy who rallies on and on about health care not being constitutional but neither is his job.

Time to stand by your believes bearsfan and quit your job. :yammer:

Wouldn't the 10th Amendment have left it up to the States to decide how best to police themselves (pardon the pun)?

the argument would still be that as a police officer, bears is himself guilty of felonious hypocrisy, due to his active association and cooperation with various federal law enforcement agencies.

you began with a question, but have moved to a statement...

is it now your belief that municipal police officers are unconstitutional?

so bears is a hypocrite because he does not share ralph's assertion that municiapl police departments are unconstitutional...based on a theses by roger roots that ponders (albeit lightly) the constitutional question of the formation and existence of such forces, but in reality is a mechanism to present a litany of complaints about the actual function of such forces...

the real question for all of these matters is does the u.s. constitution prohibit?

does the u.s. constitution prohibit individual states (and political subdivisions within those states) from creating police forces to enforce the laws enacted under their respective state constitutions?

absurd, and boring...

You're missing the whole point of these two post.

Sadus was spot on with the Bible comment. Strict adherents of either pick and choose based solely on political persuasion. :yup:

no, I'm not missing the point...since the u.s. constitution provides for neither local cops nor individual mandates to purchase something, one is a hypocrite if he thinks the latter is unconstitutional...

I can believe siumltaneously that one thing is constitutional while another is not with no inconsistency or hypocrisy...

the constitutional question concerning the u.s. government mandating that an individual citizen must engage in a priavte contract with another private citizens by virtue of simply being is not "does the constitution provide for it?" the question is, "does it prohibit it"

I have an opinion, but it's worth about the same as any laypersons...

the u.s. constitution does not provide for local cops, either...but it doesn't prohibit them...it allows states to craft their own respective constitutions and to enact laws, and it is from there that the authority of local cops derives...

Please point out where in the Constitution state and local governments are prohibited from having police departments.

how does state authority to craft constitutions and enact laws translate into the legitimacy of taxpayer funded federal law enforcement agencies like the ATF, DEA, FBI, CIA, etc. if he is to escape charges of hypocrisy, bears should reject these agencies as unconstitutional just as he rejects single pay health coverage as unconstitutional. he should refuse to assist them, never cooperate with them, and never subordinate to them.

it doesn't

has the case been made that the agencies are prohibited by u.s. constitution?

You miss the point. Where in the Constitution are those federal agencies AUTHORIZED?

let me re-phrase then...has the case been made that these agencies are unconstitutional because they are not specifically authorized by the constitution?

Using Harry's logic, since electricity was never mentioned in the Constitution, (nor were automobiles), both should be outlawed, since they're both criminal enterprises that work to destroy the common man and his shed full of guns and gold coins and anti-government literature in the middle of the forest.

Yeah, that's my logic. Good job, retard. :logik:

But Harry, THE CONSTITUTION DIDN'T MENTION THOSE THINGS!

Hence, they're Unconstitutional!!!!

The federal government was not granted the power to oversee electricity and automobiles.

Therefore, they should not be cutting deals with Enron and GM. Those deals are not Constitutional.

Get back to me when you have even a scintilla of understanding of what I've been saying.

has the case been made that these agencies are unconstitutional because they are not specifically authorized by the constitution?

Do you mean in this thread, or just in general?

anywhere...has any court weighed a challenge and found that these federal law enforcement agencies are unconstitutional?

that's not a fair question because they're all criminals, part of the same fascist unconstitutional criminal federal enterprise.

the EPA, FDA, USDA, DOI....the list is endless, and they're all a part of it.

:)

One of the dumbest threads you've started, Ralp.

The Constitution does not mention municipal police or state police. Hence, those "rights" fall on each individual states, and 100% allow their cities and counties to have a police force.

God you're stupid.

I do agree with Gabecpa's take on the ATF and DEA, however. How are those forces constitutional, considering they are operated at the federal level?

however, ralph is still right. as a police officer bears is still a hypocrite because police departments actively cooperate with and assist these unconstitutional federal law enforcement agencies, and bears works for the police department.

separate question for those who trot out unconstitutionality arguments. if something is unconstitutional, is it necessarily illegal or criminal? if it is necessarily illegal or criminal, then is it necessarily wrong?

That doesn't make him a hypocrite, and it doesn't make Ralph right.

It's a stupid argument advanced in the original post and argued by Ralp.

I'll let the rest of you yammer on for 5 pages "debating" the merits of cooperation between federal and local officials makes somebody a hypocrite.

says who?

kali will be done at the dermatologist any minute now...you 2 can get busy on the weighty issues of the day...

Softball. (If I'm reading this right)


If something is unconstitutional it is illegal by definition. The Constitution is the foundation of the law of the land.

Just because it is illegal does not mean it is wrong. Providing health care to 100% of people in our borders would not be a bad thing. It is most certainly not legal for the federal government to undertake such a task, but it is a good thing.




That's where I get into disagreements with republicans and democrats alike. Of course 'free' health care would be nice. Of course 'ending' abortion would be nice.

Neither are possible nor Constitutional.

says bears, by his definition of unconstitutional in his arguments against public option and single pay.

oh... :blink:

Oh, so you're part of the "the clauses of the Constitution have no intrinsic meaning of their own" crowd, the "living document" crowd?

Doesn't matter what any court says or doesn't say, the clauses mean what they mean.

I remember when I too was going to change the world, one post at a time...

maybe. but i'm stuck at home with flu symptoms, bored, so i thought i'd ask.

and what is the universally accepted legal definition of unconstitutional? is there one? as pete was asking, is something unconstitutional (federally speaking) if the constitution does not authorize it but does not prohibit it either? or is it HB's definition, where any action or power being performed that is not explicitly authorized is unconstitutional?

some posters here would seem to disagree. they portray whatever is unconstitutional as not only illegal and criminal, but wrong as well.

no, I'm part of the crowd that says I dont have a corner on the intrinsic meaning market...and that if I'm going to claim something is a fact, and assert that someone ellse is a hypocrite for not accepting that fact, the least I could do is point to some venue where the case was argued and a judgment rendered...

but that's just me...

everyone has to have a hobby...guess I'm yours today...swell

So, "truth" is whatever some unelected, unaccountable judges decide they want it to be? Courts are never wrong?

Sounds to me like you're surrendering your own intellectual capacity for rational thought to the whims of some other person.