Duty or tenets? LEOs query-others welcome

[tyme]

The COTUS was definitely NOT meant as a document for each individual to define in his own manner and disobey whatever law he sees fit with no one to judge whether or not he was right to do so.

So? The First amendment was not meant to be read as protecting speech except when it comes to campaigns. The Second amendment was not meant to be read as protecting the national guard. The Fourth amendment was not meant to be read as allowing Feds to go snooping around someone's house based on suspicion that they're growing plants or have a chem lab. The Fifth amendment was not meant to be read as allowing governments to steal property and give it to another private party. Shall I go on?

There are a lot of broken cogs in the machine. Personal interpretation of the Constitution is a symptom of broken cogs elsewhere in the machine; it is not a disease in itself.

The Supreme Court didn't really determine constitutionality in Scott v. Sanford, and that decision wasn't condemned by a vast majority of the people as Kelo has been. It seems the will of the people always has the final say, at least when it's nearly unanimous as it is in this case (online polls show 1-3% support for Kelo v. New London).

 

[Al Norris]

GI, I realized that's not how things work in today's world. I cite these historical things mostly to educate. It is a chance to see not only how it used to work, but also the chance to see what we, as a free people, have lost.

To be fair, it is we, the people that have lost these bits and pieces of liberty. My hope is to spark interest in this stuff. It is only by knowing what our freedoms are supposed to be and how we lost them, that we can have hope of getting some of them back.

But it will be a long and arduous path. The loss of our liberties began shortly after the ink dried on the Constitution. It has been an ongoing thing, ever since. I honestly don't know if we can swing the pendulum back, without resorting to the inevitable bloodbath. But I will continue to try and inform and educate where I can.

The fact that there are still some Law Enforcement Officers who would hold Principle to be greater than a paycheck, also gives hope.

 

[Garand Illusion]

So?

So I think it's pretty clear. Change the law from the top down or face the consequences. We're a nation of law abiding people, and we have the means to change our country if we need to. I'm against seizing private property to build a mall. But if my local elected officials (whom I would later vote against) ask to have it done, and the SCOTUS says it's OK, then I expect all branches of the government, including the LEO's, to carry out the order.

Because it is consitutional, whether any of us like it or not.

And if you don't like it .... SO?

So change things.

As to how things were or weren't supposed to be read in COTUS ... your conclusions aren't universally accepted by everyone. There's a lot of analysis on all those points, not just a 5 work clause in a posting on TFL.

Shall I go on?

Only if you're willing to start making sense and get to a point.

 

[Bravo25]

I thought the LEO community worked for "the people" I am finding out this is not quite true. They work for the government which used to be "by the people, and of the people, and for the people". Not the same anymore. Many cruisers have pasted on the side "to server, and to protect", or "to serve with honor". Respectfully these need to be removed in todays society. The SCOTUS has upheld that the police cannot be held liable for failing to protect you, and there is no honor in selling your moral beliefs, or what you know is right for a price. If this is what you are willing to do remember this.. No matter what color you paint the outhouse, it is still an outhouse, and the contents have changed.

This is how the Declaration of Independence, The Revolution, and the Constitution came to be in the first place.

It has been suggested that change start from the top down. It has never worked this way, and never will. I'll reference back to cooking the frog. Heat the water slowly, and he doesn't know he is being cooked. Throw him in a pot of hot water, and he will rebel immediately, and jump out. Is Everyone missing the big picture here? To be clear on this the goal of individuals in the government is to become more powerful. To institute more control over the people. Thus removing our civil liberties, and freedoms. A little at a time. Most of the fore fathers of this country did not want power, but had it thrust upon them, and they served the greater good. Can you say that about todays government?
Since the inception of our government it has moved steadily toward more control over the people, and less transparent, and accountable.

So comes the last point. "Where do you draw the line?", and equally if not more important "what are you prepared to do when it is crossed?"

These are the real issues, and the ones that everybody does their best at avoiding because we have sold ourselves out to a life style of comfort, and we don't want our little boat rocked.

 

[Garand Illusion]

Hey Bravo ...

There are 250 million American citizens and only a few thousand beauroacrats and maybe half a million soldiers (many of which are overseas).

The numbers are on our side and we still get to vote, so I'd say the government is still of the people, even if we as individual don't always agree with them (eg Diane Feinstein). WE can still change them and elect in people we like, so they do still answer to us, but that's up to the people to actually do something.

The frog anecdote isn't actually literally correct (as someone pointed out this is a myth -- a frog will always jump out of water when it gets too hot whether gradual or immediate) and history shows it not to be true about people, either.

Take our own revolution 200 and some years ago. Did the British suddenly enact a whole lot of laws? Of course not. They began clamping down on taxes and the like over a period of years as their war with France continued they kept turning the screws.

And just like the frog once the water got too hot to ignore or stand any further, the American people jumped. Or at least enough of us to get out of the pot.

The fact is ... the water still feels pretty good to most Americans. Right now the liberals are feeling some pain (i.e. check out michaelmoore.com or moveon.org to see how they think things are going) as well as the right wing, but overall we're pretty good.

But if things got too hot I'd like to believe people would still jump like the frog.

You are right ... at the moment we still have the ability to change things (i.e. the ever expanding "shall issue" states and the chance to put another supreme in the court) and there's no need for revolution and to rock the boat. Revolution is the last step, not the first.

And we ain't even halfway up that ladder.

 

[vitesse9]

I'm a Non-LEO

and I have to say that I'm disturbed by the number of LEOs who would just "do their duty" without question. I understand the need and desire to do one's job (I often have to grit my teeth and do things in my job that I don't agree with), and I certainly respect the law, but at some point "just following orders" isn't an excuse. So here's a question to LEOs:

If you were asked to enforce an immediate gun ban, would you do it? I'm talking about going house-to-house and arresting otherwise law-abiding people whose only crime is an unwillingness to give up their natural right to self-defense.

If the answer is yes, would you be willing to enforce a law that required the immediate detention of, say, all Jews?

It's a question that anyone with the power of the law behind them must contemplate. Unjust laws have always existed, and great tragedy has visited humanity because those charged with enforcing said laws simply "did their duty."

 

[vitesse9]

Also

Just as a note ... the COTUS puts the power to determine constitutionality with the Supremes. Like it or not ... when they say something is constitutional it IS constitutional. Period. Taking property under the right conditions from a homeowner to give to another company is constitutional (though it burns me as much as y'all).

Actually, the ultimate power of judicial review is not vested in the Supreme Court by the Constitution. The Court gave itself that power in Marbury v. Madison. In other words, the Court said "we are the final word on what the Constitution means" and from that first act of judicial tyranny, it has been messing with the Constitution ever since. It is a grave misstatement of the law to contend that the Constitution grants SCOTUS the unquestionable right to interpret the Constitution.

 

[grampster]

Was there not a SCOTUS decision that slavery was constitutional? Was that knuckled under to? Is there not a 2A, yet firearms are regulated everywhere? Has that not been resisted? Is there not a 1A, yet free speech has been partially negated (political free speech, at that). Is that not being circumnavigated?

Every person in LE (I am former LE) would have a decision to make regarding the despicable decision on private property. I agree with that statement. I would lay down my badge and find another job if confronted with that decision. My personal integrity would stand for nothing less. Too many of my ancesters shed blood and gave up hearth and home for me to simply say, "Oh well, its my job, get it over with and go home and pop a Strohs." Perhaps that is what is wrong with our nation. We are too fat and happy to make the hard decisions. It makes me even more worried when I see comments posted on a web site dedicated to firearm ownership, freedom and God given rights that seem to say that a job is more important than any of the aforementioned.

I am surprised that the right and the left is not calling for the impeachement of the socialist judges. If our nation (read political parties) wanted to unite behind a common cause, this would be an appropriate one to agree upon.

 

[jcoiii]

Just because an LEO said that he would enforce the order does not mean that he is " 'doing his duty' blindly." It just means that that individual made a choice.

That being said, as an LEO, if I were put in that position (won't be at current job, thank God) I'd not go up to someone's house and take it from them to give to another. If my chief gave me the order, I can refuse it and do some paperwork about why. More than likely, I would then be dismissed from my job. Oh well, that's my choice.

Here's why. First and foremost, I think it is wrong. I believe it to be an immoral law. That is the primary reason. But let's be a little bit practical. How many of you want to go up to someone's house and take it from them? To me, it violates rule #1: do everything I can to go home at the end of the day. How many of you here on TFL would not "resist"? I can find a new job somewhere, doing something.

 

[Hal]

To me, it violates rule #1: do everything I can to go home at the end of the day. How many of you here on TFL would not "resist"? I can find a new job somewhere, doing something.

Interesting response.

So is it the fear of facing (probably armed) resistance that prevents it or the moral right/wrong of it?

 

[jcoiii]

First, it's the moral problem of taking someone's land. But I am more than just my morals. I am also my brain. So now there's two reasons. It's wrong, AND I want to go home to my wife. Being killed over something I believe is wrong to enforce would make it doubly stupid, IMO

 

[blackmind]

Don't Law Enforcement Officers swear an oath to UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION?

The Constitution is being RAPED by the Kelo decision. Enforcing an order to evict these landowners would be dereliction of your duty to uphold the Constitution. You would be engaged in an act which, despite the USSC decision -- which ERRED by a slim margin of 5-4 -- is an unlawful order.

You never swore an oath to obey unlawful orders, did you? There's no dereliction of duty to disobey an unlawful order. Any order to evict people who were evicted under an ABUSE of eminent domain is not a lawful one, no matter what a misguided, idiotic supreme court says.

-blackmind

 

[blackmind]

Lillysdad is right. God knows there is stuff that none of us would prefer to do but we have to anyway. But I am thankful that I don't have to serve civil process at my agency.

Ahh, the Nuremberg Defense! :barf:

How SICKENING.


The only thing I can say is, anyone who puts aside what is right and wrong for what is his JOB ... deserves to have the same thing happen to him that he is willing to do to the legal owner of a seized home.

Maybe some day, a deputy sheriff from a different department will come knocking on YOUR door to force you to make room for a Walgreens.


Is your soul that shallow that you would do the same to your fellow citizen?

-blackmind

 

[blackmind]

Garand Illusion wrote:

Just as a note ... the COTUS puts the power to determine constitutionality with the Supremes. Like it or not ... when they say something is constitutional it IS constitutional. Period. Taking property under the right conditions from a homeowner to give to another company is constitutional (though it burns me as much as y'all).

That is PATENTLY ABSURD.

Example: What if the USSC took a case in which the outcome, the court's ruling, said, "The First Amendment to the Constitution does not guarantee an individual the right to speak freely"?

However they arrived at that decision, they arrived at it. (Maybe they were bribed by George Soros, who knows?)

You are saying that because it came out of their mouths, it is gospel, no matter how CLEARLY CONTRARY TO THE LETTER AND SPIRIT OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Boy, are you ever incorrect.

-blackmind

 

[blackmind]

Antipitas wrote:

Did you know that in Missouri v. Holland (1920), the Court held that a Treaty implied that the Congress had the "Necessary and Proper" power to make law in areas that they had no constitutional authority?

Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes, who wrote for the majority, reasoned that if a Treaty would cause a law to be made in order to abide by the Treaty, and the Constitution did not grant a power to make such a law, then by virtue of the Treaty itself, Congress now had that power. Holmes was a republican, but not a federalist.

This is a decision that has never been overturned. Do you understand the implications? Just like Wickard, there are many unintended consequences that were not realized until much later.

Antipitas, thank heaven for you being here. I really admire you.

If what you have said is accurate, then if the U.S. agreed to a U.N. treaty that nullified the 2nd Amendment and required confiscation and destruction of all privately held arms, Congress would now have the power to enact any law that was required to put us in compliance with the treaty.

Disturbing.

And this is only because the Supreme Court just decided to up and say so.

Talk about tyranny.

-blackmind

 

[blackmind]

If the SCOTUS says it's constitutional, then it IS constitional.

Once again, please explain how this is so. If the SCOTUS made a ruling that was CLEARLY IN CONTRAVENTION OF A VERY CLEAR READING OF A VERY CLEAR AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION, HOW WOULD THAT BE "CONSTITUTIONAL"?!

If the SCOTUS said in a ruling, "We find that the people do NOT have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects," through some pathetic and twisted reasoning, how would the "constitutionality" of that square with the DIRECT STATEMENT TO THE OPPOSITE which is found right there in the Fourth Amendment?

-blackmind

 

[blackmind]

GI wrote:

The COTUS was definitely NOT meant as a document for each individual to define in his own manner and disobey whatever law he sees fit with no one to judge whether or not he was right to do so.

Oh, but the COTUS definitely IS a document for NINE individuals to define in their own manner? :barf:


We have but to look to their recent decision re: the 5th Amendment to see that it is a grave error to allow that situation to continue unchallenged.

-blackmind

 

[blackmind]

Just because an LEO said that he would enforce the order does not mean that he is " 'doing his duty' blindly." It just means that that individual made a choice.

Yeah, to do his duty regardless of the fact that it's morally wrong.

In other words, to do what is wrong, because to do what is right would lose him his job.

Thanks for making that clear.


EDIT: WHOOPS! Sorry. Jumped down your throat before reading the remainder of your post. I'm gratified that in the end you did say you would not obey the order because you know it to be wrong. Thank you.

-blackmind