Would you favor an enforcement clause on the constitution?

[rambone]

I know many on this board have never met an enforcement opportunity they didn't support, but try this on for size; An enforcement clause on following the Constitution. Meaning, to disobey the Constitution is a crime, for the public employees sworn to uphold it.

Jail or personal fines for those who are found guilty of infringing someone's rights, perform an illegal search, abuse gun-owners and make them prone out on the floor without any cause, act outside of strict provisions regarding probable cause, etc.

The goal is to get our pubic servants to err on the side of Liberty instead of infringing citizens' rights. Get them to take that oath of theirs seriously. Incentivize knowledge of the Bill of Rights. Quit soaking the taxpayers when a government agent messes up; the victim of government thuggery should be paid out of the thug's pocket before the taxpayers are punished.

Thoughts?

 

[Expat]

It sounds like it would just be another governmental department to feed, with an awful lot of power. And since it will enforce infractions by ALL others, there is no one for them to answer too. If anyone tries to crack down on abuses by the department, they can just accuse them of a Constitutional infraction and stop them in their tracks.

 

[rambone]

No new agencies needed. It can be taken care of locally, in the court systems, using jury trials.

 

[Dogman]

So basically your just looking for a reason to sue police officers.

 

[DownByTheTracks]

So basically your just looking for a reason to sue police officers.

And mayors, and governors, and so on...

 

[CarmelHP]

You can sue police officers and other government officials for violating your now rights now. How is hanging feel-good verbiage going to add anything except more idiotic tomfoolery by opposing factions.

 

[MinuteMan47]

So basically your just looking for a reason to sue police officers.

I didn't see anything about suing police officers.

LEOs have taken an OATH to uphold the Constitution. I don't understand all the butt hurt this causes. The Constitution is much more simplified than all of the laws that average Joes must KNOW and FOLLOW. If a Public Official can not learn and live by the Constitution then the OATH they took to uphold it means NOTHING and their WORD means nothing.

I am guessing this thread would go in the "cop haters" forum.....even though it shouldn't......

 

[Expat]

I didn't see anything about suing police officers.

But he responded to me that it will not be an enforcement function. So the only other possible method is for people to bring suit against the offending party.

 

[mrjarrell]

I could get behind an enforcement clause with a scaled system. Life at hard labour for politicians who pass any unConstitutional law. Many years of the same for lesser officials and public servants who violate rights. Perhaps even death by hanging for any official in the executive who skirts the Constitution and goes to war without a declaration by congress. As it stands today, nothing is done to violators that is substantive and meaningful. I'd also like to see a moratorium on any new laws...for say, 100 years. Make it so the only laws that can be passed are those that repeal existing laws.

 

[beararms1776]

I think he's talking about suing or fining the average Joe Public that's found guilty of violating constitutional rights of other public citizens.

 

[Eddie]

In principle I like the idea of changing the system to err on the side of liberty. I am thinking that creating a new way to sue the government would make a lot of lawyers happy. I like that, but I don't know that it would do anything to help restore liberty interests.

 

[MinuteMan47]

But he responded to me that it will not be an enforcement function. So the only other possible method is for people to bring suit against the offending party.

Ahhh. I see.


Well, honestly I don't know what method would be the most effective for enforcing.

I kinda cringe everytime I hear some hillbilly say "I'm suing...and I will be rich!"... Personally, I don't see how it helps suing an officer, because he's not going to be paying out of his pocket. The department or city will foot the bill and then guess what taxes go up.

 

[CarmelHP]

I could get behind an enforcement clause with a scaled system. Life at hard labour for politicians who pass any unConstitutional law. Many years of the same for lesser officials and public servants who violate rights. Perhaps even death by hanging for any official in the executive who skirts the Constitution and goes to war without a declaration by congress. As it stands today, nothing is done to violators that is substantive and meaningful. I'd also like to see a moratorium on any new laws...for say, 100 years. Make it so the only laws that can be passed are those that repeal existing laws.

And who is going to interpret/apply these draconian laws? Who gets to decide what is "unConstitutional" especially if they are subject to the same penalties if they don't happen to please you. Whoever gets to decide/apply the punishment now has the power of absolute tyranny, more sure and terrible than any inquisitor or witch hunter.

 

[ATF Consumer]

I am guessing this thread would go in the "cop haters" forum.....even though it shouldn't......

But I haven't even commented yet.

 

[public servant]

I kinda cringe everytime I hear some hillbilly say "I'm suing...and I will be rich!"

You must cringe a lot around here then. It seems to be the preferred way to put one's kids through college...I guess it beats the hell out of getting a job anymore.

 

[Disposable Heart]

I would second CarmelHP's thoughts on actual application but specifically interpretation. Like anything else, courts interpret things differently all the time. To think that one can write down interpretations and codify them are living in a static, no change world devoid of any cultural and technological advancement or degeneration.

Against enforcement clause.... Let existing and future case law determine what our rights are. Courts should not determine our rights anyway, its the Constitution that allows for that. It's the courts that determine how much money people get when they violate another's rights... :barf:

 

[dross]

There is no way we can require the average police officer to interpret the Constitution counter to his superiors on the force, the D.A. in the jurisdicition, the judges and the legislature of his State. This just isn't workable. You're asking each cop to become their own constitutional scholar and judge, and then later find out if they interpreted correctly when someone else steps in and judges whether their actions were constitutional, or not.

This is an interesting intellectual exercise, but not practical in the real world.

 

[rambone]

So basically your just looking for a reason to sue police officers.

I was also thinking criminal charges.

You can sue police officers and other government officials for violating your now rights now.

Practically every sickening infringement of citizens' rights I have seen has ended with some paid time off for the perpetrator, and a big sum of tax dollars being used to placate the victim.

I kinda cringe everytime I hear some hillbilly say "I'm suing...and I will be rich!"

That's not really what this is about. It is about making a person think twice about if their actions are legal, when the citizens are saying silly things like "Is this required by law?", "What is your probable cause?", "I do not consent to a search," and "This is America and I have rights!" Instead of laughing at the thought, government agents might realize that their unconstitutional actions could land them in jail as a disgraced LEO.

And who is going to interpret/apply these draconian laws? Who gets to decide what is "unConstitutional" especially if they are subject to the same penalties if they don't happen to please you. Whoever gets to decide/apply the punishment now has the power of absolute tyranny, more sure and terrible than any inquisitor or witch hunter.

I envisioned cases being presented in a courtroom to a jury of their peers, the same as many other crimes are judged. I am not in favor of any new agencies or bodies of sweeping authority. As you can imagine, a unanimous guilty verdict by 12 jurors will only be achieved if the agent was clearly in the wrong. Gray-area cases would doubtfully end with a conviction.

 

[dross]

I envisioned cases being presented in a courtroom to a jury of their peers, the same as many other crimes are judged. I am not in favor of any new agencies or bodies of sweeping authority.

There is a principle in law (which the government does violate in practice) that says that you should have the opportunity to know you're violating the law before you do it. If it's only decided after the fact that you've broken the law, but you didn't know you were before the fact, that's a form of tyranny that I can't get behind.

 

[SavageEagle]

I say we just use the existing law to bring about charges. It's not hard. Gather evidence about how they've gone against their oaths, present it to the prosecutor, go from there.

It's like creating a law that says we have the right to carry a firearm. Redundancy and piles of paperwork.