Would you favor an enforcement clause on the constitution?

[E5RANGER375]

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

nope. we are looking for a way to prosecute them like criminals if they break the law that they have sworn to uphold.

and its not just them, its all public servants.

for the ones who dont break the laws of the constitution then they have nothing to worry about. a no to this is basicly saying you wanna protect the wrong do'ers that give your profession a bad name. I dont understand loyalty to bad cops and bad politicians.
dont think you can uphold the constitution? then dont be a public servant. its simple. I love this idea. Its pure American. we could resort to the other means the constitution gives us to keep government honest. which would you preffer? to me this is an attempt to prevent violence.

 

[rambone]

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.

Our rights have been codified for more than 2 centuries now. If the Hurricane Katrina gun grabbers didn't know that we have a 2nd Amendment in America, that is their own fault. If the folks that locked up Japanese-Americans in concentration camps weren't aware that they were owed due process of law, then they should be the ones in cages. If Congress forces citizens into mandatory state service, I will not feel pity if they didn't get the memo that outlawed involuntary servitude.

You can't really defend our system now that allows unconstitutional activities every single day.

 

[rambone]

Maybe this movement would lead to a mass repealment of obviously unconstitutional laws. Its not about getting rich, its about staying free and punishing the right people.

 

[MinuteMan47]

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.

Not EVERYONE on INGO is a hillbilly...

...Plus, if someone is wronged and harmed then yes, suing might be an option. I am talking about the guys looking for a "get rich quick plan".

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.

Right, and I agree. ACCOUNTABILITY.

 

[dross]

Our rights have been codified for more than 2 centuries now. If the Hurricane Katrina gun grabbers didn't know that we have a 2nd Amendment in America, that is their own fault. If the folks that locked up Japanese-Americans in concentration camps weren't aware that they were owed due process of law, then they should be the ones in cages. If Congress forces citizens into mandatory state service, I will not feel pity if they didn't get the memo that outlawed involuntary servitude.

You can't really defend our system now that allows unconstitutional activities every single day.

The Supreme Court upheld the Japanese internment. I'm not saying they were right, just that it's impractical to hold the lowest ranking person in the law enforcement aparatus to overrule all of those appointed above him, including the Supreme Court, or to face criminal penalties.

What if I become a cop, and my interpretation is that the government has no power under the Constitution to enforce anything other than laws against violent crime? Is my word now the law and I can tell my superiors to stick it? What you're suggesting is unworkable.

 

[SKSnut]

nope. we are looking for a way to prosecute them like criminals if they break the law that they have sworn to uphold.

and its not just them, its all public servants.

for the ones who dont break the laws of the constitution then they have nothing to worry about. a no to this is basicly saying you wanna protect the wrong do'ers that give your profession a bad name. I dont understand loyalty to bad cops and bad politicians.
dont think you can uphold the constitution? then dont be a public servant. its simple. I love this idea. Its pure American. we could resort to the other means the constitution gives us to keep government honest. which would you preffer? to me this is an attempt to prevent violence.

Bingo! Repped

 

[Expat]

nope. we are looking for a way to prosecute them like criminals if they break the law that they have sworn to uphold.

and its not just them, its all public servants.

for the ones who dont break the laws of the constitution then they have nothing to worry about. a no to this is basicly saying you wanna protect the wrong do'ers that give your profession a bad name. I dont understand loyalty to bad cops and bad politicians.
dont think you can uphold the constitution? then dont be a public servant. its simple. I love this idea. Its pure American. we could resort to the other means the constitution gives us to keep government honest. which would you preffer? to me this is an attempt to prevent violence.

Maybe something like the Star Chamber.

 

[rambone]

The Supreme Court upheld the Japanese internment. I'm not saying they were right, just that it's impractical to hold the lowest ranking person in the law enforcement aparatus to overrule all of those appointed above him, including the Supreme Court, or to face criminal penalties.

In the case of a president issuing insanely unconstitutional Executive Orders, there should be an enforcement option more formidable than mere impeachment.

What if I become a cop, and my interpretation is that the government has no power under the Constitution to enforce anything other than laws against violent crime? Is my word now the law and I can tell my superiors to stick it? What you're suggesting is unworkable.

No sketchy victimless crimes being enforced? I might have stumbled onto something greater than I thought!

It would not really make the cops' word the Law.. It would provide some extra level of scrutiny when enforcing laws that obviously toe the line of blatant unconstitutionality. It would still require a jury of 12 to convict, which is not easy to do.

 

[Expat]

In the case of a president issuing insanely unconstitutional Executive Orders, there should be an enforcement option more formidable than mere impeachment.

Oh, you are talking about a Star Chamber.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

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.

Of course, who would get to interpret the "constitutionality" of a law? The courts. So essentially, you'd turn the power of government over from the Executive (elected) and the Legislative (elected) to the Judiciary (appointed for life). How do you think that would work out for you; especially in view of what the courts have done to the Constitution already?

 

[rambone]

Oh, you are talking about a Star Chamber.

No, just prison. In a Republic, nobody is above the law, even the President.

 

[Bill of Rights]

The far easier solution would be to end the practice of granting even a limited or qualified immunity to executives, legislators, judges, and yes, LEOs. If such people could be held personally liable for their actions or lack thereof, I think we would see far fewer violations of our Constitution. Put everyone on a level playing field. Deal with each other as equals, no more "us vs. them". If you commit a crime that causes harm or loss to another, you may take your position at the bar of justice just like everyone else.

This is not that hard, conceptually, and requires only that exceptions in the law for certain persons be repealed.



Blessings,
Bill

 

[jbombelli]

I did not vote in the poll, because I'm kind of torn on this issue.

We as voters are the ones who send these guys to Washington, the State House, etc. We count on them to do a job. Part of that job includes trusting them to provide us with accurate information. We count on them to be trustworthy. When our votes and actions are based on lies, it hurts us all.

We wouldn't have 99% of the bad laws we have today if we weren't all so brainwashed by the bad information given to us by the dumba**es we elect thinking they're trustworthy, who then go on to spend their time making shady deals; extorting money from some, while selling their votes to others; hiding bribe money in their freezers, or getting busted in men's rooms; talking about how too many Marines will capsize Guam, or how they visited all 57 states, but not Alaska or Hawaii; voting on legislation they haven't read; attacking capital police officers; choking kids with cameras; giving us shoulder things that go up; I could rattle this stuff off all day.

I have dreamed for years of a bill I call the Truth in Politics Act. Under this bill, all elected and appointed public officials would be considered under oath at all times, and violations would be felonies. There would be no allowances for little white lies, controversial or disproven statistics or questionable science. Violations would be punishable by loss of position, imprisonment for no less than 3 years in a federal prison, loss of pay and benefits, and statutory disqualification from holding any other public position for life. THIS WOULD INCLUDE LYING WHILE ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL.

Any attempt to unduly influence the outcome of an election, including but not limited to such means as inaccurate counting of votes, false or fictitious voter registration, and false or fictitious votes, tears at the very fabric of this nation and everything for which it stands, and should be considered a crime of the most serious nature. Therefore, any such attempts would be considered "Treason."

I bet that bill would never see the light of day.


Nope. I changed my mind. I voted yes.

 

[PatriotPride]

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

Let's not turn this into a cop-bashing thread.

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

Essentially, yes.

I like the idea. Take away the limited immunity that police and elected officials have, and I guarantee that there will be an increase in Constitutionality. However, I don't think this would go very far in today's world. I mean, look at our JOKE of a SCOTUS. Do you REALLY want THEM ruling on the Constitution anymore? They're idiots, to put it politely.

Yes, I think it's a great idea, but NO, I don't think it's got a mouse's chance in a microwave of working in today's America.

 

[CarmelHP]

It never ceases to amaze me that some call themselves "libertarians," and go about with "liberty" on their lips, but these threads reveal the lust for a reign of terror that lurks in their hearts. "Committees of Public Safety" masquerading as "juries" conducting political purges whenever the winds of public opinion change. Draconian punishments being meted without regard for actual malice for doing one's job in good faith, that tomorrow a kangaroo court decides is "unconstitutional." Star chambers, arbitrary and ex post facto decisions of law, cruel and unusual punishments administered, all in the supposed "defense of the Constitution." Lord, save us from our self-appointed saviors.

 

[dross]

It never ceases to amaze me that some call themselves "libertarians," and go about with "liberty" on their lips, but these threads reveal the lust for a reign of terror that lurks in their hearts. "Committees of Public Safety" masquerading as "juries" conducting political purges whenever the winds of public opinion change. Draconian punishments being meted without regard for actual malice for doing one's job in good faith, that tomorrow a kangaroo court decides is "unconstitutional." Star chambers, arbitrary and ex post facto decisions of law, cruel and unusual punishments administered, all in the supposed "defense of the Constitution." Lord, save us from our self-appointed saviors.

As a libertarian, I don't think that's a libertarian impulse. I also don't think that it's an error of malice, but an error of ignorance of the real world and ideological blinders to which libertarians are so susceptible.

The big fat stinking error in the middle of this isn't a desire to purge, it's the idea that our rights are clear and obvious to everyone.

It's also poor system design and a cop out (no pun intended) to put the burden of decision on the lowest ranking person in the system. By the time a tyrannical law is enforced by a cop, it has passed through many more powerful systems where it should have been intercepted. To now hold the cop criminally responsible is unfair to the point of tyranny itself.

I agree that a cop, like a soldier, should have a duty to disobey an unlawful order. But, like a soldier, that ain't going to work if the law has been passed by both houses of Congress, signed by the President, perhaps approved by the Supreme Court, formed into policy by the D.A., and then put into practice by the police administration.

After all that, we're going to hold the individual cop criminally responsible?

If you're really advocating that, you need to check yourself. As my four year old daughter would say, "That's a weebidit silly, Daddy."

 

[SavageEagle]

I have to wonder. When and who decided this was just about police officers? I read it as applying to ALL government employees that take an oath. LEOs, judges, law makers, the whole lot.

I mean, who here thinks the Constitution is open to interpretation? We're not talking about the Bible. We're talking about a plain english set of rules and restrictions. It means what it says. "...shall not be infringed." Means just what it says. Then 9th and tenth amendments mean exactly what they say. I didn't read in them where those powers were given to the government.

If we can't hold public officials to their oaths, then what do you guys offer as a solution? Sit back and wait 2-4 years, cast a vote and hope it gets better?

 

[rambone]

I agree that a cop, like a soldier, should have a duty to disobey an unlawful order. But, like a soldier, that ain't going to work if the law has been passed by both houses of Congress, signed by the President, perhaps approved by the Supreme Court, formed into policy by the D.A., and then put into practice by the police administration.

As a believer in Federalism, I don't think your average cop should have to enforce one single law passed by Federal Congress. We don't have a top-down hierarchy of command. Cops are employees of their individual states, counties, and towns. The President's unconstitutional orders should mean nothing, since he doesn't even have the constitutional authority to write those sweeping, national laws regarding civil behavior.

 

[dross]

As a believer in Federalism, I don't think your average cop should have to enforce one single law passed by Federal Congress. We don't have a top-down hierarchy of command. Cops are employees of their individual states, counties, and towns. The President's unconstitutional orders should mean nothing, since he doesn't even have the constitutional authority to write those sweeping, national laws regarding civil behavior.

Okay, fine. But you'r skirting my point. Just substitute State for everything, and the point remains.

 

[rambone]

It's also poor system design and a cop out (no pun intended) to put the burden of decision on the lowest ranking person in the system. By the time a tyrannical law is enforced by a cop, it has passed through many more powerful systems where it should have been intercepted. To now hold the cop criminally responsible is unfair to the point of tyranny itself.

Disobeying tyrannical laws wasn't the only goal of this idea.

I also think cops (and other public servants) - found to be dead wrong given current interpretations of laws - should receive more than a paid vacation for their troubles. If you blatantly violate citizens' rights (yes, as they are currently understood), then you should be tried for a crime against the constitution.

I'm thinking about an example of a law-abiding LTCH carrier getting a cop's gun put to his head because the cop thinks OC is illegal, or other such nonsense. A clear violation of rights. Anybody else would be in prison and lose their LTCH for such an action.