Cops Using Small Doses of Martial Law

An act of Congress repugnant to the Constitution is not law. When the Constitution and an act of Congress are in conflict, the Constitution must govern the case to which both apply. Congress cannot confer on this court any original jurisdiction. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited, and those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten is the reason the Constitution was written.
-- Marbury vs. Madison

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it ....
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
-- American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Volume 16, Section 177

The following is from www.geocities.com...

The Ninth Amendment states “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” The Constitution exists to restrain the federal government, not the people. While the Constitution does not directly mention medicine, it protects the right to medicate oneself as one sees fit. (Attention Christian conservatives: It is this same Ninth Amendment that protects your right to home school your children.)

The Tenth Amendment states “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution spells out 18 things the federal government can do. The Tenth Amendment forbids it from engaging in any other activity.

Mr. Corry is absolutely correct when the states that “The Founding Fathers' dream of a limited federal government of enumerated powers has become a twisted nightmare where the Constitution does not mean what it says.” There is simply no constitutional basis for the War on Drugs, much less for federal agents to conduct Gestapo-style raids on non-violent people whose only offense lies in medicating themselves in the only way they have found that works.

Any drug law is un-constitutional. Even if you feel that drugs should be illegal, it is hard to deny that it is against the constitution.


This is one out of so many. If you do some research into the UCC and constitution you will find that most laws enforced on a daily basis are un-constitutional and you basically unknowingly volunteer to be subject to these laws. You are a slave and you didn’t even know it. There is just way too much to put here, maybe someone has already or will soon start a thread about it.



My question to you remains, however, as you did not answer it; do you think there is a police officer out there that has not enforced an unconstitutional law?

Well that all depends on what you interpret as a unconstitutional law. I personally think drug laws are not unconstitutional people should not be allowed to use coc aine,'___' and Heroin. Were in the constitution does it say you have the right to do drugs?

So yes I know cops that dont enforce unconstitutional laws.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
. Were in the constitution does it say you have the right to do drugs?

That is not the point. Where does it say you cant is the question.

The Constitution states any powers NOT granted in it the Government does not have.

So again WHERE does it says drugs are illegal?

Where in the constitution does it say I cant have sex with a 12 year old girl? So should that be legal is it a unconstitutional law.

Originally posted by Amuk
Snip...
So again WHERE does it says drugs are illegal?

Obviously, the courts have upheld constitutional interpretations that allow the government to make drugs illegal on the basis that they can be harmful. Conversely, an illegal drug may be legal if it is legitimately prescribed by a doctor.

It's elementary.

In your opinion, who should have the legal authority to interpret the constitution for legal enforcement?
.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Where in the constitution does it say I cant have sex with a 12 year old girl? So should that be legal is it a unconstitutional law.

in some states it IS legal unless I am wrong. What federal law prohibits sex with a 12 year-old girl? I am just saying it a state issue not a federal one.

Originally posted by Yxboom

Originally posted by Amuk
Snip...
So again WHERE does it says drugs are illegal?

Obviously, the courts have upheld constitutional interpretations that allow the government to make drugs illegal on the basis that they can be harmful.

They also upheld slavery for a long time did that make it right? If the reason they are illegal is because they are harmful doesnt that mean the courts have a right to tell us if we can smoke or drink booze? Should they also tell us how many Hamburgers we should have a week? Too many are harmful and they know whats best for us right?

In your opinion, who should have the legal authority to interpret the constitution for legal enforcement?
.

This is the first good point you have made in the thread and to be honest I am not sure. If those that are to interpret it ignore it what is the answer? I know the ones in office now dont give a damn about it.

I vote Libertarian

What is all this crap about interpretation?

Any grade-schooler can tell you what "shall not be infringed" means.

Any idiot can see that having sex with small children infringes on their pursuit of happiness.

It is easy to see that any power not specifically granted to the feds belongs to the people or the states, and not of federal concern. It is easy to see because it says so.


No interpretation is needed. The Supreme Court is supposed to intervene when a problem arises. They have, to my knowledge, done a good job, so far as the 2nd is concerned. I am unaware of a single case of the Supreme Court upholding any gun laws, although I have not researched it much. To my understanding, the last time the supreme court heard a real second amendment argument was the Miller case in the '30s, and it said so long as any weapon is of military value, it is the right of any citizen to keep and bear that weapon. They refuse to hear gun casses because they have ruled on it 70 years ago; they upheld the 2nd.

So there you have it, the constitution said the 20,000 plus gun laws in our country are Illegal, and the Supreme Court backed that up. So, back on topic (kind of), what are the dirty, corrupt, constitution hating (oh, all of that un-intentional, of course) cops doing going against the bill of rights and the supreme court that upheld it?


[edit on 15-1-2005 by cavscout]

ThomasCrowne said:

They are given minimal and warped training in the area of the constitution and they haven't bothered to figure out what should be glaring.

That is a large part of the problem. It is not only a problem of ignorance by police officers and their superiors of constitutional principles, but of ignorance on the part of the general population. The latter is the larger problem. If citizens understood their rights under the federal and state constitutions and the limitations these place on the exercise of police power, these problems would not exist or would at least not be so widespread.

Citizens are not taught these fundamental principles anywhere, not in kindergarten, grade school, high school, community college, college, or university. For this free society to operate as intended, it would seem that its citizens ought to be fluent in these basic principles. But they are not. If you want to understand these things you need to go to law school where constitutional principles are presented in such an obscure way that you must become a "constitutional scholar" to comprehend them. OTOH, one could take the more simple approach of just reading the constitutions and the declaration of independence themselves and apply your innate reasoning ability to gain an understanding that you could apply in your daily life.

ThomasCrowne said:

I'm not the brightest crayon in the box, so if I noticed a problem between the statutes and the constitution, at least half of the cops should as well.

Don't be so modest Thomas. You are a shining crayola. An enigma within a riddle.

Yxboom says:

Those do not sound like legal charges. A legal charge is either:
1. A Federal statute or
2. A State statute or
3. An ordinance

Are you asking if the cops have anything better to do, other than enforcing the laws??? Cops are paid to enforce laws. Consequently, I don't understand your question

Yx, I think Da General and some others are engaging in hyperbole and overstatement there. Haven't you noticed? There is some truth in what they are saying.

I agree that not all cops are bad. I have known both very good ones and very bad ones. After all, they are people just like you and me. Many try to understand their proper role and act within proper limits. The bad apples tend to spoil the reputation and cast distrust and suspicion upon all LE.

We all know the bad apples exist and that those in LE don't do enough to remove them but, instead, protect them just because they are within the LE family. LE has itself to blame.

Yx, your list of officer qualifications omitted the most important – an understanding of the relative roles of government, police officers, and citizens, and their relative rights, duties, obligations, and protections under the US and state constitutions. If officers don’t know and cannot demonstrate an understanding of these things how are they to know what limits apply to their conduct in the field? If these subjects were part of the basic education US citizens receive from early childhood into adulthood we would be living in a much better society. Instead, we live in a society of the ignorant. And, frankly, it seems to be designed that way.


[edit on 1/15/2005 by dubiousone]

Originally posted by cavscout
. To my understanding, the last time the supreme court heard a real second amendment argument was the Miller case in the '30s, and it said so long as any weapon is of military value, it is the right of any citizen to keep and bear that weapon. They refuse to hear gun casses because they have ruled on it 70 years ago; they upheld the 2nd.

So there you have it, the constitution said the 20,000 plus gun laws in our country are Illegal, and the Supreme Court backed that up.


[edit on 15-1-2005 by cavscout]

any weapon is of military value? So you think anybody should be able to own a stinger missile? How about some weaponized small pox or heck why not a nuke? They all have military value.

The founding fathers nor the people of the Supreme court in the 30s could not dream of such weapons when they made their laws.

Thats kind of thinking is insane with modern weapons

Originally posted by cavscout

Any idiot can see that having sex with small children infringes on their pursuit of happiness.

[edit on 15-1-2005 by cavscout]

What if it is consensual sex with a 30 year old man and a 15 year old girl? Does that infringe on their pursuit of happiness? Infact if they both wanted to have sex isnt making it illegal infringe on their pursuit of happiness?So what you think that should be legal.

Posted by Amuk
Snip...
The courts also upheld slavery for a long time did that make it right?

No, it didn't make it right, but the courts are obviously self-correcting, as is evidenced by the courts eventual ruling that slavery is illegal.

Posted by Amuk
Snip...
If the reason that drugs are illegal is because they are harmful, doesnt that mean the courts have a right to tell us if we can smoke or drink booze?

Yes, you would think so, wouldn't you? But there are too many alcoholics within the courts, within the legislature and within the public at-large and, subsequently, it is highly unlikely that alcohol will be banned.

Prohibition was tried in the early part of the 20th Century and it was a dismal failure. It caused many law abiding citizens to willingly break the law when they drank alcohol. It was a disaster for law enforcement because many officers also enjoyed drinking.

Posted by Amuk
Snip...
Should they also tell us how many Hamburgers we should have a week? Too many are harmful and they know whats best for us right?

Your analogy is a poor one because you are mixing apples and oranges. Harmful drugs cannot be compared with hamburgers.

Originally posted by Yxboom
Your analogy is a poor one because you are mixing apples and oranges. Harmful drugs cannot be compared with hamburgers.

Why not? I am willing to bet more people have died from Cheese Burgers than Pot. You dont NEED a Cheese Burger. Where in the Constitution does it give you the RIGHT to one?

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

any weapon is of military value? So you think anybody should be able to own a stinger missile? How about some weaponized small pox or heck why not a nuke? They all have military value.

The founding fathers nor the people of the Supreme court in the 30s could not dream of such weapons when they made their laws.

Thats kind of thinking is insane with modern weapons

Yes, any weapon of military value. Any weapon that any foreign or domestic government can use against us must be available to us.

The Supreme Court in the 30s was well aware. Bio warfare had already been used, as was chemical warfare. The law in question created a tax and background check for machine guns and short barreled shotguns. The courts only concern was whether the short barreled shotgun Miller had possessed without paying the tax was of military significance.

So far as the founding fathers wanting us to have the same horrible weapons that any government has:
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? ... The militias of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared to any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. ... Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible instrument of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American. ...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or the state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
- Tench Coxe, 1788

So there you have if. They wanted us to have access to "every other terrible instrument of the soldier." It is my "birth-right."

Well, I get pulled over by cops all the time, no big deal to me, out on my bike(bicycle, not motorcycle, gas is way to expensive to drive my car or a motorcycle) at artound 2am when hungry and want McDs(thankfully the one on Navarre will serve people on bikes through the drivethrough) or out of Mountain Dew and go to Krogers. They just ask what I am doing, I tell them, they tell me to stay out of trouble, I go home. Only time I had a problem was when I was with a ex-friend(the guy is no longer a friend) and he started being himself. "You don't have any reason to stop me, why are you wasting my time? WTF(He didn't say WTF, he said the whole thing..) you think you doing? I am busy, you don't have any right to bug me." Guess what? Cop does cause you get people out at 2am you would want to know if it is your job to know what is going on. But the guy thinks the cops actually wait for him so they can harass him. Course, could be because he on probation from doing drugs and attacking people with a 2x4, and that it is 2am....

Anyways, some of those cases are criminal, but some cops can see that someone is walking "heavy" on one side and know they carrying a gun or something. But still, quotas? Who the hell came up with that idea?

Posted by dubiousone
Snip...
We all know the bad apples exist and that those in LE don't do enough to remove them but, instead, protect them just because they are within the LE family. LE has itself to blame.

That is a misstatement or a misnomer -- or both. Television makes it look like the majority of cops are crooked, but that is simply not true. If a cop gets arrested, it makes the front page of the newspaper, but if a citizen gets arrested, there is no mention of it in the news. Why??? Because the story of a crooked cop sells newspapers and is newsworthy. Why??? Because it is a rare event.

Only rare events are hot topics. However, when the citizens read about the occasional arrest of a crooked cop, some uneducated or uninformed citizens immediately paint all cops (or a majority of them) as being crooked, but their assumption is far from the truth.

Cops are much harder on themselves than the citizenry could ever be. An honest cop doesn't want to lose the respect and support of the citizenry because LE only works with the consent of the majority. Consequently, crooked cops are rooted out as soon as they are identified by fellow officers.

It's ironic to see polls where citizens recommend a certain level of punishment to be executed against convicted cops. Then when officers are polled as to what the punishment should be, it is always much harsher -- by far!!! Don't let a few TV dramas slant your perception of LE officers. The "thin blue line" is a myth that was created by a journalist.

Posted by dubiousone
Snip...
Yx, your list of officer qualifications omitted the most important – an understanding of the relative roles of government, police officers, and citizens, and their relative rights, duties, obligations, and protections under the US and state constitutions.

Actually, it was not omitted. Those are elementary laws that are taught at the basic academy. That is like a kindergarden student learning the alphabet. While all of those elementary concepts are presented during any basic police academy, it may be later when the concepts begin to "sink in," as the officer hits the streets to see how these constitutional concepts are upheld in the real world. A real-world application is entirely different then an academic setting. It is one thing to learn about these elementary concepts while inside a classroom, but it is entirely different to apply these concepts in various real-world settings.

Again, the concepts that you wrote of are elementary to any basic police academy.

Posted by dubiousone
Snip...
If officers don’t know and cannot demonstrate an understanding of these things, then how are they to know what limits apply to their conduct in the field?

That is a very good point. Graduating from a basic police academy is peanuts. The real-world test comes when the officer hits the streets. Hopefully, his department will have a "field training program" where the recruit-officer is paired up with seasoned veterans who teach him the proper application of these elementary legalities.

Posted by dubiousone
Snip...
If these subjects were part of the basic education US citizens receive from early childhood into adulthood we would be living in a much better society.

Naturally, many of these constitutional elements are not going to be taught k-12. It's simply not a part of that curriculum and many k-12 students would not be able to stay awake for that type of a lecture. High school teachers don't know the difference between reasonable suspicion and probable cause and, subsequently, how are they going to teach these finer points to students? Also, you won't find reasonable suspicion in the constitution, either. It is a term that was developed by the courts through court rulings.

As you may (or may not?) know, at the collegiate level, many criminal justice courses do not teach some of the basic constitutional concepts that you have alluded to. Why??? Because most of the professors have never been in LE. Consequently, they are teaching college classes from the perspective of an "academic" who has never performed in the real world of LE. Many of the universities are preparing their criminal justice majors for more academic studies instead of preparing them for the real-world dirty work of being a street cop.

Colleges deal with "academics," while LE is where the rubber meets the road. Let's face it -- how is an academic (who has never worked in LE) going to impart lessons to criminal justice majors about:
a. foot chases through yards at 3:00 AM
b. protecting crime scenes
c. interviewing pathalogical liars (okay, now that you know he's lying -- how are you going to get him to tell the truth???)
d. hands-on fights with drunken idiots
e. handling lots of dead bodies
f. false citizen complaints against you by liars
g. the politics within the agency
h. handling mentally ill citizens
i. seeing death before your very eyes (try explaining that to a student)
j. etc.

However, an academic is definately qualified to teach about criminal justice theories on the reasons for crime and theories on how to reduce crime. And the academic can support his thesis with empirical evidence and anecdotal evidence in a dissertation.... But let's remember -- the academic has never gotten his hands dirty in real-world LE, so exactly what is he going to impart to the criminal justice major??? Let me answer that -- he is going to teach him how to become an academic!!! LOL

Oops, I'm off the beaten path. So, to answer your question, all of the elements of safeguarding a citizen's constitutional rights are taught at the basic police academy.

Posted by dubiousone
Snip...
Instead, we live in a society of the ignorant. And, frankly, it seems to be designed that way.

Learning is lifelong. Learning and cognitive development should continue throughout ones life, unless it is stunted by drug usage, alcohol abuse, physiological impedements or mental illness.

Originally posted by cavscout

Yes, any weapon of military value. Any weapon that any foreign or domestic government can use against us must be available to us.

The Supreme Court in the 30s was well aware. Bio warfare had already been used, as was chemical warfare.

Thats crazy Man you should move to Africa then , anyone can buy just about any weapon they can afford. It works a just fine there

The BIO weapons of the 30s were a joke compared to the ones they have now.

Man you have to be the only person I ever heard that thinks everyone has a right to own a nuke and some weaponized small pox . What a great world that would be the next time someone wanted to go on a shooting spree they could just use their own nuke and kill a few million.

Great idea

[edit on 15-1-2005 by ShadowXIX]

Originally posted by Amuk

Originally posted by Yxboom
Your analogy is a poor one because you are mixing apples and oranges. Harmful drugs cannot be compared with hamburgers.

Why not? I am willing to bet more people have died from Cheese Burgers than Pot. You dont NEED a Cheese Burger. Where in the Constitution does it give you the RIGHT to one?

Now you want to compare eating a cheeseburger with smoking a joint – and you insinuated that smoking pot is, by far, safer than eating a cheeseburger??? Hummm…..

First, putting smoke into your lungs is not a healthy thing to do. Trust me on this. LOL Why not just go into a burning building and take a deep breath of the smoke? Well, because smoke is toxic!!!! LOL

If marijuana smoke is continually put into the lungs, it will eventually scar and damage them, thus making it harder to breathe. When you’re young, you may not appreciate the ability to breath, but if you develop emphysema in your later years (from repeatedly putting smoke into your lungs), you will dearly wish that you had never done that.

I have seen many “A” students who began smoking pot and they invariably became “B” students, if they smoked it on a regular basis. And on down the line… I have seen many “B” students who began smoking pot and they invariably became “C” students, if they smoked it on a regular basis. I have seen many “C” students who began smoking pot and they invariably became “D” students, if they smoked it on a regular basis and dropped out of high school or college. Many of us do not want our loved ones to go down this path – and the drug is currently illegal, so why would we want to make it legal? We don’t want to make it legal, for the sake of our loved ones.

If a drug is legally accessible, it is much easier to become addicted to it (name any drug that you want). Some people are easily addicted to drugs, but since drugs are illegal, most of them never get the opportunity to become addicted to them. We do not want to give them the legal opportunity to become addicts and, thus, to become a drain on society.

I don't think it is a right, I know it is. You cannot deny it is, but you can say it should not be that way. I don’t think anyone, including our government, should have any NBC weapons. HOWEVER, we do have a right to have them. Until the 2nd amendment is changed, through the legal process of doing so (no longer possible) everyone has a right to such weapons, through the intent of the bill of rights. We can all speak English, we can go back and read the constitutional ratification debates and see why the states refused to endorse the constitution without the 2nd in there. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure it out. To argue that the second doesn’t give me a right to any weapon the government can currently use against me is foolish. To argue for that to change could be wise, although the laws governing the weapons that the standing army kept at the ready would also have to change.

So long as someone can attack my home with a tank, I have the right to own anti-tank weapons. So long as someone can shoot my house with hellfire missiles, I have the right to own shoulder fired heat seeking anti aircraft missiles. So long as government agents (cops) have access to sub-machine guns and use them on innocent women and children, I have every right to have the same or better weapons to protect myself and my family/community. That was the intent of the second amendment. If you don’t like that, try to get rid of or change the 2nd, or maybe if you could get the governments of the world, including our own, to stop developing such weapons and destroy everyone of them, then I would have no legal standing to own them.

The law doesn’t change just because you, or you and a few others, or even you and 90% of the population want it to. Of course me owning a nuke would be ridiculous, but until the governments of the world no longer have any, the 2nd gives me a right to have one too.

Originally posted by Yxboom

Originally posted by Amuk

Originally posted by Yxboom
Your analogy is a poor one because you are mixing apples and oranges. Harmful drugs cannot be compared with hamburgers.

Why not? I am willing to bet more people have died from Cheese Burgers than Pot. You dont NEED a Cheese Burger. Where in the Constitution does it give you the RIGHT to one?

Now you want to compare eating a cheeseburger with smoking a joint – and you insinuated that smoking pot is, by far, safer than eating a cheeseburger??? Hummm…..

Hey smart guy, he didn't say pot was good for you (although in some instances, it is) he said cheeseburgers are worse, and this is true. Poor diet continues to kill more people every year then drugs. Go look up the numbers, genius.

If a drug is legally accessible, it is much easier to become addicted to it (name any drug that you want). Some people are easily addicted to drugs, but since drugs are illegal, most of them never get the opportunity to become addicted to them. We do not want to give them the legal opportunity to become addicts and, thus, to become a drain on society.

what, because they arent getting them now? Come on! You’re joking right? You’re a comedian and you are trying your skills out on ATS. Am I right?

You may feel that the constitution should allow for the banning of drugs, just like shadow feels that it should allow for the restriction of guns. Sorry guys, you can’t change a law by wishing it so and pretending it so.