reply to post by OzWeatherman
"The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to
follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils
it is supposed to punish!"
Not being from Australia I can not speak intelligently to the law of that land nor how effectively the executive branch of government in that land
enforces the law. Being from the United States, I can and will speak intelligently to the law of that land and how ineffectively the executive branch
of that government has upheld the law.
In the United States, the Supreme Law of the Land is the Constitution for the United States of America. This document was designed to transfer from
the people a limited amount of power for a limited amount of time to certain elected officials and some appointed officials. The purpose of
structuring and forming this government was made perfectly clear in the preamble to that constitution which states:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common
defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution
for the United States of America."
The importance of this preamble is that it states where the government began which is from We the People and why it was begun. To establish justice
being the very first purpose of government stated, this responsibility is to be taken seriously and it is the right of the people to expect that
justice has been established. Has it? What justice is there in a land filled with exponentially growing ordinances, codes and statutes that parade
themselves as law when instead what they do is attempt to reign in the liberties of free people?
The only real purpose for having laws established by government is to ensure the rights of individuals are protected. Any other pretext for law is
nothing more than an advocacy of tyranny. When arguments of law become an advocacy for creating governments designed to control the people in order
to protect the power of government then liberty is not what is operative in that government. For far too long in the U.S. the operative function of
police powers has been to control the populace and has little to do with protecting them and more to do with protecting the power that has been
In the Constitutionally established government of the people for the people and by the people the enforcement of law has been delegated to the
executive branch of government. On a national level that executive branch is headed by the President and there is no Constitutionally mandated
national police force. The policing of people has been left to the states respectively. Within each state constitution the executive branch is
headed by the Governor but the actual enforcement of laws and policing is delegated to duly elected Sheriff's in every county. This police power
has not been delegated to any appointee but rather has been granted to elected officials making them directly accountable to the people.
Police departments, on the other hand, do not possess constitutionally delegated police powers but instead are administrative agencies created by
cities and towns and since the Chief of police or any of the officers working under that position are not elected officials or sworn deputies of the
law as is the case with Sheriff's and their deputies, then they are comfortably buffered from much of the constitutional restraints placed upon the
Sheriff and his deputies. Of course, all police officers are subordinate to the Sheriff or any of his or her deputies and must relinquish
jurisdiction to them whenever the Sheriff or sworn deputy demands it.
Here in lies one of the fundamental problems with "cops" and administrative agencies posing as police powers. They do not possess proper authority
to enforce the law and do not work for the people directly but instead work for the city governments that established the agency to begin with and
hired the officers to function within that agency. What this has accomplished is a creation of hired employees charged with enforcing the municipal
codes that may or may not be Constitutional in nature.
They myriad of ordinance that are legislated are prohibitive in nature ranging anywhere from prohibiting "jay walking" to "vagrancy" to "peddling
goods on a public walk way". By what authority does any government within the U.S. operate that declares "jay walking" prohibited? It is never
the proof of jurisdiction that is offered to defend "jay walking" ordinances but instead an appeal to order and decency that is offered while
attempts are made to explain how important it is to regulate the travel of pedestrians for their own good and the general welfare of the public. The
same goes for vagrancy ordinances and even more astoundingly for peddling ordinances.
Licensing schemes abound in the U.S. ranging from legislation requiring people to be licensed to drive, marry, and again and most astoundingly to do
business. Licenses by their nature are permits to do what would otherwise be illegal. That administrative agencies such as DMV's insist the people
do not have a right to drive and must therefore be permitted to drive and that they rely upon both Sheriff's and their deputies as well as the non
constitutionally mandated administrative agencies known as police departments is but a minute example of the affront to liberty and freedom these
people represent. Regardless of how good their intentions may be, the Supreme Law of the Land has made clear that We the People are free by nature
and have the right to enjoy freedom without having to explain that enjoyment of a right to some well intentioned police officer.
The right to protect oneself and protect their freedom is a long held tenet of jurisprudence and the notion that we should not protect ourselves but
instead surrender that right to hired employees of a city or town is absurd. It is even more absurd to insist that we should surrender our natural
rights and then be grateful to those who demanded the surrender.