Police becoming a military force? ABA Journal Article - Page 3

dakota.potts · July 17, 2013, 12:01 AM

Let me see if I get my logical terms straight. Others here will be able to decipher it haha

Simply because an amendment was added to restrict the sale of alcohol does not necessarily mean a law to the same effect is unconstitutional because no amendment was added.

Does it?

**tyme** · July 17, 2013, 07:39 AM

Everyone recognized that an amendment was necessary to ban a substance, presenting no immediate danger to anyone other than the consumer, from being produced or sold.

The government has decided that it can ban other substances, with no immediate danger to anyone other than the consumer, without a constitutional amendment. And more, they ban possession as well, not just production and sale. Can you explain why this is constitutional? The general welfare clause? If the general welfare clause allows this, it would seem to allow anything the government thinks might help people. Not to mention that this arrangement is one of the main factors that has turned the federal government into a general law enforcement apparatus, when it's supposed to deal only with crimes that are genuinely interstate or which affect the operation of the Republic.

The no immediate danger clause is because, arguably, the government does have an interest in banning area-effect weapons (arguably... there's a case that such weapons might be needed to fight a tyrannical government), or anything that can cause injury or death to someone inadvertently stumbling across a cache of the stuff. That doesn't really apply to most drugs that you have to ingest in a noticeable quantity or snort or inject to be affected. Anything like that would not be a good drug.

csmsss · July 17, 2013, 07:48 AM

tyme, no one seriously argues the general welfare clause as the foundation of constitutional authorization - especially when the commerce clause has been expanded so exponentially. Basically, per Wickard v. Filburn, even non-economic activities are covered under this provision - essentially, any good, product or service that one day MIGHT have any sort of effect (the word substantial is used, but that is so mealy-mouthed as to be meaningless) upon interstate commerce is considered regulatable (if that's a word) by Congress.

Essentially, if the feebs take an interest in an activity, that's enough for commerce clause enablement to allow Congress to regulate/restrict/prohibit it, absent protection under other constitutional provisions.

**tyme** · July 17, 2013, 08:20 AM

I don't disagree that that's the modern court interpretation of the commerce clause.

Why do we even have local and state law enforcement if the feds want to pass laws for things that, in another time, would have been local and state matters?

Federal law enforcement is just another flavor of law enforcement. The DEA, BATFE, FBI, and other federal law enforcement agencies are routinely involved in crimes that are primarily local. Why not? Everything has some kind of link to some other state. Someone bought a car they used to transport items used in the crime. Maybe the instruments of criminality themselves came from another state. The suspected perpetrators may have been born in another state. They breathe air that came from another state. Certainly any sort of crime in one state affects willingness of people to move to that state. It affects the quality of people's lives, and the quality of education. When people routinely move between states, everything affects everything else. There are plenty of excuses to federalize things.

The feds have more resources! By involving feds, we can be sure that major crimes are handled correctly regardless of whether they occur in New York City or San Francisco or Podunk, Alaska. Only feds are good enough not to screw up investigations, or to catch that critical piece of evidence, or to avoid being discriminatory...

Once you honestly admit to federalizing law enforcement, unifying and federalizing all legislation and courts is next. Merge all the state governments and we can have a party! We'll save so much money by avoiding duplicate administration of sets of laws, too!

Constitution? What's that? It's a living document! It needs to evolve! Maybe next it can grow a third eye and a tail!

csmsss · July 17, 2013, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Why do we even have local and state law enforcement if the feds want to pass laws for things that, in another time, would have been local and state matters?

Federal law enforcement is just another flavor of law enforcement. The DEA, BATFE, FBI, and other federal law enforcement agencies are routinely involved in crimes that are primarily local. Why not? Everything has some kind of link to some other state. Someone bought a car they used to transport items used in the crime. Maybe the instruments of criminality themselves came from another state. The suspected perpetrators may have been born in another state. They breathe air that came from another state. Certainly any sort of crime in one state affects willingness of people to move to that state. It affects the quality of people's lives, and the quality of education. When people routinely move between states, everything affects everything else. There are plenty of excuses to federalize things.

The feds have more resources! By involving feds, we can be sure that major crimes are handled correctly regardless of whether they occur in New York City or San Francisco or Podunk, Alaska. Only feds are good enough not to screw up investigations, or to catch that critical piece of evidence, or to avoid being discriminatory...

Once you honestly admit to federalizing law enforcement, unifying and federalizing all legislation and courts is next. Merge all the state governments and we can have a party! We'll save so much money by avoiding duplicate administration of sets of laws, too!

Constitution? What's that? It's a living document! It needs to evolve! Maybe next it can grow a third eye and a tail!

Philosophically, you and I are in lockstep. Unfortunately, the genie is out of the bottle. By what mechanism can it be put back in? Our citizenry is dumb, getting dumber, anesthetized by free money and a false notion of security.

Dan F · July 17, 2013, 12:21 PM

This article analyzes the harmful legal effects of the WoD.

While I think the author's awkward metaphor of "addiction to drug-laws" he used to segue into his subject was over-the-top, I think he was spot-on about those laws being highly corrosive to our legal system, from weakening the bedrock of respect for fundamental rights, to militarization of law enforcement, to the growth of institutional corruption, i.e. asset forfeiture, or "The Law Discovers the Profit Motive".

I don't know if this is old hat to any others here, but for me it helped bring into sharp relief exactly why drug laws are different.

I will add my shrug to everyone else's about exactly what would be best to do about it, but I do feel that all of the human destruction caused by drug-use has not been prevented, or even meaningfully diminished, by policies that are having catastophic "collateral damage" on our fundamental rights and our economy (how many trillions of dollars have been smoked in this war-pipe, that might have gone to enforcement of other important laws, or anything else, for that matter - national defense, infrastructure, technology, etc?). Not to mention the carnage caused by the criminal class created by the prohibition, with which you'd have thought we should have already been familiar as a society.

What's the phrase... "Insanity is continuing to do the same thing, while expecting different results?"

July 17, 2013, 07:39 AM	#52
tyme Staff Join Date: October 13, 2001 Posts: 3,355	Everyone recognized that an amendment was necessary to ban a substance, presenting no immediate danger to anyone other than the consumer, from being produced or sold. The government has decided that it can ban other substances, with no immediate danger to anyone other than the consumer, without a constitutional amendment. And more, they ban possession as well, not just production and sale. Can you explain why this is constitutional? The general welfare clause? If the general welfare clause allows this, it would seem to allow anything the government thinks might help people. Not to mention that this arrangement is one of the main factors that has turned the federal government into a general law enforcement apparatus, when it's supposed to deal only with crimes that are genuinely interstate or which affect the operation of the Republic. The no immediate danger clause is because, arguably, the government does have an interest in banning area-effect weapons (arguably... there's a case that such weapons might be needed to fight a tyrannical government), or anything that can cause injury or death to someone inadvertently stumbling across a cache of the stuff. That doesn't really apply to most drugs that you have to ingest in a noticeable quantity or snort or inject to be affected. Anything like that would not be a good drug. __________________ “The egg hatched...” “...the egg hatched... and a hundred baby spiders came out...” (blade runner) “Who are you?” “A friend. I'm here to prevent you from making a mistake.” “You have no idea what I'm doing here, friend.” “In specific terms, no, but I swore an oath to protect the world...” (continuum) “It's a goal you won't understand until later. Your job is to make sure he doesn't achieve the goal.” (bsg)

July 17, 2013, 08:20 AM	#54
tyme Staff Join Date: October 13, 2001 Posts: 3,355	I don't disagree that that's the modern court interpretation of the commerce clause. Why do we even have local and state law enforcement if the feds want to pass laws for things that, in another time, would have been local and state matters? Federal law enforcement is just another flavor of law enforcement. The DEA, BATFE, FBI, and other federal law enforcement agencies are routinely involved in crimes that are primarily local. Why not? Everything has some kind of link to some other state. Someone bought a car they used to transport items used in the crime. Maybe the instruments of criminality themselves came from another state. The suspected perpetrators may have been born in another state. They breathe air that came from another state. Certainly any sort of crime in one state affects willingness of people to move to that state. It affects the quality of people's lives, and the quality of education. When people routinely move between states, everything affects everything else. There are plenty of excuses to federalize things. The feds have more resources! By involving feds, we can be sure that major crimes are handled correctly regardless of whether they occur in New York City or San Francisco or Podunk, Alaska. Only feds are good enough not to screw up investigations, or to catch that critical piece of evidence, or to avoid being discriminatory... Once you honestly admit to federalizing law enforcement, unifying and federalizing all legislation and courts is next. Merge all the state governments and we can have a party! We'll save so much money by avoiding duplicate administration of sets of laws, too! Constitution? What's that? It's a living document! It needs to evolve! Maybe next it can grow a third eye and a tail! __________________ “The egg hatched...” “...the egg hatched... and a hundred baby spiders came out...” (blade runner) “Who are you?” “A friend. I'm here to prevent you from making a mistake.” “You have no idea what I'm doing here, friend.” “In specific terms, no, but I swore an oath to protect the world...” (continuum) “It's a goal you won't understand until later. Your job is to make sure he doesn't achieve the goal.” (bsg)

July 17, 2013, 12:01 AM	#51
dakota.potts Senior Member Join Date: February 25, 2013 Location: Keystone Heights, Florida Posts: 3,084	Let me see if I get my logical terms straight. Others here will be able to decipher it haha Simply because an amendment was added to restrict the sale of alcohol does not necessarily mean a law to the same effect is unconstitutional because no amendment was added. Does it?

July 17, 2013, 07:48 AM	#53
csmsss Senior Member Join Date: October 24, 2008 Location: Orange, TX Posts: 3,078	tyme, no one seriously argues the general welfare clause as the foundation of constitutional authorization - especially when the commerce clause has been expanded so exponentially. Basically, per Wickard v. Filburn, even non-economic activities are covered under this provision - essentially, any good, product or service that one day MIGHT have any sort of effect (the word substantial is used, but that is so mealy-mouthed as to be meaningless) upon interstate commerce is considered regulatable (if that's a word) by Congress. Essentially, if the feebs take an interest in an activity, that's enough for commerce clause enablement to allow Congress to regulate/restrict/prohibit it, absent protection under other constitutional provisions.

July 17, 2013, 12:21 PM	#56
Dan F Member Join Date: July 13, 2011 Location: MD gah Posts: 57	This article analyzes the harmful legal effects of the WoD. While I think the author's awkward metaphor of "addiction to drug-laws" he used to segue into his subject was over-the-top, I think he was spot-on about those laws being highly corrosive to our legal system, from weakening the bedrock of respect for fundamental rights, to militarization of law enforcement, to the growth of institutional corruption, i.e. asset forfeiture, or "The Law Discovers the Profit Motive". I don't know if this is old hat to any others here, but for me it helped bring into sharp relief exactly why drug laws are different. I will add my shrug to everyone else's about exactly what would be best to do about it, but I do feel that all of the human destruction caused by drug-use has not been prevented, or even meaningfully diminished, by policies that are having catastophic "collateral damage" on our fundamental rights and our economy (how many trillions of dollars have been smoked in this war-pipe, that might have gone to enforcement of other important laws, or anything else, for that matter - national defense, infrastructure, technology, etc?). Not to mention the carnage caused by the criminal class created by the prohibition, with which you'd have thought we should have already been familiar as a society. What's the phrase... "Insanity is continuing to do the same thing, while expecting different results?"