CDZ Cops, would you sign this statement?

[prison/con.net]

"I, ---------, sworn officer of --------- agency/dept, do hereby swear that I will NEVER enforce any unconstitutional law"


Of course you won't. you DO enforce such laws every DAY, and you'd be fired for signing such a statement, and we all know it, too.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

I think a cop is between a rock and a hard place when it comes to enforcing laws that are questionable as far as the Constitution is concerned.

 

[Darkwind]

"I, ---------, sworn officer of --------- agency/dept, do hereby swear that I will NEVER enforce any unconstitutional law"


Of course you won't. you DO enforce such laws every DAY, and you'd be fired for signing such a statement, and we all know it, too.

Which laws that have been declared unconstitutional, are cops enforcing right now?

Disagreeing with a law does not make it unconstitutional. Keep that in mind.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[Which laws that have been declared unconstitutional, are cops enforcing right now?

Disagreeing with a law does not make it unconstitutional. Keep that in mind.

Asset forfeiture

{
Article [V.]
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.}
.
Armed robbery is not due process of law. Seizure violates the constitution, and cops engage in it all the time. In reality it is simply armed robbery by the police - who are little more than another violent criminal gang running the streets.

 

[Darkwind]

[Which laws that have been declared unconstitutional, are cops enforcing right now?

Disagreeing with a law does not make it unconstitutional. Keep that in mind.

Asset forfeiture

{
Article [V.]
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.}
.
Armed robbery is not due process of law. Seizure violates the constitution, and cops engage in it all the time. In reality it is simply armed robbery by the police - who are little more than another violent criminal gang running the streets.

This law has been declared unconstitutional? When did that happen?

 

[Uncensored2008]

[Which laws that have been declared unconstitutional, are cops enforcing right now?

Disagreeing with a law does not make it unconstitutional. Keep that in mind.

Asset forfeiture

{
Article [V.]
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.}
.
Armed robbery is not due process of law. Seizure violates the constitution, and cops engage in it all the time. In reality it is simply armed robbery by the police - who are little more than another violent criminal gang running the streets.

This law has been declared unconstitutional? When did that happen?

I provided you the pertinent amendment.

You realize this is not a dictatorship of the judiciary where rights only exist if granted by judge-kings, right?

 

[Pogo]

Cops are not the arbiters of what is Constitutional. Any question of Constitutionality, that's what the court system is for.

Cops' job is to simply enforce what's on the books. Some of 'em have a hard enough time just limiting themselves to that; let's not go crazy.

 

[Darkwind]

[Which laws that have been declared unconstitutional, are cops enforcing right now?

Disagreeing with a law does not make it unconstitutional. Keep that in mind.

Asset forfeiture

{
Article [V.]
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.}
.
Armed robbery is not due process of law. Seizure violates the constitution, and cops engage in it all the time. In reality it is simply armed robbery by the police - who are little more than another violent criminal gang running the streets.

This law has been declared unconstitutional? When did that happen?

I provided you the pertinent amendment.

You realize this is not a dictatorship of the judiciary where rights only exist if granted by judge-kings, right?

Of course. However, cops are required to enforce all laws. Until such time as the Courts deem this unconstitutional, it is a legal law to be enforced.

Just because YOU don't like it does not make it unconstitutional.

 

[bodecea]

"I, ---------, sworn officer of --------- agency/dept, do hereby swear that I will NEVER enforce any unconstitutional law"


Of course you won't. you DO enforce such laws every DAY, and you'd be fired for signing such a statement, and we all know it, too.

Which laws that have been declared unconstitutional, are cops enforcing right now?

Disagreeing with a law does not make it unconstitutional. Keep that in mind.

You beat me too it. All laws are valid until they are declared unConstitutional. Some, that happens to very quickly...but until then, they are valid laws.

 

[bodecea]

[Which laws that have been declared unconstitutional, are cops enforcing right now?

Disagreeing with a law does not make it unconstitutional. Keep that in mind.

Asset forfeiture

{
Article [V.]
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.}
.
Armed robbery is not due process of law. Seizure violates the constitution, and cops engage in it all the time. In reality it is simply armed robbery by the police - who are little more than another violent criminal gang running the streets.

This law has been declared unconstitutional? When did that happen?

I provided you the pertinent amendment.

You realize this is not a dictatorship of the judiciary where rights only exist if granted by judge-kings, right?

Who determines the Constitutionality of our laws...................according to the Constitution? You can do this....it's not a hard question.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

"I, ---------, sworn officer of --------- agency/dept, do hereby swear that I will NEVER enforce any unconstitutional law"


Of course you won't. you DO enforce such laws every DAY, and you'd be fired for signing such a statement, and we all know it, too.

I was an MP in the Army, one of the soldiers under my command at one of my posts was gay and it became known. I didn't convene a court martial, or report him.

Cops ignore stupid laws when it is is the right thing to do.

 

[dblack]

[Which laws that have been declared unconstitutional, are cops enforcing right now?

Disagreeing with a law does not make it unconstitutional. Keep that in mind.

Asset forfeiture

{
Article [V.]
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.}
.
Armed robbery is not due process of law. Seizure violates the constitution, and cops engage in it all the time. In reality it is simply armed robbery by the police - who are little more than another violent criminal gang running the streets.

This law has been declared unconstitutional? When did that happen?

It sounds like you're of the opinion that "constitutionally" is a matter of declaration. Is it possible, in your view, for a law to be unconstitutional before it is declared to be so by the Court?

 

[dblack]

[Which laws that have been declared unconstitutional, are cops enforcing right now?

Disagreeing with a law does not make it unconstitutional. Keep that in mind.

Asset forfeiture

{
Article [V.]
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.}
.
Armed robbery is not due process of law. Seizure violates the constitution, and cops engage in it all the time. In reality it is simply armed robbery by the police - who are little more than another violent criminal gang running the streets.

This law has been declared unconstitutional? When did that happen?

I provided you the pertinent amendment.

You realize this is not a dictatorship of the judiciary where rights only exist if granted by judge-kings, right?

Of course. However, cops are required to enforce all laws. Until such time as the Courts deem this unconstitutional, it is a legal law to be enforced.

Just because YOU don't like it does not make it unconstitutional.

Isn't that sort of like saying that until someone is arrested and convicted, their actions should always be considered legal?

 

[Darkwind]

[Which laws that have been declared unconstitutional, are cops enforcing right now?

Disagreeing with a law does not make it unconstitutional. Keep that in mind.

Asset forfeiture

{
Article [V.]
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.}
.
Armed robbery is not due process of law. Seizure violates the constitution, and cops engage in it all the time. In reality it is simply armed robbery by the police - who are little more than another violent criminal gang running the streets.

This law has been declared unconstitutional? When did that happen?

It sounds like you're of the opinion that "constitutionally" is a matter of declaration. Is it possible, in your view, for a law to be unconstitutional before it is declared to be so by the Court?

It is possible that the law is unconstitutional. However, under our system of governance, the law must be challenged and adjudicated as such before it becomes unenforceable.

We have to remember the context of this thread and the argument. It pertains to COPS and their duty to enforce all duly passed laws.

This is not an exercise in civil disobedience or a classroom of theory.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Cops are not the arbiters of what is Constitutional. Any question of Constitutionality, that's what the court system is for.

Cops' job is to simply enforce what's on the books. Some of 'em have a hard enough time just limiting themselves to that; let's not go crazy.

One of the wonderful things about this nation is that our Constitution was written in plain English, so that laymen and possibly even the smarter democrats could understand it.

Article [V.]
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

No one with an education beyond second grade is unable to grasp what this means.

While American yearn for dictatorship, for judge-kings to assign them "rights," the Constitution simply is. When there is a dispute of law, whether a legislative act violates precepts of the Constitution, then courts use the usurped power of Marbury to determine the Constitutionality of the law in question. But no one need wait for the lords and ladies in black robes to grant them leave to speak in public, or hold a sign in protest. If the police come and crack your head for speaking against Obama, no judge-king need state that the act violates the 1st Amendment. A free and once rational people have the actual document which lists in plain language what the law of the land is.

 

[Darkwind]

[Which laws that have been declared unconstitutional, are cops enforcing right now?

Disagreeing with a law does not make it unconstitutional. Keep that in mind.

Asset forfeiture

{
Article [V.]
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.}
.
Armed robbery is not due process of law. Seizure violates the constitution, and cops engage in it all the time. In reality it is simply armed robbery by the police - who are little more than another violent criminal gang running the streets.

This law has been declared unconstitutional? When did that happen?

I provided you the pertinent amendment.

You realize this is not a dictatorship of the judiciary where rights only exist if granted by judge-kings, right?

Of course. However, cops are required to enforce all laws. Until such time as the Courts deem this unconstitutional, it is a legal law to be enforced.

Just because YOU don't like it does not make it unconstitutional.

Isn't that sort of like saying that until someone is arrested and convicted, their actions should always be considered legal?

Their actions ARE considered innocent until they are convicted.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Of course. However, cops are required to enforce all laws. Until such time as the Courts deem this unconstitutional, it is a legal law to be enforced.

Just because YOU don't like it does not make it unconstitutional.

So cops take an oath to faithfully serve and uphold the judge-kings? There word alone is law?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"I, ---------, sworn officer of --------- agency/dept, do hereby swear that I will NEVER enforce any unconstitutional law"


Of course you won't. you DO enforce such laws every DAY, and you'd be fired for signing such a statement, and we all know it, too.

You wouldn't sign it because it's idiocy – only the courts may determine what is or is not Constitutional.

Indeed, until determined un-Constitutional by the courts, all laws are presumed to be Constitutional. (US v. Morrison)

 

[dblack]

Asset forfeiture

{
Article [V.]
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.}
.
Armed robbery is not due process of law. Seizure violates the constitution, and cops engage in it all the time. In reality it is simply armed robbery by the police - who are little more than another violent criminal gang running the streets.

This law has been declared unconstitutional? When did that happen?

I provided you the pertinent amendment.

You realize this is not a dictatorship of the judiciary where rights only exist if granted by judge-kings, right?

Of course. However, cops are required to enforce all laws. Until such time as the Courts deem this unconstitutional, it is a legal law to be enforced.

Just because YOU don't like it does not make it unconstitutional.

Isn't that sort of like saying that until someone is arrested and convicted, their actions should always be considered legal?

Their actions ARE considered innocent until they are convicted.

Sure, by the government. And I'm not necessarily saying it should be any different for cops re the Constitution. But it's perfectly valid to cite a law as unconstitutional without, or even in disagreement with, a Court ruling.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

[Which laws that have been declared unconstitutional, are cops enforcing right now?

Disagreeing with a law does not make it unconstitutional. Keep that in mind.

Asset forfeiture

{
Article [V.]
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.}
.
Armed robbery is not due process of law. Seizure violates the constitution, and cops engage in it all the time. In reality it is simply armed robbery by the police - who are little more than another violent criminal gang running the streets.

This law has been declared unconstitutional? When did that happen?

I provided you the pertinent amendment.

You realize this is not a dictatorship of the judiciary where rights only exist if granted by judge-kings, right?

You've only demonstrated your ignorance of the law.