OC for ME
Regular Member
Find a reference to cops/sheriffs in the US constitution and we can continue a discussion on your question. There may be a few mentions of a sheriff in some of the several state's constitutions.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
OK, this threat to the 4A is getting dangerous.
- Thread starter eye95
- Start date
Article VI
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
LEO falls under the Judiciary Branch of our gov't, sir
Last edited:
Soooo you read all the fine print of everthing sat tv/telephone/google/edge/ etc., ~ ‘including whatever we deem necessary” clauses/statements?
Uh freedomVA, LE agencies did not exist until early 1900, NYC being the first.
Quote:
The Framers contemplated law enforcement as the duty of mostly private citizens, along with a few constables and sheriffs who could be called upon when necessary.
The modern police-driven model of law enforcement helps sustain a playing field that is fundamentally uneven for different players upon it. Modern police act as an army of assistants for state prosecutors and gather evidence solely with an eye toward the state's interests. Police seal off crime scenes from the purview of defense investigators, act as witnesses of convenience for the state in courts of law, and instigate a substantial amount of criminal activity under the guise of crime fighting. Additionally, police enforce social class norms and act as tools of empowerment for favored interest groups to the disadvantage of others. Police are also a political force that constantly lobbies for increased state power and decreased constitutional liberty for American citizens.
The Constitution contains no explicit provisions for criminal law enforcement. Nor did the constitutions of any of the several states contain such provisions at the time of the Founding. Early constitutions enunciated the intention that law enforcement was a universal duty that each person owed to the community, rather than a power of the government. Founding-era constitutions addressed law enforcement from the standpoint of individual liberties and placed explicit barriers upon the state. Unquote
Roots’ work is quite an interesting read
Not just DNA
Thats bush jr doing
i understand your point,....OC for ME asked police/sheriff.
Before police, it was the sheriff, before the sheriff, it was watchmen/constable, before them it was just man vs man.....but my point is what is currently written in our Constitution?
sheriff are elected and police are appointed by the our elected officials....so we should hold sheriff to a higher standard
Before police, it was the sheriff, before the sheriff, it was watchmen/constable, before them it was just man vs man.....but my point is what is currently written in our Constitution?
sheriff are elected and police are appointed by the our elected officials....so we should hold sheriff to a higher standard
Last edited:
then why are their main posts are in courthouse handling docs and courier service? i know they have the same arrest power
Last edited:
CJ4wd
Regular Member
FreedomVA - your line here: " all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States," I interpret that to be "officers of the Court" such as the bailiff and such that work for the COURT. You seem to be including sheriffs that are either political appointees or, like other politicians, are elected by the people. I don't believe that would be correct.
but don't they all answer to the court, from court to state? don't each one of them take the "Oath" when taking position or office?
Speaking of which, what ever happened to "Internal Affairs"division alot of the dept had?
Last edited:
color of law
Accomplished Advocate
For the most part, one elected offical cannot order another elected official to do anything. In most states the elected sheriff is the second most powerful person in the county. And, a judge is not the most powerful. An ellected sheriff hold enough power to remove a federal, so called, law enforcement employees.
apparently, there has been some good news for the 4th
www.cnn.com
Supreme Court takes on major Fourth Amendment case | CNN Politics
The Supreme Court grappled with a major case involving privacy in the digital age on Wednesday, discussing how to apply established legal rules to rapidly changing technology.
www.cnn.com
apparently, there has been some good news for the 4th
Supreme Court takes on major Fourth Amendment case | CNN Politics
The Supreme Court grappled with a major case involving privacy in the digital age on Wednesday, discussing how to apply established legal rules to rapidly changing technology.
Er, uh, hummm, clearing my throat, FreedomVA did you check the currency of your CNN ‘good’ news:
Updated 3:04 PM ET, Wed November 29, 2017
eye95
Well-known member
SCOTUS has ruled in the case, Carpenter v US. The search required a warrant. The results of the search were thrown out.
www.scotusblog.com
Carpenter v. United States - SCOTUSblog
Independent News and Analysis on the U.S. Supreme Court
www.scotusblog.com
this "No knock" just happened last week in my county.
www.mintpressnews.com
Does The 4th Amendment Apply To Gun Owners?
The U.S. Supreme Court apparently has decided to let Americans choose between their Second and Fourth Amendment rights, leaving untouched a lower court decision that supported the use of a violent SWAT attack on a man’s home because authorities were concerned about the mere presence of a weapon.
www.mintpressnews.com
eye95
Well-known member
IMO, the Court got the ruling Right, but the underlying principle wrong. We routinely entrust our private information with third parties, intending to keep that information private, and not intending to forfeit our 4A protections of this information from arbitrary invasions by the government.
We enjoy “privilege” in sharing information with doctors and lawyers. This protection should be expanded to any professional with whom we share data to help us manage our lives, including cell phone companies who are providing us digital file cabinets, and DNA companies who help us interepret our DNA.
Essentially, the information is ours, not the professionals’. That we are storing it at the professionals’ places of business, and not in our homes, does not lessen our ownership of the information, or our expectation that it will be kept private.
Searching that information should require a warrant, ensuring that the government is not being arbitrary, and not just casting wide nets in the (mostly vain) hope of catching criminals. They must have probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and that, in the limited number of places they have specified that they will look, they will likely find evidence of that crime.
We enjoy “privilege” in sharing information with doctors and lawyers. This protection should be expanded to any professional with whom we share data to help us manage our lives, including cell phone companies who are providing us digital file cabinets, and DNA companies who help us interepret our DNA.
Essentially, the information is ours, not the professionals’. That we are storing it at the professionals’ places of business, and not in our homes, does not lessen our ownership of the information, or our expectation that it will be kept private.
Searching that information should require a warrant, ensuring that the government is not being arbitrary, and not just casting wide nets in the (mostly vain) hope of catching criminals. They must have probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and that, in the limited number of places they have specified that they will look, they will likely find evidence of that crime.
There is no ‘privilege’ citizens have in sharing our personal data w/proessionals, you don’t you share, you don’t get seen/helped as the case may be!
Data kept safe...over the years of hack/leaks eye95, please tell this membership what has judically transpired against the huge entities who have ben hacked and lost citizen’s personal information? The citizen is told...oh go check your credit, or it is your responsibility!
Further, the courts have ruled time and again, the actual physical media, records, computer records, ad nauseam, containing patient/clent information within the profesional’s office infrastructure and purview belongs to the ‘professional’ not the patient/client.
In fact you have to ask permission to get your data from them!
Most HIPPA forms contain caveats that YOUR data may be shared w/o your permission with other ‘professionals’ as THEY SEE FIT w/o your permission.
Judicial warrants for your personal are served on the professionals and the majority of the time they capitulate before the warrant threat is poffered by the nice LE/prosecutor.
Bottom line eye95, tis like my daddy stated, you want a secret kept...don’t tell anybody.
Last edited:
color of law
Accomplished Advocate
Apparently you didn't read post 20 of this thread.SCOTUS has ruled in the case, Carpenter v US. The search required a warrant. The results of the search were thrown out.
Carpenter v. United States - SCOTUSblog
Independent News and Analysis on the U.S. Supreme Court
OK, this threat to the 4A is getting dangerous.
The first time that DNA databases had been used to identify a criminal, they had a suspect in mind, and verified his having left DNA at the scene by looking at the DNA of close relatives in private DNA databases. Now, they have the DNA of the unknown perpetrator and are doing wide sweeps of all...
forum.opencarry.org