Activist police

[Cletus]

Your first scenario is downright silly. If such a law were ever passed the populous would rise up immediately in protest in all likelihood. Under what conditions would such a law ever see the light of day? I don't bother with "lifeboat" issues. This is just foolishness.

As for the second, it is not up to the police department to interpret the laws, its the role of the police department to enforce the laws as given to them. If the ruling authority says to arrest gun owners the police can and will arrest gun owners, much like they did in New Orleans after Katrina. Is it right? No, but it is the law and deciding unilaterally to disobey the law only leads to a breakdown in society.

I would hate to live in your world, one with no standards or absolutes, just do whatever pleases you.

You would construct a very dangerous world.

Better than living without principle, believing only in what the powers that be want me to believe in, lining up to do whatever they say without protest, just because they said to do it.

This country was founded on certain principles. One of those was that the Constitution protects certain rights of the People and no state, no municipality, not even the federal government may limit or take away those rights. Any law enforcement officer or public official who does so is a disgrace and should be hanged from the nearest lamp post. Any citizen who just sits idly by and goes along just to get along doesn't deserve the freedoms our forefathers fought to protect, not just for themselves, but for future generations.

So, go ahead and line up and take whatever the state sees fit to dole out to you. Nod your head and bow to your masters if that is how you want to live.

Regarding your statement about no absolutes... YOU are the one willing to pretend there are no absolutes, not me. The protections contained in the Constitution are absolute. You are willing to compromise on them for sake of a false sense of safety and security. Keep telling yourself that it is okay for the state or your town or the federal government to strip you of those rights.

what happened in New Orleans was a black mark on our country and everyone who participated in stripping fellow citizens of their constitutional rights should be ashamed. It was a great example of a government out of control. It was exactly what the Founders of this nation fought against.

A law can be made to give the government the power to do anything. Our constitution was intended to prevent that. History has shown us repeatedly what happens when the People say "It's wrong, but it is the law, therefore we must accept it".

The question I have asked over and over and you and Obvious have made a point of dancing around is what do you do when a law conflicts with another law. If the Constitution is in fact the Supreme Law of the Land, do you just sit back and pretend it isn't being violated? If you have taken an oath to uphold the law, do you do what is right or do you just do what is easy?

I commend the Chief. I commend the hundreds of Sheriffs around the country who have pledged to do the same thing. You can either step up or bow down. The choice is yours.

[Helena]

Can we get an applause button?

[The Xl]

Politicians have no right to pass laws that openly violate the constitution. Civilians don't have to go any length of time being blatantly deprived of their constitutional rights. It's that simple.

[Dr. Who]

So this discussion came up in another thread, a police chief in some snowflake liberal town in CA is refusing to enforce a gun law they passed. He says it's unconstitutional. So naturally all of the armchair constitutionalist wingnuts are dancing around with pom poms.

The cop "swore to uphold and defend the constitution" was what was quoted.

So here's the question for yinz to discuss - is it the polices job to interpret the constitutionality of the law and in activist fashion decide which ones to uphold or not to, or is it the job of the court system to determine the constitutionality of a law and over-rule it through due process?

So cops are qualified to make this determination? They attended law school, oversaw legal cases and know how this works? Or is simply their political opinion good enough? Everyone is ok with cops making these determinations unilaterally? Forego due process, these things can be decided informally at the police level?

Keep in mind that all laws apply also, not just gun laws and I wonder how these cheerleaders would react if a liberal slanted police chief decided an anti-immigration law was unconstitutional and decided not to enforce it giving illegal immigrants opportunities, how would these cheerleaders react?

Or any other law for that matter. It's a pretty powerful position to be in as a police chief then where they can be judge and jury on virtually any legal issue and that supporting unilateralism like this is really the intent of the Constitution and the court system?

For the record my position is that police forces are obligated to enforce the law and until that law is ruled unconstitutional or otherwise overturned they must enforce it. It's not their job to decide which ones are constitutional or not, it's their job to uphold the law if that law was legally executed and it's the job of the court system to challenge and over-turn it in due process.

And I'm a staunch gun guy, I think the law is bull$#@! but I also recognize the dangers and slippery slope of police forces deciding what to enforce and what not to. I also want to see the law overturned through due process and I expect it should be but until then it's the law. If police refuse to enforce laws then they should be doing something else. Baking wedding cakes for gay couples maybe.

Vote, discuss

Poll is public

I voted no, but with the proviso that if in some bizarre, dystopic scenario where a mayor or governor decided to impose laws that were patently oppressive or inimical to the concept of freedom or in flagrant disregard to posited law, that law enforcement would refuse to be a party to said crime.