NationStates Jolt Archive

This is directed mainly at Americans...

Should there be a Constitution Police that is sworn to protect and defend the Constitution by investigating and prosecuting public officials who violate it? Also, should this force be used by the Supreme Court to enforce its decisions? For example, this could have been used to stop the Trail of Tears.

So?

Poll Ahoy!

Aclu?

Aclu?

They aren't armed.

There was a group called the United States Constitution Rangers, but their website (http://web.archive.org/web/20060522080255/http://www.uscrangers.org/) appears to be defunct.

I smell a bad Saturday morning cartoon show... :D

Not only should there be Constitution police, there should be Bill of Rights police, Congress Police, Senatorial Police, Wal-Mart Police, and Muppet Police. That way, if there's ever any issue, the police force with the biggest guns must obviously be right.

And then I'd get Neesika to police them all. (Since you presented it as a poll option, and it was the most appealing option.)

Not only should there be Constitution police, there should be Bill of Rights police, Congress Police, Senatorial Police, Wal-Mart Police, and Muppet Police. That way, if there's ever any issue, the police force with the biggest guns must obviously be right.

And then I'd get Neesika to police them all. (Since you presented it as a poll option, and it was the most appealing option.)

I'm hoping he/she...I think she...will post...

Ideally, the VOTERS would act as the Constitution Police by voting against politicians who don't know the Constitution from a piece of toilet paper... and, barring that, Congress should impeach any of its members who are that ignorant... unfortunately, with humanity suffering from rampant stupidity on such an epic scale, neither appears to be a realistic possibility.

I'm hoping he/she...I think she...will post...

If you've read the 'are you happy with your breasts' thread, than you would know for a fact. (Yes, a most definite She.)

Any particular reason why you're hoping she will post? Excellent debater? Passionate about Native Issues? Kinky sex-pot? Have a fondness for Canadians? Have an Inter-web crush?

She is good at the constitutional stuff... particularly Canadian constitutional stuff.

If you've read the 'are you happy with your breasts' thread, than you would know for a fact. (Yes, a most definite She.)

Any particular reason why you're hoping she will post? Excellent debater? Passionate about Native Issues? Kinky sex-pot? Have a fondness for Canadians? Have an Inter-web crush?

She is good at the constitutional stuff... particularly Canadian constitutional stuff.

Nah I think she said she went to Cuba awhile ago. And I was thinking about her after reading that Cuba vs. US thread...

Nah I think she said she went to Cuba awhile ago. And I was thinking about her after reading that Cuba vs. US thread...

Ah. Gotcha. I must be projecting.

In all seriousness though, why would the constitution need a special branch of police? The courts use the constitution as guidelines when interpreting law and applying it. They aren't an executive authority. The investigation and prosecution of public officials is something that is in the authority of the current policing system anyway. There's enough fignerpointing and watchdog antics from the media and opposite member's of the political fence as is.

Besides, having a police force that monitors our public officials specifically, while seemingly sound, has too many potentials for misuse and corruption in my mind.

Yeah - it's called the people.

And they are armed - it's called the second amendment.

There was a reason the founders made it clear that the government was not allowed to take weapons away from the people.

Yeah - it's called the people.

And they are armed - it's called the second amendment.

There was a reason the founders made it clear that the government was not allowed to take weapons away from the people.
Exactly.

So, no to a Constitution Police. Besides, we all know something like that will turn into the American KGB or some other form of secret police, and that's a definite no-no.

Yeah see the Americans haven't done shit to get the current stooges out of power.

Just coming from a UK POV.

The only constitution we have to enforce is one which isn't codified. So, basically, the police we have are more or less constitutional police anyway.

Amend it!

This is directed mainly at Americans...

Should there be a Constitution Police that is sworn to protect and defend the Constitution by investigating and prosecuting public officials who violate it? Also, should this force be used by the Supreme Court to enforce its decisions? For example, this could have been used to stop the Trail of Tears.

So?

Poll Ahoy!

So the Supreme Court sends out the Constitution Police and the President sends out the army...........???????

You know that polls don't always need to have ten options, right?
Especially when the question imposed is a simple yes or no (or Myrth)...
I like white text.

The Courts are the Constitution police. Creating a new bureaucracy because the one before it fails to do its duty is poor form.

Last I checked, most armed government employees swear to protect and uphold the constitution.

Also, something can only be ruled constitutional/unconstititonal by the courts, and it is thrown out at that same time.

The stupid idea to have punishments for people who 'violate the constitution' is itself deeply unconstitutional, since it is an ex post facto law.

Ie, an official does something which he is legally able to do, like passes a law.

Then, a court declares that law unconstitutional, then, he is punished for doing something that was legal when he did it.

This ex post facto garbage sets a precedent whereby a court can declare an action illegal after the fact, and the person punished for something which wasnt illegal when he did it.

Very very VERY bad juju.

The Court can't enforce its decisions and is not able to control the armed forces.

The Courts actually don't have any Constitutional authority to overturn laws. By trying to protect the Constitution, they violate it themselves.

The Courts actually don't have any Constitutional authority to overturn laws. By trying to protect the Constitution, they violate it themselves.

Can you back this statement with a quote from the Constitution?

Yes, because America really needs another armed agency, preferably one with a TLA.

:rolleyes:

Can you back this statement with a quote from the Constitution?

From what I remember reading before, your Supreme Court doesn't overturn laws, or strike them from the Statutes at Large, it just indicates that it will find against it as a breach of the constitution in any future case.

Yeah see the Americans haven't done shit to get the current stooges out of power.

That's because they are elected every 4 years and he's gone in 2009 and we'll have another asshole as president.

The Court can't enforce its decisions and is not able to control the armed forces.

Indeed. However, a Constitution police is a very very bad idea.

As a Soldier I am sworn to "Uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of Ohio from all enemies, Foreign and Domestic"



National Guard gets a slightly different Oath of Enlistment ;)

So the Supreme Court sends out the Constitution Police and the President sends out the army...........???????

Army: Surrender!
Constitution Police (Cold, inhuman voice.): No, thank you. We find our surrender unconstitutional.
Army: *Collapses from fear*

Can you back this statement with a quote from the Constitution?

"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States"

Note the use of the word "all".

"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States"

Note the use of the word "all".

The courts do not make laws; they merely interpret them, and decide if a law is unconstitutional or not, and if it is unconstitutional, they strike it out, as per their function as a check on the legislative branch. They never create a new law.

Yeah see the Americans haven't done shit to get the current stooges out of power.

You're so right -- that's why they didn't vote a buttload of Republicans out of the Congress and replace them with their Democratic opponents, giving control of the House and Senate by a slim margin to the Dems....

Oh, wait....

The courts do not make laws; they merely interpret them, and decide if a law is unconstitutional or not, and if it is unconstitutional, they strike it out,

...which is a legislative power, not a judicial one.

as per their function as a check on the legislative branch.

The judiciary isn't supposed to be a check on the legislature, assclown. That's one thing that the history books frequently get wrong.

They never create a new law.

Except for when they do, like when they created the "trimester" system in Roe v. Wade.

You're so right -- that's why they didn't vote a buttload of Republicans out of the Congress and replace them with their Democratic opponents, giving control of the House and Senate by a slim margin to the Dems....

Democrats are among the stooges.

Theoretically, the Supreme Court is is the "Constitution Police." It's their job to measure legislation against the Constitution (not the other way around as so many would have it) and throw out laws that do not meet Constitutional criteria. This happens when cases go through the appeals system and, ultimately, appear before this court. Sometimes they screw up (as witness the whole eminent domain fiasco).

the executive branch would be police...they enforce it. the judicial branch would be the CSI investigators. and congress would be the room in the back where they make up stuff that imaginary criminals did because there are no criminals, only free spirits trying not to bend under laws.

Theoretically, the Supreme Court is is the "Constitution Police." It's their job to measure legislation against the Constitution (not the other way around as so many would have it) and throw out laws that do not meet Constitutional criteria.

No, the job of the Supreme Court is to determine whether a law has been broken or not, regardless of its constitutionality. Read the Constitution sometime.

...which is a legislative power, not a judicial one.

Since when is it the Legislative power to see if a law is COnstitutional or not? I want to see that one in the US Constition.

The judiciary isn't supposed to be a check on the legislature, assclown. That's one thing that the history books frequently get wrong.

BULLSHIT!! Go back to government. You have no clue as to what you are talking about.

Except for when they do, like when they created the "trimester" system in Roe v. Wade.

Please prove that was a new law? *vomits*

Democrats are among the stooges.

:rolleyes:

No, the job of the Supreme Court is to determine whether a law has been broken or not, regardless of its constitutionality. Read the Constitution sometime.

Maybe you should go back and read up on the Constitution:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

You have been served.

Since when is it the Legislative power to see if a law is COnstitutional or not? I want to see that one in the US Constition.

The first Amendment says "Congress shall pass no law...", not "If Congress passes a law, the Supreme Court can overturn it"

BULLSHIT!! Go back to government. You have no clue as to what you are talking about.

Feel free to show me the part of the Constitution which permits the Judiciary to repeal laws.

Please prove that was a new law? *vomits*

Prior to RvW, there was no Federally mandated system of trimesters. After RvW, there was one. I call that a new law.

Maybe you should go back and read up on the Constitution:

You have been served.

I do not see the word "repeal" in there.

This is directed mainly at Americans...

Should there be a Constitution Police that is sworn to protect and defend the Constitution by investigating and prosecuting public officials who violate it? Also, should this force be used by the Supreme Court to enforce its decisions? For example, this could have been used to stop the Trail of Tears.

So?

Poll Ahoy!

There is already a HUGE force sworn to protect the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic ... the armed forces of the United States.

There is already a HUGE force sworn to protect the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic ... the armed forces of the United States.

Then we shall unleash the Army upon Congress!

The first Amendment says "Congress shall pass no law...", not "If Congress passes a law, the Supreme Court can overturn it"

Read the rest of the 1st Amendment sonny. IT talks about Freedom of religion, Press, right to assemble.

Feel free to show me the part of the Constitution which permits the Judiciary to repeal laws.

I just did. Its called Article III of the US Constitution.

Prior to RvW, there was no Federally mandated system of trimesters. After RvW, there was one. I call that a new law.

Prove that they did G-Max. Prove your assertion (I can't believe I'm saying this about R v W). How is it a new law when they are upholding previous PRIVACY LAW rulings.

I do not see the word "repeal" in there.

GAH! You really do not know anything about government do you? It is called Judicial Review. If you read up in the Federalist Papers, you can see from them that they support the concept of Judicial Review. It is implied in the Constitution that the Supreme Court has the power of Judicial Review.

Then we shall unleash the Army upon Congress!

Some people would call that a coup.

The courts do not make laws; they merely interpret them, and decide if a law is unconstitutional or not, and if it is unconstitutional, they strike it out, as per their function as a check on the legislative branch. They never create a new law.

And all enforcement of said laws falls upon the Executive Branch of the Government, that is why it is there.

You're so right -- that's why they didn't vote a buttload of Republicans out of the Congress and replace them with their Democratic opponents, giving control of the House and Senate by a slim margin to the Dems....

Oh, wait....

What of the 60% that didn't vote?

What of the 60% that didn't vote?

Those 60% obviously didn't do anything. But the majority of voters did. I think that was kind of the point. Americans did do something about it.

This is directed mainly at Americans...

Should there be a Constitution Police that is sworn to protect and defend the Constitution by investigating and prosecuting public officials who violate it? Also, should this force be used by the Supreme Court to enforce its decisions? For example, this could have been used to stop the Trail of Tears.

So?

Poll Ahoy!

Yeah. So people will recognize the constitution for what it is: the supreme law of the land.