The Million Dollar Flash Bang

[rambone]

I don't share the opinion that everything that the government manages to get away with is "constitutional."

 

[XMil]

I don't share the opinion that everything that the government manages to get away with is "constitutional."

Terrorist.

 

[ATOMonkey]

I don't share the opinion that everything that the government manages to get away with is "constitutional."

The constitution says that if a judge says it's constitutional than it is.

Doesn't make it right though.

Constitutional/legal =/ right

Since justices are basically chosen through popular vote via president and senate, "constitutionality" will ebb and flow with popular opinion on such matters.

We are ruled by the mob.

When this fails the new Monarchy will be established, as that is the natural state of man. To be ruled by those willing to take power by force. Man ruling himself, will be a flash in the pan, and regarded as an oddity in history.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

Wrong analysis. I'll walk it through for you.

One of the Constitutional powers granted to Congress is the authority to regulate interstate commerce.

Congress may make drugs illegal under its commerce power.

Under Article 1 Section 8 Congress may make laws to enforce its power to regulate commerce. Those powers can include the creation of a sufficiently armed police force.

The Constitution is silent as to any limitations on the necessary and proper powers.

In any event, the raid was conducted by municipal police, who are not constrained by the Constitution in the same way that federal police would be (even if federal police were restrained, which they are not).

I don't like the use of flash bangs, dynamic entry, and other paramilitary tactics employed and directed toward our citizens. I wish we wouldn't use them. But they aren't unconstitutioal as you suggest.

Wrong analysis.

Using any military (Army or Navy) technology or personnel to enforce the laws of these United States of America is a direct violation of Posse Comitatus. Congress has not authorized any military law enforcement in America no matter how much they've adapted the tactics and weaponry of the military, and if the Congress were to do so, we'd be so far into martial law that it very well would have hit the fan before that point. Just like that sheriff in the Dakotas who used a Predator to track down three supposed bad guys. You can't do that in America. Except that they're doing it. But when any law enforcement invokes military technology or personnel, they are doing so in direct violation of national law. And I assure you, the Founders did not anywhere list in the Constitution of these United States of America anywhere in which the military has police authority. External conflict. Except that now even the 'homeland' is declared part of a worldwide 'battlefield'. We're so far out of the Constitution's depth that the Founders would not even recognize our Republic, and would largely regret having given all to create and preserve it could they see what we have allowed it to deteriorate into: an un-Constitutional wasteland of militaristic power and trampling upon of individual rights, always in the name of preventing crime or securing the 'homeland'. Further and further down the path to our own executions we trot, most of us quite happily and quite blindly.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Wrong analysis.

Using any military (Army or Navy) technology or personnel to enforce the laws of these United States of America is a direct violation of Posse Comitatus. Congress has not authorized any military law enforcement in America no matter how much they've adapted the tactics and weaponry of the military, and if the Congress were to do so, we'd be so far into martial law that it very well would have hit the fan before that point. Just like that sheriff in the Dakotas who used a Predator to track down three supposed bad guys. You can't do that in America. Except that they're doing it. But when any law enforcement invokes military technology or personnel, they are doing so in direct violation of national law. And I assure you, the Founders did not anywhere list in the Constitution of these United States of America anywhere in which the military has police authority. External conflict. Except that now even the 'homeland' is declared part of a worldwide 'battlefield'. We're so far out of the Constitution's depth that the Founders would not even recognize our Republic, and would largely regret having given all to create and preserve it could they see what we have allowed it to deteriorate into: an un-Constitutional wasteland of militaristic power and trampling upon of individual rights, always in the name of preventing crime or securing the 'homeland'. Further and further down the path to our own executions we trot, most of us quite happily and quite blindly.

You might want to read 18 U.S.C. § 1385 along with its case law.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

You might want to read 18 U.S.C. § 1385 along with its case law.

You may, and of course merely a suggestion, wish to read the Constitution to these United States of America. Nowhere does it, the supreme law of the land, allow for such practices. Any legislation passed granting Government any power to do so, is thus illegitimate and un-Constitutional, and thus not legal.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

You may, and of course merely a suggestion, wish to read the Constitution to these United States of America. Nowhere does it, the supreme law of the land, allow for such practices. Any legislation passed granting Government any power to do so, is thus illegitimate and un-Constitutional, and thus not legal.

It allows the Congress to establish an Army and Navy;
It allows the Congress to fund an Amry and Navy;
It allows the Congress to declare war;
It allows Congress to organize, arn and train a Militia;
It allows the Congress to put down rebellions and insurrection using that Militia;
It allows Congress to pass laws necessary and proper to enforce its Constitutional mandates;
It establishes the President as Commander in Chief.

Next?

 

[John Galt]

It allows the Congress to establish an Army and Navy;
It allows the Congress to fund an Amry and Navy;
It allows the Congress to declare war;
It allows Congress to organize, arn and train a Militia;
It allows the Congress to put down rebellions and insurrection using that Militia;
It allows Congress to pass laws necessary and proper to enforce its Constitutional mandates;
It establishes the President as Commander in Chief.

Next?

What if these actions are in conflict with the Bill of Rights? A few years ago, Napolitano declared the Tea Party as "right wing extremists". What if "extremists" get lumped in with "terrorists", all in the name of "protecting us"? In this case, necessary and proper can mean whatever anybody wants it to mean. My question, shouldn't the Bill of Rights take precedence over everything else, especially something as vague as "necessary and proper"?

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

What if these actions are in conflict with the Bill of Rights? A few years ago, Napolitano declared the Tea Party as "right wing extremists". What if "extremists" get lumped in with "terrorists", all in the name of "protecting us"? In this case, necessary and proper can mean whatever anybody wants it to mean. My question, shouldn't the Bill of Rights take precedence over everything else, especially something as vague as "necessary and proper"?

Every provision, every sentence, every word in the Constitution is open to interpretation. Case law provides that interpretation.

The necessary and proper clause grants Congress the authority to pass laws needed to execute its powers under the Constitution.

The Bill of Rights are no more or less important than other any other provision of the Constitution. Where there may be conflict (and in this instance I don't see where there would be), absent prior case law the Courts provide the instructions on how the law is to be applied.

 

[John Galt]

Every provision, every sentence, every word in the Constitution is open to interpretation. Case law provides that interpretation.

The necessary and proper clause grants Congress the authority to pass laws needed to execute its powers under the Constitution.

The Bill of Rights are no more or less important than other any other provision of the Constitution. Where there may be conflict (and in this instance I don't see where there would be), absent prior case law the Courts provide the instructions on how the law is to be applied.

Do elected/appointed people/military personnel take an oath to preserve, protect, uphold and defend the Constitution or abide by case law? What if case law is in conflict with the actual wording of the Constitution (the 2nd and 4th Amendments jump out here). I'm not trying to become difficult, but if allowed, case law can eventually get so far away from the Constitution as to make it meaningless. If allowed. Then, aren't we a nation of Men and not Law?

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Do elected/appointed people/military personnel take an oath to preserve, protect, uphold and defend the Constitution or abide by case law? What if case law is in conflict with the actual wording of the Constitution (the 2nd and 4th Amendments jump out here). I'm not trying to become difficult, but if allowed, case law can eventually get so far away from the Constitution as to make it meaningless. If allowed. Then, aren't we a nation of Men and not Law?

Yes. So do judges and justices. Case law has been used by English courts for hundreds of years to give laws uniform meaning and application. The founders comtemplated and established the judiciary as the umpires. This was, and is today, a unique concept in governance.

If justice errors, there are remedies. Laws can be rewrittten. The Constitution can be changed. I am satisfied with the remedies available, and accept the constitutional checks and balances, as intended. Perfect? No. Beter than anything else? Yes.