Posted on 02/27/2007 8:10:52 PM PST by AZRepublican
His constitutional what?
Here is the question's presented to the court, for which the love of me cannot understand why such lousy and demonstratable false precedent is still adhered to justify hearing such a case:
1. Whether a law enforcement officer's conduct is "objectively reasonable" under the Fourth Amendment when the officer make a split-second decision to terminate a high-speed pursuit by bumping the fleeing suspect's vehicle with his push bumper, because the suspect had demonstrated that he would continue to drive in a reckless and dangerous manner that put the lives of innocent persons at serious risk of death.2. Whether, at the time of the incident, the law was "clearly established" when neither this Court nor any circuit court, including the Eleventh Circuit, had ruled the Fourth Amendment is violated when a law enforcement officer uses deadly force to protect the lives of innocent persons from the risk of dangerous and reckless vehicular flight.
The framer of the Fourth Amendment's first section, John Bingham, was clear and dead serious when he said over and over that those privileges and immunities are only those found under article 4, section 2 as they had always existed, and not the bill of rights. He officially stated in January of 1871 that the privileges and immunities incorporated nothing other than they had before the fourteenth.
The Fifth Amendment’s due process was incorporated, nothing else.
Moreover, the court is attempting to cross a line into the police affairs of local government for which no such right had ever been surrendered to them to cross. Let us consider what the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment felt about the Federal Government disturbing local police powers.
Sen. John Sherman (OH) proposed an amendment (known as the Sherman Amendment) to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment in the year 1871. What Sherman proposed was to punish and bring private conduct within counties and cities of a State, under federal jurisdiction. The same House who adopted the Fourteenth Amendment overwhelmingly rejected it by 140 to 30.
Austin Blair (MI), a strong Fourteenth Amendment defender, and human rights activist, had this to say about the proposal on April 19, 1871:
They [States] create these municipalities; they say what their powers shall be. If the Government of the United States can step in and add to those obligations, may it destroy the municipality? If it can say that it shall be liable for damages occurring from a riot, I ask gentlemen to tell me where its power will stop and what obligations it might not lay upon a municipality.Sen. Frederick T. Frelinghuysen, said: “I submit that the police regulations of towns and counties are exclusively with the towns and counties, and they have in no manner forfeited to the Federal Government to make those police regulations.”
If gentlemen say that the powers of the General and State governments for the protection of life, liberty, and property are concurrent and that we can go everywhere throughout the United States and do by the General Government everything that can be done by any State government, then I grant this power might exist; but until I am shown that, I am unable to see it. As I have said, I have always supposed that there were certain powers and certain rights that belong to the States that the General Government has no right to interfere with. This right of local self-government, as I supposed, it was not the intention of the Constitution of the United States in any case to take away from the States, and I cannot see how it is possible that this power could exist without taking it away.
Sen. Lyman Trumbull, chairman of the Senate Judiciary said: “I am not willing to undertake to enter the States for the purpose of punishing individual offenses against their authority committed by one citizen against the other. We, in my judgment, have no constitutional authority to do that. When this government was formed, the general rights of person and property were left to be protected by the States, and there they are left today.”
Trumbull further added: “I do not know where in the Government of the United States gets the constitutional authority to go into the States and establish police regulations.” Bingham, under limited floor time, quickly questioned how the Federal Government could guarantee to the States a republican form of government while at the same time denying local government the right to govern themselves:
Mr. Speaker, how can States exist, how can you enforce the provisions of the Constitution of the United States as to States, if you will not maintain the corporate organizations of the several States? There can no more be a State under the Constitution and laws of the several States of this Union without the corporate organizations of counties or parishes therein than can be a United States under the Constitution of the United States without organized States; because the counties in the several States are integral parts of the States, just as the States of the Union are integral parts of the nation. If you destroy either you, destroy the whole fabric.George Hoar added: “I do not favor interference in any degree by the national government with the local administration.” Luke Poland (former VT Supreme Court Justice) continues the assault on the notion the Federal Government is empowered to interfere with the local administration of justice:
[I] cannot agree with several gentlemen upon my (Republican) side of the House who insists that if the State authorities fail to punish crime committed in the State therefore the United States may step in and by a law of Congress provide for punishing that offense; I do not agree with those gentlemen.James Garfield joined the chorus attacking the Sherman Amendment:
These systems of local government by counties and cities are adopted by the States as instrumentalities to aid them in the wise and judicious regulation and protection of the local and domestic interests of their citizens. It will never do to say that they may be tampered with, impeded, or arrested in the discharge of their duties, as this bill proposes. It would be fatal to the success and very existence of local self-government. It has many times been solemnly decided by the Supreme Court that these agencies adopted by the States to aid in local administration are above the touch or control of any power, are subject only to the exclusive regulation of the States.John Farnsworth attacked the amendment this way:
The Supreme Court of the United States has decided repeatedly that the Congress can impose no duty on a State officer. We can impose no duty on a sheriff or any other officer of a county or city. We cannot require the sheriff to read the riot act or call out the posse comitatus (sic) or perform any other act or duty. Nor can Congress confer any power or impose any duty upon the county or city. Can we then impose on a county or other State municipality liability where we cannot require a duty? I think not.Jefferson wrote from Monticello on June 12, 1823: "Can it be believed that under the jealousies prevailing against the General Government at the adoption of the Constitution, the States meant to surrender the authority of preserving order, of enforcing moral duties, and restraining vice, within their own territory?"
The court in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Peters, 102, perhaps sums up the principle involved best: “All those powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or which may be properly called internal police, are not surrendered (by the States) or restrained, and consequently in relation to those the authority of a State is complete, unqualified, and exclusive.“
The truth is nothing had been surrendered by the States to the Federal Government over local police matters. Both Congress and the Federal courts have been given no authority to legislate or oversight into the affairs of persons within State jurisdiction except under two very narrow conditions that no law enforcement officer could possibly violate.
The Supreme Court is well aware of these facts, but they continue holding onto their bogus precedent in order to invade a domain they cannot justify invading any other way. To say that today’s federal judiciary is in severe crisis would be an understatement. Let us hope they can find their way back into the light to restore dignity back to the federal judiciary.
Don't worry, because GWB put conservative judges in the SCOTUS...right?
Surely you're not trying to say that the Supreme Court has never before infringed on the police powers of the States?
I don't think you even need to be a Constitutional scholar to show the falacy there.
Well, I guess he wont be running from the cops anymore now will he?
Ping to self for later read.
Bingham framed the Fourteenth Amendment, not the Fourth, and was a crook to boot (a shill for the railroads). His omission of the word "natural" in front of the word "persons" in the citizenship clause, was one of the greatest crimes ever visited upon the Constitution.
>Bingham framed the Fourteenth Amendment, not the Fourth
Typo resulting from FR's spell checker!
next interferance of official duty heading for the Supreme Court; the War Powers Act. The RATs must strip Bush of the ability to fight a war against terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere unless they can micromanage the details of battle to suit their own agendas.
If you haven't read it, you might find this exploration of selective incorporation enlightening.
I agree with you 100% it wasn't properly ratified. Radicals did not divide up the rebel states into military districts for no other reason than to force ratification.
On the other hand, the 14th isn't a bad amendment if the intent is strictly followed, but of course courts cannot be trusted in those regards (although slaughterhouse got it right).
We disagree on the intent. IMO the intent was to raise European cash to pay war debt by agreeing to enforce equal protection for fictitious persons. The article cites some fascinating history in that regard.
I believe the author meant, "The framer of the Fourth Fourteenth Amendment's first section ...".
Gee Louise! Again? This should read,
"There is latterly no Fourth Amendment issue under the federal Constitution because it had been strongly established by the court and the framers of the fourteenth amendment not to apply to anyone other than the Federal Government."
That may indeed be true, but the U.S. Supreme Court has used the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment (not the Privileges and Immunities Clause) to incorporate the Bill of Rights and make them applicable to the states.
"The security of one's privacy against arbitrary intrusion by the police‑‑which is at the core of the Fourth Amendment‑‑is basic to a free society. It is therefore implicit in 'the concept of ordered liberty' and as such enforceable againt the States through the Due Process Clause."
-- Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949)
The 14th amendment was part of a trilogy (13th, 14th, and 15th) and was meant to extend some national privileges and immunities to the newly freed slaves who were not Citizens of any state -- the 14th created a "citizen of the United States".
I suggest you read the linked article.
I did. This conspiracy of yours about the omission of the word "natural" is as insignificant and laughable as those who argue about the placement of commas in the second amendment.
There is so much else wrong with the 14th, you're simply rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic with your "natural" citizen folderol.
International law is the Achilles heel of the Constitution, and was meant to be so for the same reasons we got the 14th. You have only to read Hamilton's bogus defense of the Senate's manner of treaty ratification in Federalist 75 to see it in full view.
But of course (sound of hand slapping forehead)! Machinations! The UN! Those are much worse than 20 million illegals crossing the border to squat and drop the next U.S. Citizen! What was I thinking?
Much worse than having five justices on the U.S. Supreme Court deciding what the first or the fourth amendment really means for the entire country. Telling me that nude dancing must be allowed in my state because it's speech. Telling me that a Nativity Scene at Christmas is not allowed in my state. Telling me that my state must allow sodomy.
Lion and tigers and tax exempt foundations, oh my!
Looks to me all involved in the 14th amendment framing disagree with the supreme court because they were very clear the 14th gave the govt zero police oversight. The language does not oust the state and local construction of their own laws, as Jacob Howard stated in regards to the state of Georgia.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.