Posted on 09/06/2002 5:00:34 AM PDT by Bigun
The Republican Party of Texas Platform has been MUCH in the news of late because it is a CONSERVATIVE document and, as such, VERY controversial. I thought it would be an instructive exercise, for those of us who wish to do so here, to go through it plank by plank and see where we stand on these issues. Pursuant to that, I will post ONE plank of the Platform, every few days and anyone who wishes to can state their views as to that particular part of the platform.
Today, under the sub-heading Preserving American Freedom we find the following plank:
Law Enforcement - According to Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, federal law-enforcement powers have criminal jurisdiction limited to the high seas, federal installations, and counterfeiting operations. The Party believes that most crime is local and that the states, according to the Tenth Amendment, reserve law enforcement authority. Implementing this policy would effectively eliminate the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, which we would applaud. Many citizens have become concerned about the expansion of federal law enforcement authority and the use of military personnel and equipment against its citizens. The rights of American citizens must be respected.
(Excerpt) Read more at browncountytexasrepublicanparty.com ...
Then Sir, what would be your intrepetation of this:
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
May I add a very big
A M E N ! ! to that?
Specifically, you want their powers to pass and enforce laws with criminal penalties to the specific things mentioned in the plank, which would not, by the way, include punishment for terrorist acts against non-Federal targets like the World Trade Center.
So which is it?
I would argue that I have been consistent in my arguments! The federal governments power to prosecute would include ALL those areas which have been SPECIFICALLY given them by the states. Everything else falls to the states but nothing I have said nor is there anything in the Constitution I have seen, which would prevent federal law enforcement officers from cooperating with state officials in the bringing the perps. of such crimes as you mention to justice in whatever state the offence occured! In fact,I think it would be required.
Dunno! I am not up to speed on the case and, in fact, do not know what the SPECIFIC charges against him are. I will TRY and correct that defiency on my part over the weekend and then further respond.
Meanwhile Friday night my wife and I have a long standing date so I won't be on the computer but I WILL return eventually!
LOL! No! Alas tis in College Station.
Up here we DESPERATELY need the rain this system will bring!
Up here we DESPERATELY need the rain this system will bring!
Sad to say, rain will not improve the generally low IQ in that area!
Perhaps not, but there is the possibility that enough of it could drown some of those heretics to the south! ;>)
Based on Count #1 of The Indictment I would say no.
I would also state that there is NOTHING I know of which would prevent his being adequately tried, for the named offences, in the courts of any state of these United States.
Do YOU know of anything which would prevent that? I'm no lawyer as you WELL know.
All I'm trying to do is get you to admit that Congress is authorized to pass criminal laws in furtherance and support of the legitimate constitutional functions granted to the Federal Government, even if they're not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, as outlined in the plank we're discussing.
You've already admitted as much in your responses so far, including this one where you agree that it's proper for Moussaoui to be prosecuted in Federal Court. That's why this plank is wrong from a Constitutional standpoint.
OK! Perhaps I am dense but would you please be kind enough to point out where either I, or this plank, have said otherwise.
I don't think Federal law enforcement powers are limited to those three areas, and now it appears that you don't, either. So, now what?
AH! The nub appears!
Let me be SURE that I understand you here. Your position, as I understand it, is that any federal agent, with law enforcment powers, can go anywhere he wishes and do whatever he wishes, pursuant to enforcing federal law, WITHOUT the consultation or cooperation of properly constituted local and state law enforcement agencies. Is that correct?
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.