Reference The Mountain Press October 8th article by Jeff Farrell, "Man says police caused wife's death; police say man made threats against local officials." Armed police present, with weapons in hand for an eviction got me to thinking.
At one time Americans had their heads full of "revolutionary stuff." They believed they had rights no government could violate. They believed they had the authority to resist government encroachment of their rights. Abraham Lincoln said we are a "government of the people, by the people, for the people." Government exists at the behest of its citizens. It is there to protect, defend, and even enhance our freedoms, not violate them.
Our Constitution begins with "We the people" making the people the guardians of Americas future.
A standing army is an army composed of full time professional soldiers who "stand over", in other words, who do not disband during times of peace. They differ from army reserves that are activated only during such times as war or natural disasters.
In Great Britain, this led to the British Bill of Rights which reserves authority over a standing army to the Parliament, not the King, and in the United States, led to the U.S. Constitution (Article 1, Section 8) which reserves similar authority to Congress not the President.
"When a government wishes to deprive its citizens of freedom, and reduce them to slavery, it generally makes use of a standing army." – Luther Martin, Maryland delegate to the Constitutional Convention.
Our Declaration of Independence includes: "[The King of Great Britain] has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature. He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power... For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states. For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury, for transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses...."
Our Constitution, Article I, Section 10: "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, ... keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace."
While none of the Founding Documents mention the word "police", our Municipal, City, County, and State Police fit this description of a Standing Army. The Founding Fathers are on record for opposing the abuses of Standing Armies: "What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty." Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts (August 17, 1789).
A Standing Army (or police) with Standing Orders define a Police State, Marshall Law, or military rule. This condition was recognized by our Founding Fathers as perhaps the greatest single threat to the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity.
Military Troops, Police Forces, etc. follow the orders of their commanders, and these orders come in 2 varieties: Direct Orders and Standing Orders.
A Standing Order is a "general order" to be obeyed if some condition comes into existence in the future. A standing order is made at some time prior to the event and is non-specific as to the name of the accused.
Police officers today generally have (or "think" they have!) orders to detain, search, and/or arrest those "they feel" violated a law. The Founding Fathers were very much opposed to this kind of discretionary power being placed in the hands of ANY one person (and is evident by the general design of the Federal Government: the distribution of power across 3 branches, the system of "checks and balances", etc).
The Founders intended for there to be a civilian defense force, and for it to be reactive to the needs of the people, for they knew that an autonomous (self-directed) police force or standing army is ultimately unaccountable to the People, and uncontrollable by the People, and thus a thing to be feared. They knew, because they were occupied by a tyrannical force, the English Army. Today, the conditions are similar, however, while it isn't a foreign army that occupies us, the abuses against the people are the same.
The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution reads:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searchers and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
There are 2 elements of the Fourth Amendment that were intended to prevent Standing Orders from being executed against the people:
The first is the "oath or affirmation": a sworn civilian complaint, and the second is that warrants must be specific. Both are intended to remove the discretion of arrest/search/seizure from the arresting officer, and provides the needed "checks and balances".
If the complaint MUST ALWAYS come from a civilian (i.e., not the government; not the arresting authority) this eliminates the invocation of "general" or standing orders (and a big conflict of interest!), and ensures that the Police Force is "reactive", and not self-directed. If ALL arrests/searches/seizures are documented with the specific justifications of the action (the warrant), this also removes the arbitrary discretion from the officer.
The Fourth Amendment requires both specific Warrants and that the complaint be initiated by a civilian, and thus prohibits the police from executing "Standing Orders" against the people. However in modern America, when the police arrest someone, there is rarely a specific warrant, and rarely is there the "oath or affirmation" of a complaining civilian. The lawyers, political pundits, corporate-owned "free press", and even college textbooks will argue why this is "necessarily so", but the simple fact remains:
· Most Police actions in America lack a injured victim (except for perhaps the accused!), thus,
· Most Police actions in America lack Probable Cause, thus
· Most Police actions in America lack a valid Warrant, thus
· Most Police actions in America are Unconstitutional.
Many Americans have come to blindly believe that the government will ensure our safety (or at least provide the illusion of safety). But such gullibility comes at a steep price---the devaluation of our freedoms.
Benjamin Franklin said "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
Know your rights! Know the Constitution!
At one time Americans had their heads full of "revolutionary stuff." They believed they had rights no government could violate. They believed they had the authority to resist government encroachment of their rights. Abraham Lincoln said we are a "government of the people, by the people, for the people." Government exists at the behest of its citizens. It is there to protect , defend, and even enhance our freedoms, not violate them.
Our Constitution begins with "We the people" making the people the guardians of Americas future.
A standing army is an army composed of full time professional soldiers who "stand over", in other words, who do not disband during times of peace. They differ from army reserves that are activated only during such times as war or natural disasters.
In Great Britain, this led to the British Bill of Rights which reserves authority over a standing army to the Parliament, not the King, and in the United States, led to the U.S. Constitution (Article 1, Section 8) which reserves similar authority to Congress not the President.
"When a government wishes to deprive its citizens of freedom, and reduce them to slavery, it generally makes use of a standing army." – Luther Martin, Maryland delegate to the Constitutional Convention.
Our Declaration of Independence includes: "[The King of Great Britain] has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature. He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power... For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states. For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury, for transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses...."
Our Constitution, Article I, Section 10: "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, ... keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace."
While none of the Founding Documents mention the word "police", our Municipal, City, County, and State Police fit this description of a Standing Army. The Founding Fathers are on record for opposing the abuses of Standing Armies: "What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty." Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts (August 17, 1789).
A Standing Army (or police) with Standing Orders define a Police State, Marshall Law, or military rule. This condition was recognized by our Founding Fathers as perhaps the greatest single threat to the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity.
Military Troops, Police Forces, etc. follow the orders of their commanders, and these orders come in 2 varieties: Direct Orders and Standing Orders.
A Standing Order is a "general order" to be obeyed if some condition comes into existence in the future. A standing order is made at some time prior to the event and is non-specific as to the name of the accused.
Police officers today generally have (or "think" they have!) orders to detain, search, and/or arrest those "they feel" violated a law. The Founding Fathers were very much opposed to this kind of discretionary power being placed in the hands of ANY one person (and is evident by the general design of the Federal Government: the distribution of power across 3 branches, the system of "checks and balances", etc).
The Founders intended for there to be a civilian defense force, and for it to be reactive to the needs of the people, for they knew that an autonomous (self-directed) police force or standing army is ultimately unaccountable to the People, and uncontrollable by the People, and thus a thing to be feared. They knew, because they were occupied by a tyrannical force, the English Army. Today, the conditions are similar, however, while it isn't a foreign army that occupies us, the abuses against the people are the same.
The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution reads:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searchers and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
There are 2 elements of the Fourth Amendment that were intended to prevent Standing Orders from being executed against the people:
The first is the "oath or affirmation": a sworn civilian complaint, and the second is that warrants must be specific. Both are intended to remove the discretion of arrest/search/seizure from the arresting officer, and provides the needed "checks and balances".
If the complaint MUST ALWAYS come from a civilian (i.e., not the government; not the arresting authority) this eliminates the invocation of "general" or standing orders (and a big conflict of interest!), and ensures that the Police Force is "reactive", and not self-directed. If ALL arrests/searches/seizures are documented with the specific justifications of the action (the warrant), this also removes the arbitrary discretion from the officer.
The Fourth Amendment requires both specific Warrants and that the complaint be initiated by a civilian, and thus prohibits the police from executing "Standing Orders" against the people. However in modern America, when the police arrest someone, there is rarely a specific warrant, and rarely is there the "oath or affirmation" of a complaining civilian. The lawyers, political pundits, corporate-owned "free press", and even college textbooks will argue why this is "necessarily so", but the simple fact remains:
· Most Police actions in America lack a injured victim (except for perhaps the accused!), thus,
· Most Police actions in America lack Probable Cause, thus
· Most Police actions in America lack a valid Warrant, thus
· Most Police actions in America are Unconstitutional.
Many Americans have come to blindly believe that the government will ensure our safety (or at least provide the illusion of safety). But such gullibility comes at a steep price---the devaluation of our freedoms.
Benjamin Franklin said "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
Know your rights! Know the Constitution!
