But who would guard the guards themselves? --- Juvenal: 1st century Roman poet
One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope
that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation.
--- Thomas B. Reed: 19th century
At one time Americans believed they had rights no government could violate. They believed they had the authority to resist government encroachment of their rights. That government exists at the behest of its citizens and that government is there to protect, defend, and even enhance their freedoms, not violate them.
A standing army is an army composed of full time professional soldiers who "stand over", in other words, do not disband during times of peace. They differ from army reserves that are activated only during such times as war or natural disasters.
While none of the Founding Documents mention the word "police", our Municipal, City, County, and State Police fit this description of a Standing Army.
A Standing Army (or police) with Standing Orders define a Police State, Marshall Law, or military rule.
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 the English Army. Today, conditions are similar. While it isn't a foreign army that occupies us, the abuses against the people are the same.
There are 2 elements of the Fourth Amendment that were intended to prevent Standing Orders from being executed against the people:
1. The first is the "oath or affirmation": a sworn civilian complaint and
2. 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 specific Warrants and that the complaint be initiated by a civilian thus prohibiting the police from executing "Standing Orders" against the people. Today, 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. Requiring government to operate under the Constitution is the only protection the people have.
Benjamin Franklin said "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
Regards,
John Jenkins
865-803-8179 cell
Entropy, It ain't what it used to be.
