[Cosmoline]

Within the lifetime of my grandparents, federal law enforcement has grown from a handful of marshalls patrolling some territories to an enormous set of agencies with overlapping jurisdictions and virtually unlimited power. In addition to the FBI, each agency has its own set of cops. Even National Forest Service rangers are dressing up like Army Rangers to fight the war on drugs. I think the time has come to question whether we actually need any of these groups.

The first step to eliminating them would be to eliminate the "war on drugs," or at least de-federalize it. This would take away the reason for being of most of the federal LEO's.

The next step would be to de-federalize regulation of legal drugs and firearms. This would get rid of another chunk.

Finally, the remaining officers could be grouped into the FBI, which was the original purpose of the agency. Any necessary enforcement could be done through a few agents working with the help of local LEO's.

Border patrols could be replaced with a large wall along the Mexican border, coupled with a generous grant of authority to property owners and harsh prison time to any citizen who knowling hires illegals.

What do you think?

[Brian Dale]

We should have the Border Patrol patrolling the borders. With regard to
harsh prison time to any citizen who knowling hires illegals
I don't agree. It is not the job of ordinary citizens to catch wetbacks. Period. An employer is not a LEO. We already have LEOs. A citizen should be free to go about their business without being required to enforce the law. Now, if you SMUGGLE people into the country, you should go to prison for a long time.

We should also have a small Federal force to catch counterfeiters and people involved in interstate crimes.

[St. Gunner]

Cosmoline,

If I read my constitution correctly, the Border Patrol and Secret Service would be the only consitutional branches of Federal Law Enforcement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization,

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is part of the reason that in a quest for a job after graduating college I dropped my app in with Border Patrol took the test and am in the process of being hired. Don't think it didn't come without much soul searching and study; but in the end I decided it was a good choice and a patriotic one to make.

You can build all the walls you want, but it was just last week that the news came out of a 1/2mile tunnel into the states from Mexico. I'm not naive enough to believe I won't ever be asked to do something I believe is unconstitutional, but it then becomes an issue of upholding my oath to that document, no matter the cost. Which seems to be where most of our problems with federal LEO's stems from, they can't seem to stand and stick by the oath they took.

I may be on here in a couple years singing a different tune, but know that I went there with the grandest of intentions and the most undying patriotic love.

[Quartus]

Counterfeiting, treason, border violations, crimes against federal employees or property, federal election tampering (which would carry the same sentence as treason, i.e. hanging, if'n I had my way), spying...

Anything else? Oh, and since the security of the country is kinda why we have an Army, how about letting them patrol the land borders? The Border Patrol can handle the authorized crossing points - let the Army make sure nobody crosses elsewhere.

Customs is still needed, as a border issue. Maybe combine that with Border Patrol.

Mebbe the (much reduced) FBI can coordinate any investigations that need to cross state borders, if the state agencies invite them to do so. And they can investigate crimes commited by state LE agencies.
And Federal employees and office holders, both appointed and elected.


Yeah, there IS a need for SOME Federal level LE, but certainly not what we have now.

And we need a Constitutional amendment authorizing the National Parks/Forest system if we're going to keep it - it's illegal right now.

[jimpeel]

There are only three crimes that the frederal government is Constitutionally authorized to prevent, prosecute, and punish; treason, counterfeiting, and piracy.

PERIOD.

[Quartus]

Oh, details, details! ;)


Would you be in favor of changing that, Jim? (By the only legal method, of course.)

Would you authorize a customs service? An INS? A border petrol? How about crimes against Federal property or persons? Misconduct of federal employees? Elected and appointed officials?


I'd favor all of the above - they seem to me to be properly the jurisdiction of the Federal gummit. (Of course, that "federal property" biznuss needs to be brought into line with the Consititution - it ain't at the moment.)

[jimpeel]

Would you authorize a customs service? No

An INS? No

A border petrol? No

How about crimes against Federal property or persons? No

Misconduct of federal employees? No

Elected and appointed officials? No

All of the above are already covered in the Constitution. What isn't specfically covered in the body of the Constitution is covered under Amendment X of the BoR.

If the federal government wants all of these powers, they should place a Constitutional amendment before the Senate and the States for ratification. Rule by fiat ought to be a hanging offense but, unfortunately, the Constitution is silent on that issue.

[Cosmoline]

Happy Bob, I have to wonder what you would have called my ancestors. Gibbering squareheads? Sodbusting kraut pigs?

[Cosmoline]

"There are only three crimes that the frederal government is Constitutionally authorized to prevent, prosecute, and punish; treason, counterfieting, and piracy.

PERIOD."

Yup! That's the key. They have also long had general police powers on federal land, which is another reason to divest them of federal land. They were only supposed to have the vast sections on a temporary basis.

[St. Gunner]

Below is article one section eight of the constitution. I don't see anything in there about treason, do see specific evidence that they are to:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Provide for the common defense

2. To establish a uniform rule of naturalization,

3. and offenses against the law of nations;

4. To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers,
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now I am just a Texas Redneck, i'm sorta of a simple principle, you follow the guidelines of the constitution and you'll be fine. But to me if you add all those four up, it equates to INS and Border Patrol. Now #4 would seem to provide for them to create organizations to execute the first three, which to my mind would be INS and BP.


Now I am all for a differing opinion, but could you please point me to article and section of the constitution where your view comes from? I'm actually curious, I tore up my application to BP back during the Elian Gonzales fiasco years back because I felt they overstepped their bounds and did what they did as a showboating move; I didn't want to be part of a media fed political organization.

Now years later I have watched with interest and studied what goes on. I don't think it is possible to simply hand it over to the states, you'd end up with some idiot like Davis in CA letting them all in, SARS or no SARS, Smallpox or no Smallpox, terrorist or not. Now the enforcement hasn't been the greatest in the past, I still have reservations about the way some handle it(individual agents I have talked with who let armed groups pass by to avoid a gunfight), but we'll never see it remedied or the border zipped up if all those of ability just let it be and we leave it to folks like Davis to handle it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


To borrow money on the credit of the United States;


To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;


To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;


To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;


To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;


To establish post offices and post roads;


To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;


To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;


To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;


To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;


To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;


To provide and maintain a navy;


To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;


To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;


To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And


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.

[jimpeel]

Art III, Section 3

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

[Quartus]

Happy Bob, I have to wonder what you would have called my ancestors. Gibbering squareheads? Sodbusting kraut pigs?


I can't speak for Bob, but it would surprise me not at all if his answer depended on whether they came here LEGALLY (those would be immigrants) or ILLEGALLY. (Those would be wetbacks.)

I didn't see him make any ethnic references.


Funny that an immigrant (me) didn't take any offense at that remark. But then my family came here legally, and had to work pretty hard to earn that privilege. We don't have much use for those that cheat.



Jim, I don't think you answered St. Gunnar. I do think he's gotcha.

[Brian Dale]

Cosmo, I'd like to think that I'd have called them Mr. and Mrs. Cosmoline {but using their correct last name}.

Quartus is right. The word "wetbacks" is an intentionally-derogatory term for someone who has swum a river (to either the north or the south of this country) or, metaphorically, an ocean, rather than coming to this country by presenting himself at an official port of entry and requesting that he be admitted.

A lot of the wetbacks who worked here about 15 years ago were Irish. No big deal; nothing about the Irish. It's just a reference to the behavior of the particular individuals who choose to enter the country illegally. And I include among my ancestors some Irish, and some you've named "gibbering squareheads" (the Scandinavian half of my family will get a kick out of that; I'm probably gonna use that one at Thanksgiving) and some that you've wondered if I would call "sodbusting kraut pigs," and folks who came from a whole buncha other places. Legally. If they'd come in illegally, I'd comfortably call them wetbacks and tell the story of their arrival.

The things that I like about this country are similar to the reasons for my fondness for THR. The ground rules for the country are:

1) Come here legally, and
2) Play nice.

[Jim March]

There IS a need for cross-state information sharing of criminal records and the like, but that's not a police function exactly...these days, more like a computer networking/data processing function best handled by unarmed non-cops who've have a security clearance run and are subject to confidentiallity rules.

At present, a huge chunk of what Federal law enforcement does in this area could be replaced by people simply facilitating info sharing between local and state level police agencies.

[jimpeel]

Jim, I don't think you answered St. Gunnar. I do think he's gotcha.
My original statement was:There are only three http://www.acclaimstockphotography.com/_gallery/_TN/0018-0308-2109-5952_TN.jpg crimes that the frederal government is Constitutionally authorized to prevent, prosecute, and punish; treason, counterfeiting, and piracy.
Your response was to ask me if I would be in favor of changing that. I answered your query.

Would you be in favor of changing that, Jim? (By the only legal method, of course.)

Would you authorize a customs service? An INS? A border petrol? How about crimes against Federal property or persons? Misconduct of federal employees? Elected and appointed officials?


Then St. Gunner responded to me with a list of http://www.acclaimstockphotography.com/_gallery/_TN/0015-0309-1519-3837_TN.jpg powers and duties.1. Provide for the common defense

2. To establish a uniform rule of naturalization,

3. and offenses against the law of nations;

4. To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and stated that he did not see anything about treason in there.I don't see anything in there about treason, ...He was making statements from Article I, Section 8 which defines the http://www.acclaimstockphotography.com/_gallery/_TN/0015-0309-1519-3837_TN.jpg powers and duties of the Congress. The specfic http://www.acclaimstockphotography.com/_gallery/_TN/0018-0308-2109-5952_TN.jpg crimes annotated in the text of Article I, Section 8 are:To provide for the Punishment of http://www.acclaimstockphotography.com/_gallery/_TN/0018-0308-2109-5952_TN.jpg counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

and

To define and punish http://www.acclaimstockphotography.com/_gallery/_TN/0018-0308-2109-5952_TN.jpg Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

The power for the punishment for the http://www.acclaimstockphotography.com/_gallery/_TN/0018-0308-2109-5952_TN.jpg crime of treason is contained outside of Article I, Section 8 at Art III, Section 3.

I gave him a specfic and concise answer via a direct quote from the Constitution of the United States. To say that I did otherwise is specious and disingenuous.

[4570Rick]

ROTFLMAO :D

[Ala Dan]

IMHO, the federal agency with the most class is the
United States Secret Service. I think somewhere in the life
time of all federal agent's; the wannabe Secret Service
Special Agent comes out. I know in my 20+ years as a
LEO, the SS was the most respected unit in existence.

Newbies entering the field of law enforcement see the
Special Agent's as role model's; someone to look up to.
But one must remember, not all LEO's of the Secret
Service earn the title "Special Agent"; as only the most
out standing performers are awarded this distinction.

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member

[Devonai]

The term "wetback" is not inherently derogatory according to my dictionary. It is simply one who has gained entrance to a country by illegal means.

Then again, the entry for "gay" doesn't say a thing about homosexuals.

While I don't consider wetback to be derogatory, if the majority of English speakers do, then it will become derogatory.

Thus, just as I would never say that "I always have a gay time over at THR," if the majority insists that wetback is an offensive term then I will stop using it.

Whether or not the original meaning was derogatory or not would then be irrelevant, since the evolution of any language is inherently defined by the change of meaning by the majority.

[St. Gunner]

Jimpeel,

You answered the part about treason, which I thought you where right about, but when I went to article 1 section 8 didn't find. What you skipped was why the BP isn't constitutional, I don't think you did on purpose cause it was sorta buried in the other stuff.

:D

[Quartus]

more like a computer networking/data processing function best handled by unarmed non-cops who've have a security clearance run and are subject to confidentiallity rules.


That was the original idea of the FBI - only without the computers, of course. Hoover then inched his way along, getting more power for his boys just one step at a time. It's a great study in incremental politics.




jimpeel, St. Gunnar quoted a section of the Constitution that laid out grounds for some of the agencies that you said shouldn't exist. You didn't answer his point at all, which was apples to apples.

[Brian Dale]

The term "wetback" is not inherently derogatory
Y'know, I think you're right. I didn't originally use it to offend.

Who should properly enforce tariffs - Secret Service or Border Patrol? I expect that most would be handled by unarmed clerks at ports, but who catches smugglers?

And just 'cause I'm dense today, piracy and coastal "border patrol" functions: are these to be handled entirely by the Navy?

[jimpeel]

The Border Patrol should be the Militias of the various states. There is no need for a federal Border Patrol. The only time the federal government should become involved is when the borders are breached by invasion.

As for Art I, Section 8 granting authority for the formation of departments and bureaus, I believe not. St. Gunner postsed:1. Provide for the common defense

2. To establish a uniform rule of naturalization,

3. and offenses against the law of nations;

4. To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, I shall address these in turn.

1. Provide for the common defenseThis would be the Army and Navy (and now the Air Force which, while not mentioned in the Constitution, I feel is a needful department of the government.) The Constitution grants the power to the federal government to call up the armed forces and the militias of the various states in the defense of the country. Even then, the Constitution specifies a length of time, two years, which the armed forces may exist. Of course, we all know that the Congress has seen fit to fund the armed forces 100% of the time 24/7/365 in violation of the Constitution.

2. To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, Again, this is merely the power to regulate the manner in which the states allow persons across their borders.

3. and offenses against the law of nations; Even though the power stated is incomplete it is again a POWER to enforce the laws which are formed between various countries and the United States. That enforcement would be by the Militias of the various states or, in the waters of the United States, by the Navy.

4. To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, Again, the power does not say "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper and to form all needful departments and bureaus for carrying into execution the foregoing powers". This they have taken upon themselves extraconstitutionally.

[Cosmoline]

The illegal immigration problem will only be solved when the lazy jerk who goes to the corner to pick up a few "wetbacks" for household chores discovers he's picked up a truckload of cops.

Of course, you don't need feds to do this. In fact, you could do it with a cadre of legal Mexican immigrants, armed with stout pieces of old hickory. There's almost nothing I detest more than the lazy dog who runs down to the corner to get illegals to do some work for him, all the while listening to the AM radio yahoo preach about how we need to stop the flow of illegals. A savage beating is too generous for such a person. But I digress.

[Quartus]

Even then, the Constitution specifies a length of time, two years, which the armed forces may exist.


Nope. It specifies the length of time they may be FUNDED.



To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;


To provide and maintain a navy;



And that limit is on the ARMY, not the Navy.


jim, you are reading INTO the Constitution as badly as the liberals!

[jimpeel]

I'm done. If I make my position any clearer it will be invisible.

I said what I said and that's that.

If the army is unfunded, it doesn't exist until it is funded again.

The Constitution clearly mandates that a Navy be kept up always. Not so with the army.

[St. Gunner]

Quartus,

Go back and read the Federalist and Anti-federalist papers, or just got to
www.SAF.org and look at the quotes page. The founders specifically found the creation of a standing army to be a detriment to the continuation of liberty and freedom. JimPeel is exactly correct in his understanding. The colonists had just tossed a Red Army that was quarted in their homes into the Atlantic and sent em packing, they never wanted to have to do that again. With a Navy, you have a first line of defense against attacks, but a poor offensive punch in those days besides blockades of supplies.

JimPeel, maybe living on the border I view the problem with a different perspective, I look at the mess we are faced with. Did you know that on American Soil in the State of Texas whole cities refuse to fly the Stars and Stripes, they fly the Mexican flag? Did you know that in many areas the influx of immigrants is welcomed by whole political regions because it enhances their races population density, giving them more clout. Do you realize CA has become a haven by virtue of the state(whose militia you would expect to stop them) to Illegal Mexicans, thus giving them a gateway to other areas. Not a month ago the boss in California deplored his agents not to practice interior enforcement, a couple agents snagged some illegals a few blocks from the consulate and it upset the Mexicans. Part of the problem with our enforcement policy is we treat it as a police action,when we should treat it as an invasion.

Several years ago they made a try at using Marines on the border, right up to the point they killed a sheep herder. Today they use military technology to track people out of Mexico, but the soldiers are not used on the ground, because of screaming about their use on US soil. The National Guard or the State Guard could be used, but then what, do you pay those men and women to patrol the border? If you do then they are nothing more than BP with a different name. BP considers itself a paramilitary institution, i'll learn to march, take orders, and all sorts of other things. Good or Bad it is where we are at today because of the laziness of the general public to lead and protect themselves.

A few years ago a man who was 78yrs old killed an illegal for tresspassing, they convicted him of murder. It sorta runs counter to my idea that the way to stop illegal immigration is to implement a bounty on them. But it passed the world along to everyone watching that illegals can march across you place if they so wish as long as they do it in broad daylight. Sends a hell of a message to the illegals doesn't it.

What the answer is, I really don't know, I just know it isn't being handled as it should and throwing it in State hands is a simple waste of paper, they won't enforce it. Because for one thing they don't have the revenue and do you think the US government is about to send them a dime more of our tax money for a project like that? Maybe after the fall of the tower of Babble that some refer to as Washington DC.

[jimpeel]

On these boards at: Illegal Immigrants vs. Citizens' Arrest (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35388&perpage=25&pagenumber=2) I wrote the following:

There is one other Constitutional provision for this activity (illegal immigration) but it would take a couple of governors with big brass ones to do it.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
-- Article I, Section 10, Paragraph 3 Constitution of the United States
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can you just see it? California, Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona declaring war on Mexico? Ah, perchance to dream ...We ARE being invaded. The MECHA types have a slogan "Taking back California block by block." That soon will change to hectare by hectare.

[chadintex]

I will don my tin foil beanie as I say this.

Every time a new bureau or dept. of something or other is created, it increases the numbers of federally controlled police with all weapon and arrest powers. With most of our military stationed outside of our borders, it increases the odds for the creation of a "police state". In our present times, this is very unlikely, but imagine 50 or so years from now when all constitutional ideals have been thinned to nothing, government dependency is at an all time high, and some power hungry socialist POTUS decides that now is the time to act, then you have the perfect tool for the job ie Gestapo, KGB, etc.

Do I think it's possible? Yes

Do I think it's likely? Yes

[Quartus]

The founders specifically found the creation of a standing army to be a detriment to the continuation of liberty and freedom.


No argument! But the text says what it says. It prohibits FUNDING for more than two years - doesn't say anything else. Now, I don't have any problem believing that they intended to discourage a standing army, but they didn't come right out and prohibit it. Frankly, I think they left a loophole they did not intend to leave, but leave it they did. If we depart from a plain reading of the text, we are in trouble.

And they DID carefully separate the navy from that funding limit.


As to border patrol, customs, etc., the section you quoted wrote pretty close to a blank check.

[Skunkabilly]

Enforcing income taxes
Taxing short barreled firearms
Enforcing drug laws
Enforcing cleanliness at Yosemite

The list goes on :p


Seriously though, how about mail fraud?

[another okie]

Well, you've got to have the U.S. Marshalls, since the constitution sets up a federal court system. But everything else is a superfluous duplication of state efforts. I suppose some agencies need investigators, but they could be unarmed researchers who call on local police for arrests.