Anti-Commandeering: The Legal Basis for Refusing to Participate

SmarterthanYou said:
and I don't agree with them either. what i'm pointing out is the hypocrisy of it on both sides, depending upon what one WANTS/FEELS
Click to expand...
I agree,
the problem is if you insist one right is sacrosanct (2nd) then you must defend the other 9 as well, whether they suit your cause or not.
I thought you of all people would understand this.
 
Rune said:
I agree,
the problem is if you insist one right is sacrosanct (2nd) then you must defend the other 9 as well, whether they suit your cause or not.
I thought you of all people would understand this.
Click to expand...

do you have some post out there of a right that i've NOT defended?
 
Rune said:
Show where it says protect and serve the people, idiot.
Click to expand...

How about the State Oath of Office for all California police officers?

"I_______________do solemnly swear (affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the Untied States against all enemies, both foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the Untied States and the State of California; that I will take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter......."

What does the State of California declare concerning Police Power/authority and providing for its citizens?

It clearly...with no ambiguity declares, ".....What's commonly known as POLICE POWER and is the source of counties and cities regulatory authority to "PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE......" -- Cal. Const., Article XI & 7

Want to deflect away from your stupidity and ignorance again? You are really full of crap when you suggest that the police's duty is not to serve and protect the PUBLIC....in an attempt to claim they have no responsibility to the National Constitution nor their own state constitution. Question? If its not the duty of any California police officer to enforce federal law.....why swear to protect the nation and its constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic? Or those who promote domestic discourse bordering on TREASON .... such as you and the left wing politicians in California.

What will you do with the information that you declared did not exist? Nothing.....you will attempt to deflect with some ad hominem bull shit again by suggesting how stupid others are for not understanding your PROPAGANDA.
 
Last edited:
Ralph said:
How about the State Oath of Office for all California police officers?

"I_______________do solemnly swear (affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the Untied States against all enemies, both foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the Untied States and the State of California; that I will take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter......."

What does the State of California declare concerning Police Power/authority and providing for its citizens?

It clearly...with no ambiguity declares, ".....What's commonly known as POLICE POWER and is the source of counties and cities regulatory authority to "PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE......" -- Cal. Const., Article XI & 7

Want to deflect away from and stupidity and ignorance again? You are really full of crap when you suggest that the police's duty is not to serve and protect the PUBLIC....in an attempt to claim they have no responsibility to the National Constitution nor their own state constitution. Question? If its not the duty of any California police officer to enforce federal law.....why swear to protect the nation and its constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic? Or those who promote domestic discourse bordering on TREASON .... such as you and the left wing politicians in California.
Click to expand...
Are your retarded?
You just said the opposite, let me know when you decide what you really want to say.
 
Rune said:
Are your retarded?
You just said the opposite, let me know when you decide what you really want to say.
Click to expand...

As stated.....Deflection, ad hominem insult....but never an admission that you are full of shit and nothing but a left wing propagandist. LMAO, "you just said the opposite?" Its game over when you do nothing but attempt to deflect.

Again....its the duty of the police forces in all the sanctuary states to PROTECT and SERVE....first and foremost the US CONSTITUTION....and the people. And they are not protecting the US CONSTITUTION nor its supreme laws by refusing to confront anyone that is breaking US LAW. What do you call it when some politician 'coerces' any police force into breaking their oath of office?

T R E A S O N
 
Rune said:
you are working on it in this thread, and this same subject has come up before.
Click to expand...

pointing out that the funding of federal enforcement is a matter of being arbitrary is hardly an endorsement of this. that's as much a stretch of logic as congress with the commerce clause
 
Ralph said:
Show it? Talk about a dumb ass..........nope no police agency has a sworn duty to protect and to serve and in fact there has never been a police squad car that rolls up to the scene of a crime or accident with the phase drafted on its side that says, "To Protect and to Serve." The police have no duty to aid anyone at the scene of an accident, nor to protect the citizens with their lives if necessary. Never been to any large Metro like LA? LAMO.

Grasping for AIR? :) That's just a motto for kicks...right comrade? What does it really mean? At least 135 million up in liberal smoke.
Click to expand...

You were lying when you wrote this?
The Police protect and serve the government, you idiot, not the people.
 
Rune said:
Not sure what you mean.
Do you have a problem with the OP or not?
Click to expand...

that the court says the feds can't force states to enforce fed law? no, i totally agree with that. I'm a big supporter of the printz case. I just also believe it's hypocritical and arbitrary to believe that the courts allow the feds to do just that with speed limits, seat belts, and drinking ages by referring to 'safety'.
 
Ralph said:
and in fact there has never been a police squad car that rolls up to the scene of a crime or accident with the phase drafted on its side that says, "To Protect and to Serve."
Click to expand...

you're under the age of 24, aren't you? because when I was a teenager, ALL the cop cars in my county had that very phrase painted on every car.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
that the court says the feds can't force states to enforce fed law? no, i totally agree with that. I'm a big supporter of the printz case. I just also believe it's hypocritical and arbitrary to believe that the courts allow the feds to do just that with speed limits, seat belts, and drinking ages by referring to 'safety'.
Click to expand...
Thank you, that was not clear to me in your earlier posts.

Believe it or not, I am opposed to illegal immigration.
People think that the jobs Mexicans take are all unskilled.
Mexico actually has a lot of fishermen, and last summer when my boat was broken down my son secured a job for an open season and was replaced by Mexicans working for half price. He was extremely upset, having given the boat owner much free work to make the boat ready and secure his position. The hiring was illegal but there was nothing he could do about it, except make enemies in our own fleet. He easily lost 75K, northern fisherman make the bulk of their yearly income in the summer. The price had never been higher, fuel was cheap and large scallops were abundant.
 
Rune said:
For the 11th time; states receive highway funding from the Fed.
If they don't respect the wishes of the Feds re that funding then the funding can of course, be witheld.
Since immigration is a Federal purview and states receive zero funds for immigration funding cannot be withheld. To do so would be to compel the state to enforce Federal law.
This is known as commandeering and is a violation of the 10th Amendment.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that the only time highway funding was threatened to be withheld, was over highway issues?
 
Ralph said:
Total Bullshit....when any "Illegal" commits a crime in any sanctuary state....then the acts of the state government have placed their citizens at risk. Now tell me that California does not receive any direct aid from Big Brother to fund all the local and state LEO's (Law Enforcement Organizations). All that federal funding is now being placed at risk by radical idiots. Last year California received some 135 Million US TAX dollars to aid in the funding of California state police and local sheriffs departments. I say let them fund their own "burning bed" they have set ablaze.

How long do you assume the STATE and ITS overpriced underfunded PENSION RETIREMENTS can stay afloat without the federal aid that supports numerous police forces in state's like California? Liberals never consider the reality that surrounds them, that's why their actions have directly resulted in all the military conflicts engaged by the US since WWI.
Click to expand...

shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh - let him tie the knots in his own noose. :good4u:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top