Police use of military equipment. Isn't that strictly a State issue? (1 Viewer)

[Minstrel]

This 1033 program is in our constitution no?

No, it's not. It's part of a federal law from 1997.

 

[magnifier661]

No, it's not. It's part of a federal law from 1997.

Psst... That law must go through process to overrule. That is part of the constitution. Our commander and chief does not have authority to overrule a law that has already passed.

 

[barfo]

Psst... That law must go through process to overrule. That is part of the constitution. Our commander and chief does not have authority to overrule a law that has already passed.

Does this law say that the federal goverment MUST sell surplus to the locals, or that it MAY sell surplus to the locals?

This law allows for the office to transfer excess Department of Defense property to law enforcement agencies across the United States and its territories.

barfo

 

[Minstrel]

Psst... That law must go through process to overrule. That is part of the constitution. Our commander and chief does not have authority to overrule a law that has already passed.

As barfo said, it's not a requirement that they sell. Obama doesn't need to change the law to review giving or selling federal equipment.

 

[magnifier661]

As barfo said, it's not a requirement that they sell. Obama doesn't need to change the law to review giving or selling federal equipment.

Okay, well from the article, it seems Obama insinuates that he will take the weapons back.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Okay, well from the article, it seems Obama insinuates that he will take the weapons back.

What article, the first one in this thread?

 

[MarAzul]

You know I think I actually get where you are coming from now Mar, the problem is that its to much of a Utopian view of how the constitution is to work. Many ideas are great in complete principle but in practice not so much. To be a pure constitutionalist is akin to being a pure communist or pure socialist, they are all great on paper but there needs to be some flexibility in ideology for them to work in reality. When issues are completely left up to the state level, the peoples interest is often overlooked for various reasons, corruption being a big one. Ferguson is a good example, you are right they should get out and vote, but they dont because they feel so disenfranchised from the system already. Thats actually everyones problem, we should be looking for ways to involve them and get them interested in voting rather than focusing on more advance ways to keep them in line. I view the fed as the group that sets the baseline or rules of the game for everyone to play by, the states then operate within that framework. So with that it seems perfectly reasonable to dictate what is an acceptable war machine for local police to have, especially if the feds area paying for them, just like its perfectly acceptable for them to investigate the police to make sure they are policing fairly.

For me though this whole issue is almost a side issue, police transparency is the real problem here. The latest police shooting was also questionable but no one rioted over them because it was all on camera and the chief properly addressed the situation. Camera's on cops for their safety and ours.

I am glad to hear it Sir! Yes I do believe in the Constitution, and the idea of amending the Constitution when adjustment is required. A good idea will pass, but it must be good in the eyes of many. That is the beauty of requiring a super majority in Congress and of all States.

I think any change in the power of the Federal government or the separation of power between the branches must pass through the amendment process for the protection of our rights and liberty. Any other process and we give up our freedom bit by bit. I am not in favor of transferring one bit no matter how good the apparent benefit without the due process.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

 

[Denny Crane]

Not a fan of militarizing the police.

 

[Natebishop3]

Best way to control the population when he doesn't want to leave office

 

[Orion Bailey]

Not a fan of militarizing the police.

AT all, The training in all aspects is really not even close to the same.

 

[Denny Crane]

AT all, The training in all aspects is really not even close to the same.

The rules of engagement are entirely opposite. Military is supposed to kill the enemy. Police are to protect the people.

 

[Orion Bailey]

The rules of engagement are entirely opposite. Military is supposed to kill the enemy. Police are to protect the people.

Exactly. The total mind game played we don't even want to go there. The military has a much more in depth mental check process than Police. I want that check and then some before we start militarizing them.