Conservatives, help me out.

[SavannahMann]

Explain why it is not a Tenth Amendment violation to demand that local police enforce Federal Immigration law

How else can a nation enforce its borders? When you let a state or municipality dictate to the higher government what the policy on immigration should be instead of the other way around, you are hindering the ability of the higher government to perform its constitutionally mandated duties.

Your premise is off base to say the least.

When the higher government is succumbing to the wills of uber liberal states and municipalities who enforce sanctuary policy, and an illegal breaks in my house, steals from me or tries to kill me, I could easily say that the government's lack of a spine cost me my fifth amendment rights. The right to life, liberty, and property. Isn't it the responsibility of the government to protect my constitutional rights?

It may be that you misunderstand the constitution. The Constitution restricts what the Government can do to you. It does not say what the Government must do for you. It certainly is not the duty of the police to protect you. That is not my crazy liberal idea. That is not my opinion of the behavior of police. That is the summary of a Supreme Court Case. Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

It is one of the many things quoted, correctly IMO, by people to oppose gun control. But that is another topic.

The Fifth Amendment says that the Government may not deprive you of Life, Liberty, or Property without due process of law. What that process is has changed dramatically. It is now the whim of a cop on the side of the road. But again that is a different topic. The Fifth Amendment does not say that the Government must defend your life, liberty, or property.

ICE agents can arrest Illegals in Los Angeles today, just like they can anywhere else. No one is preventing them. Georgia where I live, is busy trying to help the ICE agents. Again, doing just about everything short of actually deporting the illegal. I'm not in the streets protesting that. Georgia as a state has the right to decide what laws they have, and what the standards are, as long as those standards do not violate civil rights. Civil Rights trump States Rights.

ICE loves Georgia. They don't have to do anything but pick the Illegal up from the local cops. That is the right of the State to decide it's own laws, and it's own policy.

What you are saying is anything less than the local cops doing everything for the ICE agent short of deportation is somehow a crime or unconstitutional.

 

[Moonglow]

In the 1990's, even while I was voting Democratic, I agreed with an argument from the Right. That argument during the Brady Law fallout was that the law improperly expected local police, specifically the County Sheriff's, to conduct background checks on prospective gun buyers. I agreed that any Federal Law that demanded that the Local Police conduct investigations was a violation of the Tenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court agreed. Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

We are not talking about actions to insure the civil rights of the people are protected. We're not talking about reading Miranda, to insure that the people know about their rights under the Constitution. We are't talking about making sure that the jails are humane, and that being sent to one does not violate cruel and unusual. We are talking about expecting the Local Police to enforce Federal Law. Requiring it as it were.

Now, Conservatives. Help me out. I believed you were right in the 1990's, when Guns and States Rights were the issue.

Explain why it is not a Tenth Amendment violation to demand that local police enforce Federal Immigration law. Tell me why it is wrong to demand that the Sheriff conduct background checks, but right to require that same Sheriff to enforce Immigration laws.

/----/ Police always do a background check even if they pull you over for a speeding tick to see if there are any outstanding warrants. Breaking the immigration laws are no different.

There is the matter of jurisdiction..

 

[Cellblock2429]

In the 1990's, even while I was voting Democratic, I agreed with an argument from the Right. That argument during the Brady Law fallout was that the law improperly expected local police, specifically the County Sheriff's, to conduct background checks on prospective gun buyers. I agreed that any Federal Law that demanded that the Local Police conduct investigations was a violation of the Tenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court agreed. Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

We are not talking about actions to insure the civil rights of the people are protected. We're not talking about reading Miranda, to insure that the people know about their rights under the Constitution. We are't talking about making sure that the jails are humane, and that being sent to one does not violate cruel and unusual. We are talking about expecting the Local Police to enforce Federal Law. Requiring it as it were.

Now, Conservatives. Help me out. I believed you were right in the 1990's, when Guns and States Rights were the issue.

Explain why it is not a Tenth Amendment violation to demand that local police enforce Federal Immigration law. Tell me why it is wrong to demand that the Sheriff conduct background checks, but right to require that same Sheriff to enforce Immigration laws.

/----/ Police always do a background check even if they pull you over for a speeding tick to see if there are any outstanding warrants. Breaking the immigration laws are no different.

There is the matter of jurisdiction..

/----/ meaning what?

 

[Moonglow]

In the 1990's, even while I was voting Democratic, I agreed with an argument from the Right. That argument during the Brady Law fallout was that the law improperly expected local police, specifically the County Sheriff's, to conduct background checks on prospective gun buyers. I agreed that any Federal Law that demanded that the Local Police conduct investigations was a violation of the Tenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court agreed. Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

We are not talking about actions to insure the civil rights of the people are protected. We're not talking about reading Miranda, to insure that the people know about their rights under the Constitution. We are't talking about making sure that the jails are humane, and that being sent to one does not violate cruel and unusual. We are talking about expecting the Local Police to enforce Federal Law. Requiring it as it were.

Now, Conservatives. Help me out. I believed you were right in the 1990's, when Guns and States Rights were the issue.

Explain why it is not a Tenth Amendment violation to demand that local police enforce Federal Immigration law. Tell me why it is wrong to demand that the Sheriff conduct background checks, but right to require that same Sheriff to enforce Immigration laws.

/----/ Police always do a background check even if they pull you over for a speeding tick to see if there are any outstanding warrants. Breaking the immigration laws are no different.

There is the matter of jurisdiction..

/----/ meaning what?

A local leo can't enforce immigration laws from the federal level..Unless he has a special permit to do so by being trained and certified by federal officials...You know, the usual stuff..

 

[Cellblock2429]

In the 1990's, even while I was voting Democratic, I agreed with an argument from the Right. That argument during the Brady Law fallout was that the law improperly expected local police, specifically the County Sheriff's, to conduct background checks on prospective gun buyers. I agreed that any Federal Law that demanded that the Local Police conduct investigations was a violation of the Tenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court agreed. Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

We are not talking about actions to insure the civil rights of the people are protected. We're not talking about reading Miranda, to insure that the people know about their rights under the Constitution. We are't talking about making sure that the jails are humane, and that being sent to one does not violate cruel and unusual. We are talking about expecting the Local Police to enforce Federal Law. Requiring it as it were.

Now, Conservatives. Help me out. I believed you were right in the 1990's, when Guns and States Rights were the issue.

Explain why it is not a Tenth Amendment violation to demand that local police enforce Federal Immigration law. Tell me why it is wrong to demand that the Sheriff conduct background checks, but right to require that same Sheriff to enforce Immigration laws.

/----/ Police always do a background check even if they pull you over for a speeding tick to see if there are any outstanding warrants. Breaking the immigration laws are no different.

There is the matter of jurisdiction..

/----/ meaning what?

A local leo can't enforce immigration laws from the federal level..Unless he has a special permit to do so by being trained and certified by federal officials...You know, the usual stuff..

/----/ Why do Libs always change the narrative when cornered? No one said locals ENFORCE the immigration laws. If they catch a crook and discover he has counterfeit $100 bills (Counterfeiting is a Fed issue) what do you suggest the local police do?

 

[Moonglow]

In the 1990's, even while I was voting Democratic, I agreed with an argument from the Right. That argument during the Brady Law fallout was that the law improperly expected local police, specifically the County Sheriff's, to conduct background checks on prospective gun buyers. I agreed that any Federal Law that demanded that the Local Police conduct investigations was a violation of the Tenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court agreed. Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

We are not talking about actions to insure the civil rights of the people are protected. We're not talking about reading Miranda, to insure that the people know about their rights under the Constitution. We are't talking about making sure that the jails are humane, and that being sent to one does not violate cruel and unusual. We are talking about expecting the Local Police to enforce Federal Law. Requiring it as it were.

Now, Conservatives. Help me out. I believed you were right in the 1990's, when Guns and States Rights were the issue.

Explain why it is not a Tenth Amendment violation to demand that local police enforce Federal Immigration law. Tell me why it is wrong to demand that the Sheriff conduct background checks, but right to require that same Sheriff to enforce Immigration laws.

/----/ Police always do a background check even if they pull you over for a speeding tick to see if there are any outstanding warrants. Breaking the immigration laws are no different.

There is the matter of jurisdiction..

/----/ meaning what?

A local leo can't enforce immigration laws from the federal level..Unless he has a special permit to do so by being trained and certified by federal officials...You know, the usual stuff..

/----/ Why do Libs always change the narrative when cornered? No one said locals ENFORCE the immigration laws. If they catch a crook and discover he has counterfeit $100 bills (Counterfeiting is a Fed issue) what do you suggest the local police do?

Notice I said federal immigration laws, never mentioned any other crimes..or laws...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Explain why it is not a Tenth Amendment violation to demand that local police enforce Federal Immigration law

How else can a nation enforce its borders? When you let a state or municipality dictate to the higher government what the policy on immigration should be instead of the other way around, you are hindering the ability of the higher government to perform its constitutionally mandated duties.

Your premise is off base to say the least.

When the higher government is succumbing to the wills of uber liberal states and municipalities who enforce sanctuary policy, and an illegal breaks in my house, steals from me or tries to kill me, I could easily say that the government's lack of a spine cost me my fifth amendment rights. The right to life, liberty, and property. Isn't it the responsibility of the government to protect my constitutional rights?

It may be that you misunderstand the constitution. The Constitution restricts what the Government can do to you. It does not say what the Government must do for you. It certainly is not the duty of the police to protect you. That is not my crazy liberal idea. That is not my opinion of the behavior of police. That is the summary of a Supreme Court Case. Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

It is one of the many things quoted, correctly IMO, by people to oppose gun control. But that is another topic.

The Fifth Amendment says that the Government may not deprive you of Life, Liberty, or Property without due process of law. What that process is has changed dramatically. It is now the whim of a cop on the side of the road. But again that is a different topic. The Fifth Amendment does not say that the Government must defend your life, liberty, or property.

ICE agents can arrest Illegals in Los Angeles today, just like they can anywhere else. No one is preventing them. Georgia where I live, is busy trying to help the ICE agents. Again, doing just about everything short of actually deporting the illegal. I'm not in the streets protesting that. Georgia as a state has the right to decide what laws they have, and what the standards are, as long as those standards do not violate civil rights. Civil Rights trump States Rights.

ICE loves Georgia. They don't have to do anything but pick the Illegal up from the local cops. That is the right of the State to decide it's own laws, and it's own policy.

What you are saying is anything less than the local cops doing everything for the ICE agent short of deportation is somehow a crime or unconstitutional.

Maybe not constitutionally required, but required by their oath of police officers:

I........................DO SWEAR,, THAT - I WILL WELL AND TRULY SERVE - OUR SOVEREIGN COUNTRY AND STATE - AS A POLICE OFFICER WITHOUT FAVOR OR AFFECTION - MALICE OR ILL-WILL - UNTIL I AM LEGALLY DISCHARGED, THAT I WILL SEE AND CAUSE OUR COMMUNITY’S PEACE TO BE KEPT AND
PRESERVED - AND THAT - I WILL PREVENT TO THE BEST OF MY POWER - ALL OFFENSES AGAINST THAT PEACE - AND THAT - WHILE I CONTINUE TO BE A POLICE OFFICER - I WILL - TO THE BEST OF MY SKILL AND KNOWLEDGE - DISCHARGE ALL THE DUTIES THEREOF - FAITHFULLY - ACCORDING TO LAW.
SO HELP ME GOD.
(Sample Oath)

Police Officer's Oath

 

[SavannahMann]

Explain why it is not a Tenth Amendment violation to demand that local police enforce Federal Immigration law

How else can a nation enforce its borders? When you let a state or municipality dictate to the higher government what the policy on immigration should be instead of the other way around, you are hindering the ability of the higher government to perform its constitutionally mandated duties.

Your premise is off base to say the least.

When the higher government is succumbing to the wills of uber liberal states and municipalities who enforce sanctuary policy, and an illegal breaks in my house, steals from me or tries to kill me, I could easily say that the government's lack of a spine cost me my fifth amendment rights. The right to life, liberty, and property. Isn't it the responsibility of the government to protect my constitutional rights?

It may be that you misunderstand the constitution. The Constitution restricts what the Government can do to you. It does not say what the Government must do for you. It certainly is not the duty of the police to protect you. That is not my crazy liberal idea. That is not my opinion of the behavior of police. That is the summary of a Supreme Court Case. Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

It is one of the many things quoted, correctly IMO, by people to oppose gun control. But that is another topic.

The Fifth Amendment says that the Government may not deprive you of Life, Liberty, or Property without due process of law. What that process is has changed dramatically. It is now the whim of a cop on the side of the road. But again that is a different topic. The Fifth Amendment does not say that the Government must defend your life, liberty, or property.

ICE agents can arrest Illegals in Los Angeles today, just like they can anywhere else. No one is preventing them. Georgia where I live, is busy trying to help the ICE agents. Again, doing just about everything short of actually deporting the illegal. I'm not in the streets protesting that. Georgia as a state has the right to decide what laws they have, and what the standards are, as long as those standards do not violate civil rights. Civil Rights trump States Rights.

ICE loves Georgia. They don't have to do anything but pick the Illegal up from the local cops. That is the right of the State to decide it's own laws, and it's own policy.

What you are saying is anything less than the local cops doing everything for the ICE agent short of deportation is somehow a crime or unconstitutional.

Maybe not constitutionally required, but required by their oath of police officers:

I........................DO SWEAR,, THAT - I WILL WELL AND TRULY SERVE - OUR SOVEREIGN COUNTRY AND STATE - AS A POLICE OFFICER WITHOUT FAVOR OR AFFECTION - MALICE OR ILL-WILL - UNTIL I AM LEGALLY DISCHARGED, THAT I WILL SEE AND CAUSE OUR COMMUNITY’S PEACE TO BE KEPT AND
PRESERVED - AND THAT - I WILL PREVENT TO THE BEST OF MY POWER - ALL OFFENSES AGAINST THAT PEACE - AND THAT - WHILE I CONTINUE TO BE A POLICE OFFICER - I WILL - TO THE BEST OF MY SKILL AND KNOWLEDGE - DISCHARGE ALL THE DUTIES THEREOF - FAITHFULLY - ACCORDING TO LAW.
SO HELP ME GOD.
(Sample Oath)

Police Officer's Oath

California's oath as mandatated by their laws.

Law section


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

“And I do further swear (or affirm) that I do not advocate, nor am I a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that now advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means; that within the five years immediately preceding the taking of this oath (or affirmation) I have not been a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocated the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means except as follows:

_____ (If no affiliations, write in the words “No Exceptions”) _____

and that during such time as I hold the office of _____ (name of office) _____

I will not advocate nor become a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means.”

I guess California didn't get the memo that the Police Officers Union thinks the oath ought to be different.

 

[Cellblock2429]

/----/ Police always do a background check even if they pull you over for a speeding tick to see if there are any outstanding warrants. Breaking the immigration laws are no different.

There is the matter of jurisdiction..

/----/ meaning what?

A local leo can't enforce immigration laws from the federal level..Unless he has a special permit to do so by being trained and certified by federal officials...You know, the usual stuff..

/----/ Why do Libs always change the narrative when cornered? No one said locals ENFORCE the immigration laws. If they catch a crook and discover he has counterfeit $100 bills (Counterfeiting is a Fed issue) what do you suggest the local police do?

Notice I said federal immigration laws, never mentioned any other crimes..or laws...

/---/ a law is a law.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Explain why it is not a Tenth Amendment violation to demand that local police enforce Federal Immigration law

How else can a nation enforce its borders? When you let a state or municipality dictate to the higher government what the policy on immigration should be instead of the other way around, you are hindering the ability of the higher government to perform its constitutionally mandated duties.

Your premise is off base to say the least.

When the higher government is succumbing to the wills of uber liberal states and municipalities who enforce sanctuary policy, and an illegal breaks in my house, steals from me or tries to kill me, I could easily say that the government's lack of a spine cost me my fifth amendment rights. The right to life, liberty, and property. Isn't it the responsibility of the government to protect my constitutional rights?

It may be that you misunderstand the constitution. The Constitution restricts what the Government can do to you. It does not say what the Government must do for you. It certainly is not the duty of the police to protect you. That is not my crazy liberal idea. That is not my opinion of the behavior of police. That is the summary of a Supreme Court Case. Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

It is one of the many things quoted, correctly IMO, by people to oppose gun control. But that is another topic.

The Fifth Amendment says that the Government may not deprive you of Life, Liberty, or Property without due process of law. What that process is has changed dramatically. It is now the whim of a cop on the side of the road. But again that is a different topic. The Fifth Amendment does not say that the Government must defend your life, liberty, or property.

ICE agents can arrest Illegals in Los Angeles today, just like they can anywhere else. No one is preventing them. Georgia where I live, is busy trying to help the ICE agents. Again, doing just about everything short of actually deporting the illegal. I'm not in the streets protesting that. Georgia as a state has the right to decide what laws they have, and what the standards are, as long as those standards do not violate civil rights. Civil Rights trump States Rights.

ICE loves Georgia. They don't have to do anything but pick the Illegal up from the local cops. That is the right of the State to decide it's own laws, and it's own policy.

What you are saying is anything less than the local cops doing everything for the ICE agent short of deportation is somehow a crime or unconstitutional.

Maybe not constitutionally required, but required by their oath of police officers:

I........................DO SWEAR,, THAT - I WILL WELL AND TRULY SERVE - OUR SOVEREIGN COUNTRY AND STATE - AS A POLICE OFFICER WITHOUT FAVOR OR AFFECTION - MALICE OR ILL-WILL - UNTIL I AM LEGALLY DISCHARGED, THAT I WILL SEE AND CAUSE OUR COMMUNITY’S PEACE TO BE KEPT AND
PRESERVED - AND THAT - I WILL PREVENT TO THE BEST OF MY POWER - ALL OFFENSES AGAINST THAT PEACE - AND THAT - WHILE I CONTINUE TO BE A POLICE OFFICER - I WILL - TO THE BEST OF MY SKILL AND KNOWLEDGE - DISCHARGE ALL THE DUTIES THEREOF - FAITHFULLY - ACCORDING TO LAW.
SO HELP ME GOD.
(Sample Oath)

Police Officer's Oath

California's oath as mandatated by their laws.

Law section


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

“And I do further swear (or affirm) that I do not advocate, nor am I a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that now advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means; that within the five years immediately preceding the taking of this oath (or affirmation) I have not been a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocated the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means except as follows:

_____ (If no affiliations, write in the words “No Exceptions”) _____

and that during such time as I hold the office of _____ (name of office) _____

I will not advocate nor become a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means.”

I guess California didn't get the memo that the Police Officers Union thinks the oath ought to be different.

This isn't a police officers oath. It's a public servant oath. From your link:

Members of the Legislature, and all public officers and employees, executive, legislative, and judicial, except such inferior officers and employees as may be by law exempted, shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation:

Now before you say that a "public officer" means police (which I'm assuming you did) think again:

public officer

• Examples
• Word Origin

noun
1.
a person appointed or elected to a governmental post.

the definition of public officer

 

[Votto]

In the 1990's, even while I was voting Democratic, I agreed with an argument from the Right. That argument during the Brady Law fallout was that the law improperly expected local police, specifically the County Sheriff's, to conduct background checks on prospective gun buyers. I agreed that any Federal Law that demanded that the Local Police conduct investigations was a violation of the Tenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court agreed. Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

We are not talking about actions to insure the civil rights of the people are protected. We're not talking about reading Miranda, to insure that the people know about their rights under the Constitution. We are't talking about making sure that the jails are humane, and that being sent to one does not violate cruel and unusual. We are talking about expecting the Local Police to enforce Federal Law. Requiring it as it were.

Now, Conservatives. Help me out. I believed you were right in the 1990's, when Guns and States Rights were the issue.

Explain why it is not a Tenth Amendment violation to demand that local police enforce Federal Immigration law. Tell me why it is wrong to demand that the Sheriff conduct background checks, but right to require that same Sheriff to enforce Immigration laws.

Because the Constitution is an ever changing and evolving document that the 9 stooge black robes will be more than happy to splain to you about.

 

[SavannahMann]

Explain why it is not a Tenth Amendment violation to demand that local police enforce Federal Immigration law

How else can a nation enforce its borders? When you let a state or municipality dictate to the higher government what the policy on immigration should be instead of the other way around, you are hindering the ability of the higher government to perform its constitutionally mandated duties.

Your premise is off base to say the least.

When the higher government is succumbing to the wills of uber liberal states and municipalities who enforce sanctuary policy, and an illegal breaks in my house, steals from me or tries to kill me, I could easily say that the government's lack of a spine cost me my fifth amendment rights. The right to life, liberty, and property. Isn't it the responsibility of the government to protect my constitutional rights?

It may be that you misunderstand the constitution. The Constitution restricts what the Government can do to you. It does not say what the Government must do for you. It certainly is not the duty of the police to protect you. That is not my crazy liberal idea. That is not my opinion of the behavior of police. That is the summary of a Supreme Court Case. Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

It is one of the many things quoted, correctly IMO, by people to oppose gun control. But that is another topic.

The Fifth Amendment says that the Government may not deprive you of Life, Liberty, or Property without due process of law. What that process is has changed dramatically. It is now the whim of a cop on the side of the road. But again that is a different topic. The Fifth Amendment does not say that the Government must defend your life, liberty, or property.

ICE agents can arrest Illegals in Los Angeles today, just like they can anywhere else. No one is preventing them. Georgia where I live, is busy trying to help the ICE agents. Again, doing just about everything short of actually deporting the illegal. I'm not in the streets protesting that. Georgia as a state has the right to decide what laws they have, and what the standards are, as long as those standards do not violate civil rights. Civil Rights trump States Rights.

ICE loves Georgia. They don't have to do anything but pick the Illegal up from the local cops. That is the right of the State to decide it's own laws, and it's own policy.

What you are saying is anything less than the local cops doing everything for the ICE agent short of deportation is somehow a crime or unconstitutional.

Maybe not constitutionally required, but required by their oath of police officers:

I........................DO SWEAR,, THAT - I WILL WELL AND TRULY SERVE - OUR SOVEREIGN COUNTRY AND STATE - AS A POLICE OFFICER WITHOUT FAVOR OR AFFECTION - MALICE OR ILL-WILL - UNTIL I AM LEGALLY DISCHARGED, THAT I WILL SEE AND CAUSE OUR COMMUNITY’S PEACE TO BE KEPT AND
PRESERVED - AND THAT - I WILL PREVENT TO THE BEST OF MY POWER - ALL OFFENSES AGAINST THAT PEACE - AND THAT - WHILE I CONTINUE TO BE A POLICE OFFICER - I WILL - TO THE BEST OF MY SKILL AND KNOWLEDGE - DISCHARGE ALL THE DUTIES THEREOF - FAITHFULLY - ACCORDING TO LAW.
SO HELP ME GOD.
(Sample Oath)

Police Officer's Oath

California's oath as mandatated by their laws.

Law section


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

“And I do further swear (or affirm) that I do not advocate, nor am I a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that now advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means; that within the five years immediately preceding the taking of this oath (or affirmation) I have not been a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocated the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means except as follows:

_____ (If no affiliations, write in the words “No Exceptions”) _____

and that during such time as I hold the office of _____ (name of office) _____

I will not advocate nor become a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means.”

I guess California didn't get the memo that the Police Officers Union thinks the oath ought to be different.

This isn't a police officers oath. It's a public servant oath. From your link:

Members of the Legislature, and all public officers and employees, executive, legislative, and judicial, except such inferior officers and employees as may be by law exempted, shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation:

Now before you say that a "public officer" means police (which I'm assuming you did) think again:

public officer

• Examples
• Word Origin

noun
1.
a person appointed or elected to a governmental post.

the definition of public officer

Ok. Let's play this game.

Same oath is located here. At the San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs association web site.

The Oath - San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs' Association

Well what the fuck do they know about what oath cops are supposed to take. Dickheads.

God Damn cops can't even get their oath right.

I'm a little stuck. Perhaps you can help. I've opened half a dozen webpages and I keep getting the same thing.



Perhaps you have a link where the oath you posted is the one police swear to everywhere.

Because I keep finding the oath I posted.



It is damn frustrating that I can't find the oath you posted used by anyone.

Georgia Sheriffs swear something very different.

Your Oath of Office and Your Duties

By any chance, was the oath you posted written by a fanboy? Because I can't find where it is used.

 

[Ame®icano]

And it is the Federal Governments job. Not the job of every cop in the country to enforce those laws. I would object to having every cop on the street check my tax returns to make sure I'm not cheating on my taxes. I'd object to the local cops conducting the Census. Would you?

It's interesting that every time you're trying to support your position, you pick and chose the most blatant samples that everyone would agree on.

Lets see, no cop in the country would check your tax return. But if you didn't pay them and cops check you out because you did something, then see that there is outstanding warrant because you didn't pay taxes, it's their duty to hand you over to agency that issued the warrant.

If you want this conversation to continue, try at least to be honest.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

How else can a nation enforce its borders? When you let a state or municipality dictate to the higher government what the policy on immigration should be instead of the other way around, you are hindering the ability of the higher government to perform its constitutionally mandated duties.

Your premise is off base to say the least.

When the higher government is succumbing to the wills of uber liberal states and municipalities who enforce sanctuary policy, and an illegal breaks in my house, steals from me or tries to kill me, I could easily say that the government's lack of a spine cost me my fifth amendment rights. The right to life, liberty, and property. Isn't it the responsibility of the government to protect my constitutional rights?

It may be that you misunderstand the constitution. The Constitution restricts what the Government can do to you. It does not say what the Government must do for you. It certainly is not the duty of the police to protect you. That is not my crazy liberal idea. That is not my opinion of the behavior of police. That is the summary of a Supreme Court Case. Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

It is one of the many things quoted, correctly IMO, by people to oppose gun control. But that is another topic.

The Fifth Amendment says that the Government may not deprive you of Life, Liberty, or Property without due process of law. What that process is has changed dramatically. It is now the whim of a cop on the side of the road. But again that is a different topic. The Fifth Amendment does not say that the Government must defend your life, liberty, or property.

ICE agents can arrest Illegals in Los Angeles today, just like they can anywhere else. No one is preventing them. Georgia where I live, is busy trying to help the ICE agents. Again, doing just about everything short of actually deporting the illegal. I'm not in the streets protesting that. Georgia as a state has the right to decide what laws they have, and what the standards are, as long as those standards do not violate civil rights. Civil Rights trump States Rights.

ICE loves Georgia. They don't have to do anything but pick the Illegal up from the local cops. That is the right of the State to decide it's own laws, and it's own policy.

What you are saying is anything less than the local cops doing everything for the ICE agent short of deportation is somehow a crime or unconstitutional.

Maybe not constitutionally required, but required by their oath of police officers:

I........................DO SWEAR,, THAT - I WILL WELL AND TRULY SERVE - OUR SOVEREIGN COUNTRY AND STATE - AS A POLICE OFFICER WITHOUT FAVOR OR AFFECTION - MALICE OR ILL-WILL - UNTIL I AM LEGALLY DISCHARGED, THAT I WILL SEE AND CAUSE OUR COMMUNITY’S PEACE TO BE KEPT AND
PRESERVED - AND THAT - I WILL PREVENT TO THE BEST OF MY POWER - ALL OFFENSES AGAINST THAT PEACE - AND THAT - WHILE I CONTINUE TO BE A POLICE OFFICER - I WILL - TO THE BEST OF MY SKILL AND KNOWLEDGE - DISCHARGE ALL THE DUTIES THEREOF - FAITHFULLY - ACCORDING TO LAW.
SO HELP ME GOD.
(Sample Oath)

Police Officer's Oath

California's oath as mandatated by their laws.

Law section


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

“And I do further swear (or affirm) that I do not advocate, nor am I a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that now advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means; that within the five years immediately preceding the taking of this oath (or affirmation) I have not been a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocated the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means except as follows:

_____ (If no affiliations, write in the words “No Exceptions”) _____

and that during such time as I hold the office of _____ (name of office) _____

I will not advocate nor become a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means.”

I guess California didn't get the memo that the Police Officers Union thinks the oath ought to be different.

This isn't a police officers oath. It's a public servant oath. From your link:

Members of the Legislature, and all public officers and employees, executive, legislative, and judicial, except such inferior officers and employees as may be by law exempted, shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation:

Now before you say that a "public officer" means police (which I'm assuming you did) think again:

public officer

• Examples
• Word Origin

noun
1.
a person appointed or elected to a governmental post.

the definition of public officer

Ok. Let's play this game.

Same oath is located here. At the San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs association web site.

The Oath - San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs' Association

Well what the fuck do they know about what oath cops are supposed to take. Dickheads.

God Damn cops can't even get their oath right.

I'm a little stuck. Perhaps you can help. I've opened half a dozen webpages and I keep getting the same thing.



Perhaps you have a link where the oath you posted is the one police swear to everywhere.

Because I keep finding the oath I posted.



It is damn frustrating that I can't find the oath you posted used by anyone.

Georgia Sheriffs swear something very different.

Your Oath of Office and Your Duties

By any chance, was the oath you posted written by a fanboy? Because I can't find where it is used.

As to your first link, do you know what a peace officer is? It's not a police officer. A peace officer is an armed security guard basically. They stand guard at Walmart stores or do private security. Your second link was to the Sheriffs department which handles county work exclusively.

 

[Ame®icano]

I have never argued that the Feds should lay off illegals. I've never argued that the states should. I've only argued that the states should make their own decisions, and carry out their own policies. If the State wants to help ICE, that is their choice. If the states want to tell ICE that no help will be forthcoming, again it is their choice.

All good, except that immigration policies are not set by the individual states.

It's ok if state doesn't want to help ICE, however, in that case they shouldn't expect funding from federal government, since by making a choice of not helping, they're also making a choice to forfeit federal funding.

 

[Ame®icano]

In the 1990's, even while I was voting Democratic, I agreed with an argument from the Right. That argument during the Brady Law fallout was that the law improperly expected local police, specifically the County Sheriff's, to conduct background checks on prospective gun buyers. I agreed that any Federal Law that demanded that the Local Police conduct investigations was a violation of the Tenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court agreed. Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

We are not talking about actions to insure the civil rights of the people are protected. We're not talking about reading Miranda, to insure that the people know about their rights under the Constitution. We are't talking about making sure that the jails are humane, and that being sent to one does not violate cruel and unusual. We are talking about expecting the Local Police to enforce Federal Law. Requiring it as it were.

Now, Conservatives. Help me out. I believed you were right in the 1990's, when Guns and States Rights were the issue.

Explain why it is not a Tenth Amendment violation to demand that local police enforce Federal Immigration law. Tell me why it is wrong to demand that the Sheriff conduct background checks, but right to require that same Sheriff to enforce Immigration laws.

Like any Federal law the locals are 99% of the time the ones that run into the violation first. So it's reasonable they would notify ICE of an illegal so they can go pick them up. Same applies to your gun example. A local cop arrests a person with an illegal weapon and they refer it up the line. They certainly don't just let them go saying oh well not my problem.

My question for you is did you support Arizona enforcing immigration law more vigorously when they tried that? Does states rights go both ways?

Yes. I always support states rights. The only thing I default to higher than that is civil rights. My default is always the constitution. States rights do not trump civil rights, but short of that, I'm always in favor of states rights.

As an example if you like. Let's say you refuse to answer questions of the police. Your rights under the fifth are clear. The Right of the state does not trump your individual right to remain silent. I would object to the state trying to compel you.

I have never argued that the Feds should lay off illegals. I've never argued that the states should. I've only argued that the states should make their own decisions, and carry out their own policies. If the State wants to help ICE, that is their choice. If the states want to tell ICE that no help will be forthcoming, again it is their choice.

That's pretty much their choice now. But if they don't want to help, the feds should be allowed to cutoff their federal funds. It would already be the law of the land if not for leftist activist judges.

Some money you could cut without problems. Money that is entitlement would be a problem.

Entitlement for whom?

 

[Dale Smith]

Tell me why it is wrong to demand that the Sheriff conduct background checks, but right to require that same Sheriff to enforce Immigration laws.

The second and tenth amendment protect the states and individual from federal interference in large part

The Federal government has sole control on immigration.

But yet the states are to foot the bill for the illegals? What local officials can do is notify ICE and detain said illegal until they arrive.

 

[Ame®icano]

I'm not saying that illegal immigration is not a crime. I'm not saying we should ignore it. I am saying that the cities in question may have other priorities that are more serious. Finding your grandfathers watch may be important. But while you are in a burning building, you might want to reconsider your priorities.

I skipped the rest and will comment on bold only.

There is no such thing called "illegal immigration". There is either ignorant or willful conflation in media between legal and illegal immigrant. Using term "illegal immigrant" is misleading and based on a false premise

If you are an immigrant, it means you are here legally. and someone being illegally here is not an immigrant, just an illegal. When leftists and media says "immigrant detained" their goal is to portray that government did something bad, or unjust, which of course is not a case.

By the way, removing illegals from the country is neither bad, nor unjust, it's an action required by the laws on books and every time it happen I applaud it.

 

[Ame®icano]

You do know that the illegal immigrants tape, murder, and rob at a lower rate than native born don't you? How big a problem is crime committed by immigrants?

Hell, police commit more crimes per capita than illegal immigrants.

Tell me, does that justifies their stay here? What, we should let more of them in to lower our crime rate?

No, they have no right to be here, even if they commit no other crime.

 

[SavannahMann]

It may be that you misunderstand the constitution. The Constitution restricts what the Government can do to you. It does not say what the Government must do for you. It certainly is not the duty of the police to protect you. That is not my crazy liberal idea. That is not my opinion of the behavior of police. That is the summary of a Supreme Court Case. Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

It is one of the many things quoted, correctly IMO, by people to oppose gun control. But that is another topic.

The Fifth Amendment says that the Government may not deprive you of Life, Liberty, or Property without due process of law. What that process is has changed dramatically. It is now the whim of a cop on the side of the road. But again that is a different topic. The Fifth Amendment does not say that the Government must defend your life, liberty, or property.

ICE agents can arrest Illegals in Los Angeles today, just like they can anywhere else. No one is preventing them. Georgia where I live, is busy trying to help the ICE agents. Again, doing just about everything short of actually deporting the illegal. I'm not in the streets protesting that. Georgia as a state has the right to decide what laws they have, and what the standards are, as long as those standards do not violate civil rights. Civil Rights trump States Rights.

ICE loves Georgia. They don't have to do anything but pick the Illegal up from the local cops. That is the right of the State to decide it's own laws, and it's own policy.

What you are saying is anything less than the local cops doing everything for the ICE agent short of deportation is somehow a crime or unconstitutional.

Maybe not constitutionally required, but required by their oath of police officers:

I........................DO SWEAR,, THAT - I WILL WELL AND TRULY SERVE - OUR SOVEREIGN COUNTRY AND STATE - AS A POLICE OFFICER WITHOUT FAVOR OR AFFECTION - MALICE OR ILL-WILL - UNTIL I AM LEGALLY DISCHARGED, THAT I WILL SEE AND CAUSE OUR COMMUNITY’S PEACE TO BE KEPT AND
PRESERVED - AND THAT - I WILL PREVENT TO THE BEST OF MY POWER - ALL OFFENSES AGAINST THAT PEACE - AND THAT - WHILE I CONTINUE TO BE A POLICE OFFICER - I WILL - TO THE BEST OF MY SKILL AND KNOWLEDGE - DISCHARGE ALL THE DUTIES THEREOF - FAITHFULLY - ACCORDING TO LAW.
SO HELP ME GOD.
(Sample Oath)

Police Officer's Oath

California's oath as mandatated by their laws.

Law section


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

“And I do further swear (or affirm) that I do not advocate, nor am I a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that now advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means; that within the five years immediately preceding the taking of this oath (or affirmation) I have not been a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocated the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means except as follows:

_____ (If no affiliations, write in the words “No Exceptions”) _____

and that during such time as I hold the office of _____ (name of office) _____

I will not advocate nor become a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means.”

I guess California didn't get the memo that the Police Officers Union thinks the oath ought to be different.

This isn't a police officers oath. It's a public servant oath. From your link:

Members of the Legislature, and all public officers and employees, executive, legislative, and judicial, except such inferior officers and employees as may be by law exempted, shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation:

Now before you say that a "public officer" means police (which I'm assuming you did) think again:

public officer

• Examples
• Word Origin

noun
1.
a person appointed or elected to a governmental post.

the definition of public officer

Ok. Let's play this game.

Same oath is located here. At the San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs association web site.

The Oath - San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs' Association

Well what the fuck do they know about what oath cops are supposed to take. Dickheads.

God Damn cops can't even get their oath right.

I'm a little stuck. Perhaps you can help. I've opened half a dozen webpages and I keep getting the same thing.



Perhaps you have a link where the oath you posted is the one police swear to everywhere.

Because I keep finding the oath I posted.



It is damn frustrating that I can't find the oath you posted used by anyone.

Georgia Sheriffs swear something very different.

Your Oath of Office and Your Duties

By any chance, was the oath you posted written by a fanboy? Because I can't find where it is used.

As to your first link, do you know what a peace officer is? It's not a police officer. A peace officer is an armed security guard basically. They stand guard at Walmart stores or do private security. Your second link was to the Sheriffs department which handles county work exclusively.

Ray do you ever have a clue? I posted the chief of police taking the oath. I posted the graduating class of the police academy taking the oath. Yet you just keep on with the nonsense that they are taking the wrong oath. Just admit it. You linked to some fanboy site.