Federalizations of law enforcement

[MeMelYup]

What would this do to Texas law enforcement. What would this do to Texans freedom? What would this do to Texas legislature?
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... amendment/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
What would this do for the people?
Isn't this against the freedom of States?

[The Annoyed Man]

I think it would require a Constitutional amendment. It would otherwise be a clear violation of the 10th Amendment and would not survive a SCOTUS challenge.

10th Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

There is no wiggle room there. The Constitution does not delegate to the United States the power to federalize local police. Nor does it prohibit the states from having local police. Therefore, the power of policing at the state level is reserved to the states respectively, and locally to The People.

Since the power of the federal government to federalize all state and local police nationally does not exist in the Constitution, the only possible exception I can think of would be under a national declaration of martial law. And absent a compelling national emergency of some sort, that's not going to happen. Even if it did, it could only be a temporary measure.

So for this to happen, it would have to be by means of some kind of a coup, and I just don't think they could pull that off.

[wheelgun1958]

The loonies will attempt invocation of Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution by declaring police forces militia.

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;

[rbwhatever1]

I think they would find a Militia much larger than expected...

[Vol Texan]

Since the power of the federal government to federalize all state and local police nationally does not exist in the Constitution, the only possible exception I can think of would be under a national declaration of martial law. And absent a compelling national emergency of some sort, that's not going to happen. Even if it did, it could only be a temporary measure.

So for this to happen, it would have to be by means of some kind of a coup, and I just don't think they could pull that off.

While I agree that the actual federalization of local police could be blocked, I do fear that the de facto federalization is just a signature away from happening. It may already be happening in select locations, to a small degree (that's just a gut feeling, I have no data to validate that idea). Note the section in the article:

1.8.4 ACTION ITEM: Discretionary federal funding for law enforcement programs could be influenced by that department’s efforts to improve their diversity and cultural and linguistic responsiveness.

As a parallel example, the federal government has no right to dictate how we drive, but by withholding tax dollars (or threatening to do so), they have been able to institute a national seat belt law. Nowhere in the law does it say it is a federal crime not to buckle up, but make no mistake, they have used the power of the purse to force their will on the states - and the states have never once fought back. What makes us think that it would be different if they did the same with our police?

[VMI77]

I don't see it happening. Some of the Collectivist Utopia states might go along with it, but ultimately, such an attempt will decrease Federal power because most states will fight in court and then simply ignore any Federal takeover. It's not going to happen without the cooperation of each state.

A Federal government that can't or won't enforce Federal marijuana laws against states that have legalized marijuana is not going to be able to Federalize police forces. I think that is where we're headed in general...the more the Feds overreach the more the states will just ignore the Feds and the Feds will be powerless to do anything about it. This is a Federal Government that can't even issue IDs to new employees and requires months to issue new IDs to existing employees whose IDs have expired. A government that takes 12-18 months to bring a new employee on board AFTER they've already cleared the selection process because that's how long it take to get a background check done. That's not a government that's going to Federalize the police in 50 states.

[VMI77]

Since the power of the federal government to federalize all state and local police nationally does not exist in the Constitution, the only possible exception I can think of would be under a national declaration of martial law. And absent a compelling national emergency of some sort, that's not going to happen. Even if it did, it could only be a temporary measure.

So for this to happen, it would have to be by means of some kind of a coup, and I just don't think they could pull that off.

While I agree that the actual federalization of local police could be blocked, I do fear that the de facto federalization is just a signature away from happening. It may already be happening in select locations, to a small degree (that's just a gut feeling, I have no data to validate that idea). Note the section in the article:

1.8.4 ACTION ITEM: Discretionary federal funding for law enforcement programs could be influenced by that department’s efforts to improve their diversity and cultural and linguistic responsiveness.

As a parallel example, the federal government has no right to dictate how we drive, but by withholding tax dollars (or threatening to do so), they have been able to institute a national seat belt law. Nowhere in the law does it say it is a federal crime not to buckle up, but make no mistake, they have used the power of the purse to force their will on the states - and the states have never once fought back. What makes us think that it would be different if they did the same with our police?

Because the stakes are orders of magnitude higher. While I'm opposed to such nanny state laws, in the scheme of things, the seat belt law isn't that big a deal compared to turning your entire state over the Federal law enforcement.

[Vol Texan]

1.8.4 ACTION ITEM: Discretionary federal funding for law enforcement programs could be influenced by that department’s efforts to improve their diversity and cultural and linguistic responsiveness.

As a parallel example, the federal government has no right to dictate how we drive, but by withholding tax dollars (or threatening to do so), they have been able to institute a national seat belt law. Nowhere in the law does it say it is a federal crime not to buckle up, but make no mistake, they have used the power of the purse to force their will on the states - and the states have never once fought back. What makes us think that it would be different if they did the same with our police?

Because the stakes are orders of magnitude higher. While I'm opposed to such nanny state laws, in the scheme of things, the seat belt law isn't that big a deal compared to turning your entire state over the Federal law enforcement.

I appreciate your perspective on this, and I do agree, 'turning the entire state over to Federal law enforcement' would be virtually impossible for them to do. But that's not what I'm saying here. I'm not suggesting that all local LEOs would suddenly put on a 'federal' badge instead of a 'local' badge. But I do think that the federal government could use the power of the purse to drive different behaviors.

The seat belt law is the perfect example here. The Federal government wanted this, they used the power of the purse to drive the states to pass state laws regarding seat belts, and now the local LEOs happily enforce those laws.

Lets say that the feds come up with new favorite rule: all LEOs MUST wear body cams. Can they write a federal law saying that this must happen? Likely no. Could they decide to withhold funding from any department that does not comply? Sure they could...and departments would subsequently create local policies regarding the body cams once the threat of money being withheld comes into play. Suddenly we have another federally-driven behavior implemented by locals.

Sure, seat belts, body cams, etc...that's all good stuff, right? Keeping people safe from themselves...who in their right mind would argue against that?!? (Count me in. I despise seat belt laws. I'll wear it if I want, and I'll enforce it on my child, but it disgusts me that it is a requirement that has been driven down by not just the state, but the federal government as well.)

But what about when the federal government steps in further...requiring local organizations to do other things?

• What if they wanted to install RFID trackers in all license plates so they could track the movement of every car, everywhere, every day? Hmmm...the local folks already do that to some extent with toll tags, so it's not that much of a reach to go further.
• What if they wanted the local agencies to report the names, addresses, etc. of all CHL license holders en masse? Sure, the state may say no, but only until the $$ runs dry. Then, you never know.
• What if they wanted the local agencies to reduce standards to ensure that the demographics of the department exactly match the demographics of the neighborhoods? Sure, having a diversity of LEOs is a good thing, but forcing it is not always so. If the funds are cut until the diversity grows, then you'll be certain that somewhere, somehow, a local agency will be forced to make some bad hiring decisions.

No, I'm not a tinfoil hat conspiracy guy, but I do see de facto workarounds of the 10th Amendment all over the place, and this bugs me. It's my second-favorite of the Bill of Rights, and I hate to see it weakened so often.

[MeMelYup]

What would the Federalizing of local police departments do to the function of Texas DOJ and why would the state need an Attorney General? Would that stop the states from suing the Federal Gov't.?

[MeMelYup]

[*]What if they wanted the local agencies to report the names, addresses, etc. of all CHL license holders en masse? Sure, the state may say no, but only until the $$ runs dry.

If they have Federalized a police department wouldn't they already have full access to the departments computers and accesses?

[The Annoyed Man]

As a parallel example, the federal government has no right to dictate how we drive, but by withholding tax dollars (or threatening to do so), they have been able to institute a national seat belt law. Nowhere in the law does it say it is a federal crime not to buckle up, but make no mistake, they have used the power of the purse to force their will on the states - and the states have never once fought back. What makes us think that it would be different if they did the same with our police?

There are actual examples of states refusing to be cowed into submission by federal dollars. Was it Wyoming (or one of the other rocky mountain states) that refused to implement the federally mandated 55mph speed limit for years, agreeing to forgoe the federal highway transportation funds? And currently, several states, Texas included, have speed zones that are 5-10 mph higher than the federally mandated 75mph limit: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_li ... ted_States.

[VMI77]

1.8.4 ACTION ITEM: Discretionary federal funding for law enforcement programs could be influenced by that department’s efforts to improve their diversity and cultural and linguistic responsiveness.

As a parallel example, the federal government has no right to dictate how we drive, but by withholding tax dollars (or threatening to do so), they have been able to institute a national seat belt law. Nowhere in the law does it say it is a federal crime not to buckle up, but make no mistake, they have used the power of the purse to force their will on the states - and the states have never once fought back. What makes us think that it would be different if they did the same with our police?

Because the stakes are orders of magnitude higher. While I'm opposed to such nanny state laws, in the scheme of things, the seat belt law isn't that big a deal compared to turning your entire state over the Federal law enforcement.

I appreciate your perspective on this, and I do agree, 'turning the entire state over to Federal law enforcement' would be virtually impossible for them to do. But that's not what I'm saying here. I'm not suggesting that all local LEOs would suddenly put on a 'federal' badge instead of a 'local' badge. But I do think that the federal government could use the power of the purse to drive different behaviors.

The seat belt law is the perfect example here. The Federal government wanted this, they used the power of the purse to drive the states to pass state laws regarding seat belts, and now the local LEOs happily enforce those laws.

Lets say that the feds come up with new favorite rule: all LEOs MUST wear body cams. Can they write a federal law saying that this must happen? Likely no. Could they decide to withhold funding from any department that does not comply? Sure they could...and departments would subsequently create local policies regarding the body cams once the threat of money being withheld comes into play. Suddenly we have another federally-driven behavior implemented by locals.

Sure, seat belts, body cams, etc...that's all good stuff, right? Keeping people safe from themselves...who in their right mind would argue against that?!? (Count me in. I despise seat belt laws. I'll wear it if I want, and I'll enforce it on my child, but it disgusts me that it is a requirement that has been driven down by not just the state, but the federal government as well.)

But what about when the federal government steps in further...requiring local organizations to do other things?

• What if they wanted to install RFID trackers in all license plates so they could track the movement of every car, everywhere, every day? Hmmm...the local folks already do that to some extent with toll tags, so it's not that much of a reach to go further.
• What if they wanted the local agencies to report the names, addresses, etc. of all CHL license holders en masse? Sure, the state may say no, but only until the $$ runs dry. Then, you never know.
• What if they wanted the local agencies to reduce standards to ensure that the demographics of the department exactly match the demographics of the neighborhoods? Sure, having a diversity of LEOs is a good thing, but forcing it is not always so. If the funds are cut until the diversity grows, then you'll be certain that somewhere, somehow, a local agency will be forced to make some bad hiring decisions.

No, I'm not a tinfoil hat conspiracy guy, but I do see de facto workarounds of the 10th Amendment all over the place, and this bugs me. It's my second-favorite of the Bill of Rights, and I hate to see it weakened so often.

I don't see de facto workarounds for the 10th, I see it as being mostly ignored. It has been ignored because what's been done has been expedient and popular.

All those things are possible and would probably be dealt with on a case by case basis, accepting some, rejecting others. Adopting some of them might actually hasten the demise of Federal power. They can mandate that the sun provide the US with an extra five hours of daylight every day to improve output from solar generators too but it ain't gonna happen. A diversity requirement like that is one of those things....it can't and won't happen, and will decrease Federal power. A diversity mandate for police departments that is supposed to reflect the demographics of the policed neighborhood is impossible.

I actually hope they do try such a mandate. The most opposition to that will probably come from Black officers. I doubt most police officers want to patrol bad neighborhoods. If you try to make Black officers patrol a predominately Black neighborhood to fill a quota they'll sue for discrimination, and rightly so, since the criteria for making them patrol such an area would be racial. Also, take some neighborhood that is 50%, 70%, whatever, Black,....where would all these Black officers come from? Even if you could find the numbers needed it would end up being a permanent assignment for Black officers in order to maintain the quotas. That can't happen so it won't. I encountered a similar demographic quota years ago working at a power plant. We were supposed to have X% Black employees based on the local demographics. That quota was impossible to fill so it was just ignored.

Anyway, it couldn't work even if they could find enough minority officers and none of them objected to the assignment. Neighborhood crime won't change because the officers are the same race as the criminals. They'd still be police officers responsible for the same policing and acting in more or less the same manner. 50% of the indicted Baltimore officers are Black, indicted by a Black DA in a city with a Black mayor. I highly doubt that Black cops are more tolerant of criminals than White cops.

But I think the biggest buffer here is money. The Federal government is bankrupt. States like Texas are in much better financial shape than the Federal government. I don't know how long the Federal government has left, but I expect to see its power greatly diminished in my life time by economic reality alone. Obamacare -unsustainable. Medicare --unsustainable. Federal spending overall --unsustainable. There is only so much time left for adding zeros behind spreadsheet balances in the Federal reserve computer system before the system collapses. The rest of the world is actively banding together to seek the demise of the dollar. They haven't progressed far yet....our economy is still huge even with all the jobs and capital we've exported...but once the dollar loses reserve currency status Federal power will become a shadow of what it is now.

Ironically, since the Feds are behind opening the borders, another factor that is likely to diminish Federal power is unrestricted immigration. Millions of Hispanics from third world nations don't have anything in common with Washington DC and the Federal government. The Feds are likely to find the border states drifting away from submission to Federal power due do the demographics of immigration.

I'm not predicting a rosy future by any means but I tend to think that Federal power has pretty much reached its zenith and it's going to be on the wane for the rest of my lifetime.

[mr surveyor]

well said, VMI77



jd

[Vol Texan]

(snip)

But I think the biggest buffer here is money. The Federal government is bankrupt. States like Texas are in much better financial shape than the Federal government. I don't know how long the Federal government has left, but I expect to see its power greatly diminished in my life time by economic reality alone.

(snip)

I'm not predicting a rosy future by any means but I tend to think that Federal power has pretty much reached its zenith and it's going to be on the wane for the rest of my lifetime.

I hope that you're right on these two issues. I'd love to see the balance of power shift back toward the states. I'm not hoping for complete dissolution of the Union, but less power in the Yankee Capitol (DC) is always a good thing. Let's keep our fingers crossed that all ends up well for us and our children...

[bmwrdr]

I don't see it happening. Some of the Collectivist Utopia states might go along with it, but ultimately, such an attempt will decrease Federal power because most states will fight in court and then simply ignore any Federal takeover. It's not going to happen without the cooperation of each state.

A Federal government that can't or won't enforce Federal marijuana laws against states that have legalized marijuana is not going to be able to Federalize police forces. I think that is where we're headed in general...the more the Feds overreach the more the states will just ignore the Feds and the Feds will be powerless to do anything about it. This is a Federal Government that can't even issue IDs to new employees and requires months to issue new IDs to existing employees whose IDs have expired. A government that takes 12-18 months to bring a new employee on board AFTER they've already cleared the selection process because that's how long it take to get a background check done. That's not a government that's going to Federalize the police in 50 states.

Ack! Essential parts of the background check aare outsourced, interviews are performed on a public record base pulled from search engines over the internet and phone calls in regards to federal security are originated from foreign countries, just to mention a few flaws. Federalizing police forces would most likely amount to outsourcing security and control the flow of money. See ACA, a serious inflation of overhead with no improvement to health care.