[Politech] A criticism of "Are cops constitutional?" law review article

From: Declan McCullagh (declan@private)
Date: Mon Jan 05 2004 - 22:27:16 PST

  • Next message: Declan McCullagh: "[Politech] A defense of techcentralstation's journalism and credibility"

    ---
    
    From: "George, Paul" <PCGeorge@private>
    To: "'Declan McCullagh'" <declan@private>
    Subject: RE: [Politech] Are cops constitutional? -- a law review article w
    	onders
    Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 16:01:25 -0500
    
    Hi Declan,
    
    This response is perhaps  a mite late, but use it if you feel it is still of
    interest.
    
    I am no fan of the current level of police powers, to say the least, nor the
    history of goon squads operating under corporate or municipal authority. My
    cut on the article was that there was a bit of cherry picking on the
    evidence, though his central thesis that a public police force was not
    customary at the time of the founders is correct. However, that does not
    make establishing such a thing improper, abused or not, particularly at the
    local or state level.
    
    I also ran the article past my father, B. James George, who is a fairly
    respected constitutional law professor.
    
    My father's excerpted comments:
    ....The resources on which he relies primarily in support of his thesis are
    "libertarian" and not mainstream. Professor Akhil Amar is a well-known and
    -respected source, but Root cites his work to repudiate it.
    
    The principal (or worst) flaw in Root's analysis, I think, is that he
    ignores the fact that under the federal constitutional system the states
    have plenary authority to create governmental organs and enact substantive
    and procedural legislation and regulations as they see the need, as long as
    they do not infringe upon individual rights created or recognized under the
    federal constitution. The developments Root is exercised about affecting the
    creation of local and state police organs and the allocation of arrest and
    related authority to them have fallen within the legitimate exercise of
    state legislative authority, and I doubt that the "Founders" would have
    questioned that exercise. The Supreme Court precedents he makes reference to
    are focused on the issue of whether state authority and its exercise have
    violated individual rights under the Fourth Amendment and other relevant
    federal constitutional provisions. Most of the Court's more recent holdings
    have served functionally to legitimate police investigatory practices, but
    that does not seem to be important to Root.
    
    ...The Supreme Court in interpreting the Eleventh Amendment during the past
    six or seven years, by a 5-4 majority, has gone back to "original Founder
    intent" in denying Congress the authority to subject state-level entities to
    the reach of federal legislation (unless Congress makes suitably detailed
    findings as to the necessity of such regulatory legislation), but I can't
    see them invalidating the now-traditional state criminal law and procedural
    legislation that Root so objects to (even if Bush gets another term and
    appoints 5 Clarence Thomas clones to the Court).
    
    Paul George
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Declan McCullagh [mailto:declan@private]
    Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 2:54 PM
    To: politech@private
    Subject: [Politech] Are cops constitutional? -- a law review article wonders
    
    
    [This is an interesting article that's worth reading. Info on the author is
    here: http://www.prisoncrisis.com/founder.html --Declan]
    
    ---
    
    http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm
    
    Seton Hall Constitutional L.J. 2001, 685
    ARE COPS CONSTITUTIONAL?
    Roger Roots*
    
    ABSTRACT
    
    Police work is often lionized by jurists and scholars who claim to employ
    "textualist" and "originalist" methods of constitutional interpretation.
    Yet professional police were unknown to the United States in 1789, and
    first appeared in America almost a half-century after the Constitution's
    ratification. The Framers contemplated law enforcement as the duty of
    mostly private citizens, along with a few constables and sheriffs who could
    be called upon when necessary. This article marshals extensive historical
    and legal evidence to show that modern policing is in many ways
    inconsistent with the original intent of America's founding documents. The
    author argues that the growth of modern policing has substantially
    empowered the state in a way the Framers would regard as abhorrent to their
    foremost principles.
    
    ---
    
    _______________________________________________
    Politech mailing list
    Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
    Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Jan 05 2004 - 22:46:16 PST