Homesteading Forum banner

141 - 160 of 224 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,015 Posts
I feel like racisim was pretty well on the way out until the Obamas entered the whitehouse. They played the race card hard to get in there and used it the entire time to keep themselves in the news. They are still in the news routinely stirring up trouble regarding race issues. Now anytime some scumbag person of color gets harassed, beat up or killed (in line of duty) by a white cop, the cops get crucified. If anyone steps up to support the white officer, they are immediately called racist.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,559 Posts
In United States constitutional law, police power is the capacity of the states to regulate behavior and enforce order within their territory for the betterment of the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of their inhabitants.[1] Police power is defined in each jurisdiction by the legislative body, which determines the public purposes that need to be served by legislation.[2] Under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the powers not delegated to the Federal Government are reserved to the states or to the people. This implies that the Federal Government does not possess all possible powers, because most of these are reserved to the State governments, and others are reserved to the people.

"The authority for use of police power under American Constitutional law has its roots in English and European common law traditions.[3] Even more fundamentally, use of police power draws on two (Latin) principles, sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas ("use that which is yours so as not to injure others"), and salus populi suprema lex esto ("the welfare of the people shall be the supreme law"), to justify restriction of individual liberties in order to protect the general welfare.[3] The concept of police power in America was further expanded in a series of notable court cases in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries, including the landmark 1851 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court case Commonwealth v. Alger, and the 1905 Supreme Court case Jacobson v. Massachusetts. "

The constitution does not give police authority to the federal government, it leaves it to the states. The states can make their own laws, and enforce them or not as they see fit. The constitution does not give them this authority, it denies it to the federal government. The constitution restricts the powers of the federal government, and leaves the states to choose what they wish to do, or not do. It does not grant any police powers, it gives the states the choice of what they will do or not do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,559 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,559 Posts
...provide for the general welfare.
Rights not given specifically to the federal government, belong to the states and the people.
Yes, it belongs to the states and the people, but they are not required to do anything. It ensures their right to choose. And those choices end up being made by politicians, who are more interested in their own agenda than keeping the peace. And that leaves the citizen with the short end of the stick.
 

·
Unapologetically me
Joined
·
21,102 Posts
Discussion Starter · #145 ·
I've noticed not many of those who believe in Systemic Racism have commented on this.
 

·
SM Entrepreneuraholic
Joined
·
14,555 Posts
The constitution does not give police authority to the federal government, it leaves it to the states. The states can make their own laws, and enforce them or not as they see fit. The constitution does not give them this authority, it denies it to the federal government. The constitution restricts the powers of the federal government, and leaves the states to choose what they wish to do, or not do. It does not grant any police powers, it gives the states the choice of what they will do or not do.
I believe that is exactly the point I made with one exception. It is in the Constitution - 10th amendment combined with Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution, that gives the states both the right and the obligation to provide for a secure and safe environment and to protect an individual's rights.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
41,725 Posts
I believe that is exactly the point I made with one exception. It is in the Constitution - 10th amendment combined with Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution, that gives the states both the right and the obligation to provide for a secure and safe environment and to protect an individual's rights.
The general welfare clause places no obligation upon the states Nor upon the federal government. It only grants the power to tax. much farther down the constitution does place one obligation upon the states... to provide a republican form of government to its citizens.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,997 Posts
I believe that is exactly the point I made with one exception. It is in the Constitution - 10th amendment combined with Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution, that gives the states both the right and the obligation to provide for a secure and safe environment and to protect an individual's rights.
Seems many of us have not been getting our monies worth then. Might be the reason I do not high expectations.
 

·
SM Entrepreneuraholic
Joined
·
14,555 Posts
The general welfare clause places no obligation upon the states Nor upon the federal government. It only grants the power to tax. much farther down the constitution does place one obligation upon the states... to provide a republican form of government to its citizens.
Police powers within a state are defined by that state's constitution, which must be in compliance with the US Constitution.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,629 Posts
I've already said it about 5 times, but I'll say it again. The government has accepted the responsibility of providing a safe environment for our citizens. If a child is not safe on the way to or from school, or while in school, the government has not met their obligation under the Constitution. The question then becomes why hasn't the government provided a safe environment as they agreed to? If it has anything to do with the racial makeup of the community, it would be an example of systemic racism.

You keep arguing against things I never said. Police power is given in the Constitution to the government. We the people gave up the right of being vigilantes and told the government to provide security. I am not talking about voting, about who commits the most crimes, or how bad education is. I am simply saying every child in America is entitled to be safe in their person going to and from school. Whether it is walking, riding a school bus, or riding a city bus, the government has a responsibility to provide the necessary resources to ensure these children are reasonably safe.

Why is it the governments job to keep the child safe? Is not the parents job?
 

·
SM Entrepreneuraholic
Joined
·
14,555 Posts
Why is it the governments job to keep the child safe? Is not the parents job?
I specifically picked going to school because it is a government facility that sets the hours a student is expected to attend and tells the family of the child what means of transportation to school are offered. At that point, the state has taken on the safety of that child.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
374 Posts
I specifically picked going to school because it is a government facility that sets the hours a student is expected to attend and tells the family of the child what means of transportation to school are offered. At that point, the state has taken on the safety of that child.
I specifically picked going to school because it is a government facility that sets the hours a student is expected to attend and tells the family of the child what means of transportation to school are offered. At that point, the state has taken on the safety of that child.
I urge you all to read William Goldings "The Lord of the Flies" even if you read it once before.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,821 Posts
I highly recommend him, but you have to go back to see him before he turned into a YouTube Thinker. Still watch that, but go back in time to see him more raw.

Very good video's, they make a person examine closer the perceived problem under discussion. Thanks, he is now on my reading and watching list.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,821 Posts
I specifically picked going to school because it is a government facility that sets the hours a student is expected to attend and tells the family of the child what means of transportation to school are offered. At that point, the state has taken on the safety of that child.
When a child is in the mandated custody of a state/federal institution it holds responsibility for the child's well being, on that we agree. But those institutions are failing badly in this. Some so bad they should be held criminally liable.
 

·
SM Entrepreneuraholic
Joined
·
14,555 Posts
When a child is in the mandated custody of a state/federal institution it holds responsibility for the child's well being, on that we agree. But those institutions are failing badly in this. Some so bad they should be held criminally liable.
We agree. Going all the way back to my original point, when this failure seems to happen more frequently in poor, minority schools, it might be that systemic racism is part of the cause. For years, poor school systems have argued that the method a state uses to fund schools often does not provide equal funding to poor communities.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,821 Posts
We agree. Going all the way back to my original point, when this failure seems to happen more frequently in poor, minority schools, it might be that systemic racism is part of the cause. For years, poor school systems have argued that the method a state uses to fund schools often does not provide equal funding to poor communities.
If the schools would allow security and allow said security to handle problems, that would be a major help. But allowing the dangerous to continue on is ridiculous. So fund adequate security, real security, along with punishment, in conjunction with the legal system. I don't see it as systemic racism as it seems to cross all lines. But there should always be punishment not the mealy mouthed saviors that think they can solve anything with there babble.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cornhusker

·
Be powerful. No other option exists.
Joined
·
41,210 Posts
Vjk. That’s an awful high horse you are riding for a newbie in this forum.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
26,577 Posts
Read it again, carefully. Claiming lands isnt the same as owning lands. The act empowered the president to “exchange” lands with various tribes and even compensate them for improvements if they agreed.
I know what the law said. I also know how that law was used to forcibly remove unwilling people from productive homesteads onto trash land where they could not grow crops. There was no compensation. Those forcibly removed were not allowed to take anything with them. Read some historical accounts of the Trail of Tears.
 
141 - 160 of 224 Posts
Top