I saw a post by a friend tonight that I thought needed some consideration both by him and his cohorts in his professional capacity as well as from fellow law abiding tax payers. Believe it or not, this is a rather contentious issue that both sides struggle with and I believe neither side is at fault.
My friend is a police officer, a social media acquaintance that I happen to have great respect for, watching what he has written, much of what he writes about I couldn’t agree with more but this one post had me a bit perplexed. As I explain my thoughts, it is absolutely important that no one mistakes this post as disrespectful toward him or those in his same profession but only to offer a perspective that could be beneficial to both law enforcement and those they swore to protect.
After all what I write about rogue governments, ignorance and deviations from the original intent of the law, it could be easy for those that have no understanding of where I am coming from to misunderstand the points I am trying to make. My hope is that eventual understanding of my posts may be considered as possible solutions or partial considerations in the restoration of freedom and liberty to a people that, in many cases, still do not see anything wrong. I will not claim to have all the answers, maybe I don’t have any but it still doesn’t change the fact that sometimes people have brief moments of wisdom that can change the hearts and minds of people, I hope to have that kind of affect at least once in my life.
The post began, I believe, with my friends frustration with drivers failing to or refusing to move over while an officer was detaining a driver on the shoulder of the interstate, I believe he stated “it really grinds his gears”. If I were an officer, I think it would be easy to agree with him but I’m not an officer and I although I see his concerns as legitimate, I also see things a bit differently.
In my communication with law enforcement, one thing stands out above all, their commitment to obey and enforce all laws even if they do not agree with them. They are trained to believe if they do not obey all laws, the result is chaos, like law enforcement, I believe that strict adherence to the laws is imperative, but with the exception that laws that are written are properly applied. Should law enforcement obey all laws even if they know that the laws are wrong or improperly applied?
The question to me really isn’t really about should law enforcement obey all laws or shall the people obey all laws but first and foremost, were all laws created by the legislature proper and applied correctly? The question should fall on whether the legislators are qualified and knowledgeable to make such laws that bind not only law enforcement to enforce the laws but apply them to the people for whom they are apparently written?
My point is can a legislative body restrict the people to whom it represents by the creation of any law? Can a legislative body delegate powers to an endless multitude of political subdivisions that authorize them with the power to make laws that are all applicable to the people and enforced by officers? If you ask officers, they will tell you, they must enforce any law that is created. I disagree and there is the rub.
What if the elected legislature has no idea of the proper application of law? What if the legislature has no understanding of history, civics or present form of government, can they and are they acting properly and efficiently?
Although this can take of in many directions, and in many cases should, for the sake of brevity I will keep it as it relates to the post.
I think the question, relating to the post is this, should travelers on the interstate move over for officers giving tickets on the shoulder of an interstate going 75MPH? The legislature created a law that stated that law enforcement has the authority to stop people on the interstate even without probable cause with the right to search your vehicle without your permission (and force them to stop immediately). If you haven’t asked yourself yet, ask yourself, what and where the limitations are placed on your government to protect your rights should they no longer care to protect them? Checks and balances? The answer is there are no longer any restrictions on them. As long as the legislature can now write laws or delegate authority without the authority, the protection of your freedom by limiting government no longer exists.
If the legislature writes laws that give law enforcement authority, do they rightfully have it? Do they rightfully have to obey it? What if the laws that the legislature writes either by ignorance or by the fulfillment of an agenda jeopardize the safety of the officers? What if they jeopardize the safety of the travelers? Am I the only one that sees things this way?
Consider this. The legislature gives the authority for the Department of Transportation to set speed limits. Is this a law and should it be enforced? The answer to this question is simple but only if one knows and understands the hierarchy of law.
First, all legislators and officers swore an oath to support and defend the constitution and the laws of the state of Idaho. What if one is in complete contradiction to the others? Which law is supreme to the other? The answer is that the constitution (not the supreme court) is the supreme law and constitutionally, all laws are to be created by the legislature. The reason for this is so that the people were not held to abide by laws by any and every political subdivision because it directly threatens their liberty which is why the laws were created in the “people house.” Knowing this, the Department of Transportation (or any other political subdivision) has no authority to make or enforce laws and the legislature lacks the authority to delegate enforcement authority to other political subdivisions because it also threatens and confuses the limitations placed on government.
The law created by the legislature allowing officers the authority it has on the interstate is wrong for several reasons:
It puts officers in harm’s way by standing on the interstate between traveling cars and the apprehended vehicle.
It puts travelers in danger as it forces travelers in the right lane to forcefully and urgently move into the left lane creating bottlenecking and congestion increasing the risk of accidents.
It restricts travelers on the interstate for the sake or purpose of apprehending one vehicle. (Should the entire interstate be criminalized at the apprehension of one vehicle?) If governments are to protect the rights of the people and protect the innocent from wrong doers doesn’t this seem a bit contradictory in that the mass movement of travelers are now breaking the law when it is not only their right to travel without restriction but the proper role of law enforcement to protect that right?
Laws created this way build animosity between travelers and law enforcement officers, officers feel they are bound to enforce the law, the people feel they have the right to travel and our legislature feels it has the right to write any law it desires even if it violates logic, common sense and the intent behind their constitutional oath?
As I stated in a comment on the post, I have several solutions to the problems with the intent to re-build the relationship between law enforcement and the people they protect and a few are as follows:
The law of the road has always been:
Go with the flow of traffic. Patrol vehicles do nothing more that create congestion that increase the risks of accidents.
The left lane is a passing lane and the right lane is for slower vehicles. Today, the new laws state that the left lane is for thru traffic and the right lane is to be left open for entrance from on ramps. This causes frustration among travelers because now the slow vehicles are in the passing lane creating congestion increasing the risk for accidents and road rage.
Cars entering from onramps were to merge with the flow of traffic but have now been legislatively contorted to force travelers on the interstate to yield to those entering the freeway which when entering slowly is incredibly dangerous and frustrating for travelers going with the flow of traffic, increasing the risk of accidents and road rage.
Today the new move over law, legislatively created is dangerous and forces the increased risk than the purpose for its creation to increase safety.
Speed does not kill! This is a propaganda piece from hell. This mantra is used as a means to command submission in that government should have the right to force anyone to slow down because it is safer when the real issue is not safety at all but the wreckless irresponsible nature of people that lack personal responsibility and rather than apprehending them, in the effort to promote social justice, if one is a criminal we all are! If you recall, speed limits decades ago were much higher and consequently we were much freer then as well.
If officers feel the need to apprehend a vehicle, the legislature created a law that states not only do the travelers have to stop immediately but stop on the interstate against their will increasing the possibility of harm not only to the officer but the person stopped on the road. Why is there no reason that when an officer makes a stop that the apprehended vehicle cannot pull off to the nearest offramp where it is safer? If the officer or the apprehended vehicle get injured, who’s fault is it then, The traveler on the interstate? Hardly, it’s the legislature that was hell bent on creating a law to be enforced by officers putting not only their own lives in danger but the traveler? Is this not contrary to the purpose of peace officers, to protect and serve not to endanger for the sake of revenue generation?
The question should be asked with regards to why the officer is apprehending vehicles on the interstate? Is it to enforce another law created by the legislature or one created by the Department of Transportation? Is it to truly keep us safe or another means to control another aspect of the lives of the travelers? Can the legislature create a law that can force travelers to go 5MPH as a maximum speed limit on the interstate? Can the Department of Transportation determine speed limits? Officers will tell you they can, I disagree. As I have stated the legislature creates the laws but in order for them to be properly applied they must understand how they can be written and applied.
An example of the confusion between the legislature, the political subdivisions, the judiciary and the people would be that a law enforcement officer will tell you the speed limit on the interstate is 65MPH, I disagree.
Understanding that all laws created must originate in the legislature and that no other political subdivision has the authority to make law and the law created by the legislature determines speed limits, the law as it is today states that the speed limit on the interstate is 75MPH. The reason law enforcement states the speed limit is 65 MPH is because that is the posted speed limit by the Department of Transportation that lacks the authority to determine speed limits unless in a construction zone. Why this confusion? Good question. I believe it is generations of the abandonment of fundamental principles, the proper understanding of our history, the teaching of civics and perhaps any understanding of global history as it pertains to governments incrementally taking control of its people not only in the name of good intentions but creating divisiveness between government agencies and its people, incrementally criminalizing them until the only rights that are protected are the rights of government to trample on those of the citizen.
Law enforcement began as a position that was originally entitled peace officer that were there and were summoned when needed maximizing people’s freedom. What happened and isn’t it telling not only to the name change but its superior position over its people that were once the inherent power over their government?
So, if you are a traveler on the interstate, don’t blame the officers, they are just trying to do their job as they were taught, they don’t know any different. Officers, please do not blame the decent travelers, we are just trying to get from point A to point B without being hassled and if you really believe going 1-10 MPH over the speed limit is a crime, this is no longer my America!
One final question to consider is if you swore an oath to protect and defend the constitution, and you honor and understand that oath, it requires you to protect and preserve the freedom for us and our posterity more than it does to protect us from ourselves. All that is necessary is to ask yourself or your kids, are you as free as you were decades ago and if the answer is no, Why is that, when the job that was to preserve something for future generations has incrementally been destroyed?
Just something to think about….
No comments:
Post a Comment