Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - Is the USA a police state yet?

- Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)

- - Is the USA a police state yet? (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/105072-usa-police-state-yet.html)

Is the USA a police state yet?

With a 5 year war, militarized police forces, and a dumbed down and disarmed populace, has the USA become a police state yet?

Both major political parties employ their differing ideologies which have only served to limit, or even remove, the liberties and freedoms of all americans.

It is my belief that we have and that we are very close to becoming the enslaved states of america. Over the last 20-30 years we've seen a serious limitation on personal and individual freedoms using the rule of law while supplying the political bodies, military forces, and police units with a freedom from the rule of law over the people, which is a primary ingredient to a police state.

If we are a police state already, how do we fix it?

No, not yet. I think that it is becoming increasingly corrupt and irrelevant, but has not yet reached the point where it can be called a police state.

We are not yet a police state because the public still has the ability to bring about change by (smart) voting. We just seem to be tranquilized to the point of complacency and we simply accept what the government tells us.

If you want to prevent the government from becoming a police state then you need to become politically active and encourage a small government that honors personal soveriegnty.

If you were a citizen in a country that had already decayed into a police state then you would have a duty to oppose that government (as stated in the declaration of independence) by any means available to you. If our government ever truly goes bad it is the responsibility of the citizens to overthrow it before it can do more harm. As a citizen of a country you are partly responsible for the actions of your government and you cannot allow a tyrant to use your resources (taxes, etc.) to terrorize your fellow citizens.

I think it is grossly premature to suggest that the US a police. Yes, the state has granted itself more powers of late. This sort of thing does happen in "times of war".

The US could be on a slippery slope but it is too hard to tell right now.

Are you writing this from jail?

If this was a police state, you would be.

I'd say it is in the powers it's granted its self, but not yet in what we see being wielded.

It became a police state when Janet Reno murdered 74 (or 82) men, women, and children at Waco and got away scot-free.

It became more of a police state when Bill Clinton obtained the FBI files of one thousand members of Congress from a person "nobody hired."

The "whipped cream on the shit" is Nancy Pelosi and Dennis Hastert claiming that members of Congress are immune to lawful searches.

And yet, the voters don't approve term limits.

I said yes.

Here's a good article that I read regarding this last week. I'm just posting the main points of it because it's long.

Top 10 Signs of the Impending U.S. Police State

1. The Internet Clampdown
2. "The Long War"
3. The USA PATRIOT Act
4. Prison Camps
5. Touchscreen Voting Machines
6. Signing Statements
7. Warrantless Wiretapping
8. Free Speech Zones
9. High-ranking Whistleblowers
10. The CIA Shakeup

A police state?

Um, no. Not even close. Seriously.

http://www.infowars.com/images2/ps/t...hlet_front.jpg http://www.infowars.com/images2/ps/t...phlet_back.jpg

Everything is terrorism, buying too much food, buying homes, beer wine and cigarrettes, having identification documents *gasp*. Walking or biking near targets or purchasing maps? Public protests and demonstrations. I mean wtf, who are they trying to kid?

When will people understand that the citizens are the terrorists?

Well, after this administration is gone, things may change a bit. But as for this police state business, come on, now. Do you know what a police state is? A real one? We do not even come close to that.

what makes you think that THIS administration is the only one responsible for a police state? The Clinton administration has done just as much via executive orders to abridge constitutional rights as the Bush admin has done via 'signing statements'.

You've seen several instances where we are or are headed in to a police state, what do you have that says we're not even close?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

The signing statements are pretty blatent in their 'I'm above the law' attitude.
It's no wonder he never vetos though, because he essentially just says he's not going to follow the law as written. How is it not a police-state when we have an executive that will do whatever it wants to? He's enforcing, writing and interpreting the law all at the same time. Isn't that textbook tyranny/police-state activity?

Quote:

Examples of the president's signing statements
April 30, 2006

Since taking office in 2001, President Bush has issued signing statements on more than 750 new laws, declaring that he has the power to set aside the laws when they conflict with his legal interpretation of the Constitution. The federal government is instructed to follow the statements when it enforces the laws. Here are 10 examples and the dates Bush signed them:

Sign up for: Globe Headlines e-mail | Breaking News Alerts March 9: Justice Department officials must give reports to Congress by certain dates on how the FBI is using the USA Patriot Act to search homes and secretly seize papers.

Bush's signing statement: The president can order Justice Department officials to withhold any information from Congress if he decides it could impair national security or executive branch operations.

Dec. 30, 2005: US interrogators cannot torture prisoners or otherwise subject them to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.

Bush's signing statement: The president, as commander in chief, can waive the torture ban if he decides that harsh interrogation techniques will assist in preventing terrorist attacks.

Dec. 30: When requested, scientific information ''prepared by government researchers and scientists shall be transmitted [to Congress] uncensored and without delay."

Bush's signing statement: The president can tell researchers to withhold any information from Congress if he decides its disclosure could impair foreign relations, national security, or the workings of the executive branch.

Aug. 8: The Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its contractors may not fire or otherwise punish an employee whistle-blower who tells Congress about possible wrongdoing.

Bush's signing statement: The president or his appointees will determine whether employees of the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can give information to Congress.

Dec. 23, 2004: Forbids US troops in Colombia from participating in any combat against rebels, except in cases of self-defense. Caps the number of US troops allowed in Colombia at 800.

Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can place restrictions on the use of US armed forces, so the executive branch will construe the law ''as advisory in nature."

Dec. 17: The new national intelligence director shall recruit and train women and minorities to be spies, analysts, and translators in order to ensure diversity in the intelligence community.

Bush's signing statement: The executive branch shall construe the law in a manner consistent with a constitutional clause guaranteeing ''equal protection" for all. (In 2003, the Bush administration argued against race-conscious affirmative-action programs in a Supreme Court case. The court rejected Bush's view.)

Oct. 29: Defense Department personnel are prohibited from interfering with the ability of military lawyers to give independent legal advice to their commanders.

Bush's signing statement: All military attorneys are bound to follow legal conclusions reached by the administration's lawyers in the Justice Department and the Pentagon when giving advice to their commanders.

Aug. 5: The military cannot add to its files any illegally gathered intelligence, including information obtained about Americans in violation of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches.

Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can tell the military whether or not it can use any specific piece of intelligence.

Nov. 6, 2003: US officials in Iraq cannot prevent an inspector general for the Coalition Provisional Authority from carrying out any investigation. The inspector general must tell Congress if officials refuse to cooperate with his inquiries.

Bush's signing statement: The inspector general ''shall refrain" from investigating anything involving sensitive plans, intelligence, national security, or anything already being investigated by the Pentagon. The inspector cannot tell Congress anything if the president decides that disclosing the information would impair foreign relations, national security, or executive branch operations.

Nov. 5, 2002: Creates an Institute of Education Sciences whose director may conduct and publish research ''without the approval of the secretary [of education] or any other office of the department."

Bush's signing statement: The president has the power to control the actions of all executive branch officials, so ''the director of the Institute of Education Sciences shall [be] subject to the supervision and direction of the secretary of education."

SOURCE: Charlie Savage

© Copyright 2006 Globe Newspaper Company

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol

I'm not trying to say that the Bush admin isn't advocating or pushing us towards a bigger police state. I'm saying that they are not the only ones to do it.

The USA was started on the slippery slope to police statedom since the early 1900's with most administrations pursuing it. Some less than others, but invariably they almost all had a hand in it. All one needs for any semblance of evidence to it is to look at the growth of the federal government. Look at how state and local governments start following the practices of the feds. When agents of any part of the government have 'immunity' for their actions, other than to get voted out next election cycle, you have forwarded the progress of tyranny/the police state.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

I wasn't trying to disagree with you even though it may of come across that way. I agree that Bush, Clinton, and most presidents of the last 100 years haven't been very friendly to the constitution, but I just happened to of read that article about Bush and wanted to point out how shocking some of the signing statements were for some people who have never heard about them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol

:thumbsup:

here's the thing with signing statements as it deals with the constitution.

The executive branch has 1/3rd the power to decide whether a law is constitutional or not. If the bush admin so chooses, it does not have to enforce a law it considers unconstitutional. When it does that, and it's obviously a constitutional law, the legislature has to do two things.

Take it to the USSC where the court can declare the constitutionality of such law and order the admin to follow/enforce the law, of which the admin can still say it's not constitutional and refuse to follow/enforce said law. If that happens, then the legislature has, as a final option, impeachment or censure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

Where are you getting this info from, dksuddeth?

Quote:

The Problem with Presidential Signing Statements: Their Use and Misuse by the Bush Administration
By JOHN W. DEAN
----
Friday, Jan. 13, 2006

Presidential signing statements are old news to anyone who has served in the White House counsel's office. Presidents have long used them to add their two cents when a law passed by Congress has provisions they do not like, yet they are not inclined to veto it. Nixon's statements, for example, often related to spending authorization laws which he felt were excessive and contrary to his fiscal policies.

In this column, I'll take a close look at President Bush's use of signing statements. I find these signing statements are to Bush and Cheney's presidency what steroids were to Arnold Schwarzenegger's body building. Like Schwarzenegger with his steroids, Bush does not deny using his signing statements; does not like talking about using them; and believes that they add muscle.

But like steroids, signing statements ultimately lead to serious trouble.

Relying On Command, Rather Than Persuasion

Phillip Cooper is a leading expert on signing statements. His 2002 book, By Order of the President: The Use and Abuse of Executive Direct Action, assesses the uses and abuses of signing statements by presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. Cooper has updated his material in a recent essay for the Presidential Studies Quarterly, to encompass the use of signing statements by now-President Bush as well.

By Cooper's count, George W. Bush issued 23 signing statements in 2001; 34 statements in 2002, raising 168 constitutional objections; 27 statements in 2003, raising 142 constitutional challenges, and 23 statements in 2004, raising 175 constitutional criticisms. In total, during his first term Bush raised a remarkable 505 constitutional challenges to various provisions of legislation that became law.

That number may be approaching 600 challenges by now. Yet Bush has not vetoed a single bill, notwithstanding all these claims, in his own signing statements, that they are unconstitutional insofar as they relate to him.

Rather than veto laws passed by Congress, Bush is using his signing statements to effectively nullify them as they relate to the executive branch. These statements, for him, function as directives to executive branch departments and agencies as to how they are to implement the relevant law.

President Bush and the attorneys advising him may also anticipate that the signing statements will help him if and when the relevant laws are construed in court - for federal courts, depending on their views of executive power, may deem such statements relevant to their interpretation of a given law. After all, the law would not have passed had the President decided to veto it, so arguably, his view on what the law meant ought to (within reason) carry some weight for the court interpreting it. This is the argument, anyway.
Column continues below ↓

Bush has quietly been using these statements to bolster presidential powers. It is a calculated, systematic scheme that has gone largely unnoticed (even though these statements are published in the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents) until recently, when President Bush's used a signing statement to attempt to nullify the recent, controversial McCain amendment regarding torture, which drew some media attention.

Pumping Up the Bush Presidency With Signing Statements

Generally, Bush's signing statements tend to be brief and very broad, and they seldom cite the authority on which the president is relying for his reading of the law. None has yet been tested in court. But they do appear to be bulking up the powers of the presidency. Here are a few examples:

Suppose a new law requires the President to act in a certain manner - for instance, to report to Congress on how he is dealing with terrorism. Bush's signing statement will flat out reject the law, and state that he will construe the law "in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, the national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties."

The upshot? It is as if no law had been passed on the matter at all.

Or suppose a new law suggests even the slightest intrusion into the President's undefined "prerogative powers" under Article II of the Constitution, relating to national security, intelligence gathering, or law enforcement. Bush's signing statement will claim that notwithstanding the clear intent of Congress, which has used mandatory language, the provision will be considered as "advisory."

The upshot? It is as if Congress had acted as a mere advisor, with no more formal power than, say, Karl Rove - not as a coordinate and coequal branch of government, which in fact it is.

As Phillip Cooper observes, the President's signing statements are, in some instances, effectively rewriting the laws by reinterpreting how the law will be implemented. Notably, Cooper finds some of Bush's signing statements - and he has the benefit of judging them against his extensive knowledge of other President's signing statements -- "excessive, unhelpful, and needlessly confrontational."

The Constitutional and Practical Problems With Bush's Use of Signing Statements

Given the incredible number of constitutional challenges Bush is issuing to new laws, without vetoing them, his use of signing statements is going to sooner or later put him in an untenable position. And there is a strong argument that it has already put him in a position contrary to Supreme Court precedent, and the Constitution, vis-à-vis the veto power.

Bush is using signing statements like line item vetoes. Yet the Supreme Court has held the line item vetoes are unconstitutional. In 1988, in Clinton v. New York, the High Court said a president had to veto an entire law: Even Congress, with its Line Item Veto Act, could not permit him to veto provisions he might not like.

The Court held the Line Item Veto Act unconstitutional in that it violated the Constitution's Presentment Clause. That Clause says that after a bill has passed both Houses, but "before it become[s] a Law," it must be presented to the President, who "shall sign it" if he approves it, but "return it" - that is, veto the bill, in its entirety-- if he does not.

Following the Court's logic, and the spirit of the Presentment Clause, a president who finds part of a bill unconstitutional, ought to veto the entire bill -- not sign it with reservations in a way that attempts to effectively veto part (and only part) of the bill. Yet that is exactly what Bush is doing. The Presentment Clause makes clear that the veto power is to be used with respect to a bill in its entirety, not in part.

The frequency and the audacity of Bush's use of signing statements are troubling. Enactments by Congress are presumed to be constitutional - as the Justice Department has often reiterated. For example, take what is close to boilerplate language from a government brief (selected at random): "It is well-established that Congressional legislation is entitled to a strong presumption of constitutionality. See United States v. Morrison ('Every possible presumption is in favor of the validity of a statute, and this continues until the contrary is shown beyond a rational doubt.')."

Bush's use of signing statements thus potentially brings him into conflict with his own Justice Department. The Justice Department is responsible for defending the constitutionality of laws enacted by Congress. What is going to happen when the question at issue is the constitutionality of a provision the President has declared unconstitutional in a signing statement?

Does the President's signing statement overcome the presumption of constitutionality? I doubt it. Will the Department of Justice have a serious conflict of interest? For certain, it will.

Should thus Congress establish its own non-partisan legal division, not unlike the Congressional Reference Service, to protect its interests, since the Department of Justice may have conflicts? It's something to think about.

These are just a few practical and constitutional problems that arise when a president acts as if there is his government, and then there is the Congress' government. Signing statements often ignore the fact the only Congress can create all the departments and agencies of the Executive Branch, and only Congress can fund these operations.

And the power to create and fund is also, by implication, the power to regulate and to oversee. Congress can, to some extent, direct how these agencies will function without infringing on presidential power.

Impact Of Presidential Signing Statements

The immediate impact of signing statements, of course, is felt within the Executive Branch: As I noted, Bush's statements will likely have a direct influence on how that branch's agencies and departments interpret and enforce the law.

It is remarkable that Bush believes he can ignore a law, and protect himself, through a signing statement. Despite the McCain Amendment's clear anti-torture stance, the military may feel free to use torture anyway, based on the President's attempt to use a signing statement to wholly undercut the bill.

This kind of expansive use of a signing statement presents not only Presentment Clause problems, but also clashes with the Constitutional implication that a veto is the President's only and exclusive avenue to prevent a bill's becoming law. The powers of foot-dragging and resistance-by-signing-statement, are not mentioned in the Constitution alongside the veto, after all. Congress wanted to impeach Nixon for impounding money he thought should not be spent. Telling Congress its laws do not apply makes Nixon's impounding look like cooperation with Congress, by comparison.

The longer term impact of signing statements is potentially grave - and is being ignored by the Bush administration. But it cannot be ignored forever. Defiance by Bush of Congressional lawmaking will come back to haunt this President.

Watergate was about abuse of power. Nixon, not unlike Bush, insisted on pushing the powers of the presidency to, and beyond, their limits. But as Nixon headed into his second term with even grander plans than he'd had in the first term, the Congress became concerned. (And for good reason.)

Bush, who has been pushing the envelope on presidential powers, is just beginning to learn what kind of Congressional blowback can result.

First, there are the leaks: People within the Executive branch become troubled by a president's overreaching. When Nixon adopted extreme measures, people within the administration began leaking. The same is now happening to Bush, for there was the leak about the use of torture. And, more recently, there was the leak as to the use of warrantless electronic surveillance on Americans.

Once the leaks start, they continue, and Congressional ire is not far behind. The overwhelming Congressional support for Senator John McCain's torture ban suggests, too, that Congress will not be happy if leaks begin to suggest the President - as his signing statement foreshadows - is already flouting the ban.

In short, Bush's signing statements, which are now going over the top, are going to cause a Congressional reaction. It is inevitable. If Republican lose control of either the House or Senate - and perhaps even if they don't, if the subject is torture or an egregious violation of civil liberties -- then the Bush/Cheney administration will wish it had not issued all those signing statements.

Indeed, the Administration may be eating its words - with Congress holding the plate out, and forcing the unconstitutional verbiage back down. That, in the end, is the only kind of torture Americans ought to countenance.

-- http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060113.html

Quote:

jurisprudence
Sign Here
Presidential signing statements are more than just executive branch lunacy.
By Dahlia Lithwick
Posted Monday, Jan. 30, 2006, at 5:32 AM ET

There are two ways President Bush likes to wage war on your civil liberties: He either asks you to surrender your rights directly—as he does when he strengthens and broadens provisions of the Patriot Act. Or he simply hoovers up new powers and hopes you won't find out—as he did when he granted himself authority to order warrant-less wiretapping of American citizens. The former category seems more benign, and it's tempting to lump Bush's affinity for "presidential signing statements" in that camp. It's tempting to believe that with these statements he is merely asking that the courts take his legal views into account. But President Bush never asks anything of the courts; he doesn't think he has to. His signing statements are not aimed at persuading the courts, but at reinforcing his claim that both courts and Congress are irrelevant.

Many of us had never heard of a presidential signing statement until last month, when Bush used one to eviscerate the McCain Anti-Torture bill he claimed to endorse. We all saw the big Oval Office reconciliation with McCain; we heard Bush say he was dropping his opposition to the bill, which passed with broad bipartisan support (90-9 in the Senate, 308-122 in the House) and made it illegal for Americans to engage in the "cruel, inhuman and degrading" treatment of detainees held here or abroad. What we missed was the actual signing ceremony, which took place two weeks later, at 8 p.m. on Dec. 30.

Unless you spent New Year's weekend trolling the White House Web site or catching up on your latest U.S. Code Congressional and Administrative News as you waited for the ball to drop, you probably missed the little "P.S." the president tacked onto the McCain anti-torture bill. The postscript was a statement clearly announcing that the president will only follow the new law "in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the president to supervise the unitary executive branch ... and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power." In other words, it is for the president—not Congress or the courts—to determine when the provisions of this bill interfere with his war-making powers, and when they do, he will freely ignore the law.

Signing statements are presidential announcements added to a piece of legislation on signing. They range from benign executive branch throat-clearing—thanking and praising the bill's sponsors—to something that approaches a line-item veto: expressions of presidential reservations about the law. These statements are perfectly legal. Presidents have used them since Monroe, and, as Bush supporters are quick to point out, Bill Clinton was one of the most prolific issuers of signing statements. But, as professor Phillip W. Cooper's paper in the Sept. 2005 issue of Presidential Studies Quarterly reveals, the difference between President Bush's use of the statements and that of his predecessors is a matter of frequency and kind.

President Ronald Reagan, guided by his Attorney General Edwin Meese III (and urged on enthusiastically by a young lawyer called Samuel Alito), launched a concerted policy to start to use signing statements as a means of reinforcing the executive's message and consolidating its power. Meese arranged to have them published for this very reason. Until the Reagan presidency, the executive branch had only ever issued a total of 75 signing statements. Reagan, Bush I, and Bill Clinton deployed them 247 times between them. (Clinton issued more statements than Bush I, but fewer than Reagan). According to Cooper, by the end of 2004, Bush had issued 108 signing statements presenting 505 different constitutional challenges. He has yet to veto anything.

How important are these executive-branch constitutional challenges? Not very. While a few courts—including the Supreme Court on occasion—have nodded their heads at a signing statement in attempting to construe the intent behind a piece of legislation, they are consulted only rarely and given limited legal weight. Bush's legal claims that black is white and up is down won't likely trump the clear and express will of Congress in a courtroom anytime soon. Certainly you'd need at least three more Sam Alitos on the Supreme Court before you need to fear a judicial declaration that they represent some kind of binding legal authority. Does that mean the statements are legally meaningless and that the fretting over them represents yet more reflexive anti-Bush hysteria?

Not hardly.

Dismissing these statements because they carry so little legal force is as dangerous as writing off any of Bush's other extreme legal claims to boundless authority. Because while these cases slowly wend their way through the court system, there are real-life consequences to Bush's policies—and especially his torture policies—on the ground.

First, consider the substance of Bush's statements. Of the 505 constitutional objections he has raised over the years, Cooper found the most frequent to be the 82 instances in which Bush disputed the bill's constitutionality because Article II of the Constitution does not permit any interference with his "power to supervise the unitary executive." That's not an objection to some act of Congress. That's an objection to Congressional authority itself. Similarly, Cooper counted 77 claims that as president, Bush has "exclusive power over foreign affairs" and 48 claims of "authority to determine and impose national security classification and withhold information." Bush consistently uses these statements to prune back congressional authority and even—as he does in the McCain statement—to limit judicial review. He uses them to assert and reassert that his is the last word on a law's constitutional application to the executive. As he has done throughout the war on terror, Bush arrogates phenomenal new constitutional power for himself and, as Cooper notes, "these powers were often asserted without supporting authorities, or even serious efforts at explanation."

And if you believe that all this executive self-aggrandizement is meaningless until and unless a court has given it force, you are missing the whole point of a signing statement: These statements are directed at federal agencies and their lawyers. One of their main historical purposes was to afford agencies a glance at how the president wants a statute to be enforced. As Jack Balkin observed almost immediately after the McCain bill, signing statements represent the president's signal to his subordinates about how he plans to enforce a law. And when a president deliberately advises his subordinates that they may someday be asked to join him in breaking a law, he muddies the legal waters, as well as the chain of command.

Such mixed messages about torture allowed young, untrained guards to torture prisoners at Abu Ghraib. Where the rules for treatment of detainees had once been clear, the efforts of Jay Bybee and Alberto Gonzales and others in the White House telegraphed that some agencies could now follow different rules for torture; that not all torture really is torture; that sometimes the president may actually want you to torture; and that all this is largely for you to sort out on the ground. The McCain anti-torture amendment was an effort to create an absolutely clean distinction once more. Bush's signing statement obliterates that distinction and opens the door to yet more ambiguity and abuse.

And the future victims of such Bush-endorsed torture? They won't have a day in court, under President Bush's view of the law. Which means that—like all the mushrooming executive war powers—this ambiguous new torture regime will be secret and may never be tested in a courtroom at all.

Should we dismiss these statements just because President Bush is so brazen in his claims? So willing to take legal positions that are undefended because they're legally indefensible? Will all this just go away someday, when a court dismisses these statements as excessive and unfounded? No. Because President Bush isn't trying to win this war in the courts. Thus far, he has faced each legal setback as though it never happened; or—more often—he's recast it as a victory. He doesn't care what the courts someday make of his signing statements, just as he didn't care what the courts made of his enemy-combatant claims. He views the courts as irrelevant in his pursuit of this war. These signing statements are dangerous because they repeat and normalize—always using seemingly boilerplate language—claims about the boundless powers of a "unitary executive." By questioning the principle of court review in the McCain statement, Bush again erodes the notion of judicial supremacy—an idea we have lived with since Marbury v. Madison. When he asserts that he—and not the courts—is the final arbiter of his constitutional powers, he is calling for a radical shift in the system of checks and balances.

It's so tempting to laugh off Bush's signing statements as puffed-up, groundless claims that he is all-powerful, all-knowing, and also devastatingly handsome. But this is the president talking and instructing his subordinates—and also outlining a broad legal regime that may not technically be constitutional, but that hardly makes it laughable. These declarations promote a view of the law that may have no merit in the courts but may never have the chance to be resolved there in the first place.

-- http://www.slate.com/id/2134919/

the president doesn't make legislation, he enforces it. That's because the legislative branch has veto override powers. If the people want something to be law, it can happen with 2/3rds vote. If any law is considered unconstitutional by the executive branch, that branch can choose not to enforce it. It then comes back to the legislative forcing the judicial branch to rule on it. Even after that, if the executive still refuses to enforce it, the legislative can then censure or impeach. This is why the courts MUST consider congressional intent when judging or deciding on any case.

I'm getting all this information from the constitution, that document considered the 'supreme law of the land' that most people like to write off as 'outdated' because they don't agree with parts of it anymore.

given your response, I'm hard-pressed to believe you read the articles I posted.
evidently I should have been more specific when I asked "where" you were getting your info.

please quote the portion of the constitution you feel states that the executive branch can refuse to enforce legislation the president views as unconstititional.

the irony I see in your resopnse is that you started this thread with the premise that we are near or actualizing a police state, yet because of your perception of how far away from me ideologically your political views sit, you feel the need to defend practices that would actually approximate police-state actions and believe in your head that such behaviors are grounded in the constitution.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

seeing as how the Department of Justice, an executive branch office, is responsible for enforcing the laws at the direction of the president, that would mean that the president does not have to enforce a law he considers unconstitutional.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

the irony I see in your resopnse is that you started this thread with the premise that we are near or actualizing a police state, yet because of your perception of how far away from me ideologically your political views sit, you feel the need to defend practices that would actually approximate police-state actions and believe in your head that such behaviors are grounded in the constitution.

In pointing out that the executive branch directs the law enforcement agencies of the country on which laws to enforce and which ones to not enforce is not defending the so called tactics in my response. I'm simply pointing out that the executive branch has alot of power to enforce laws at their discretion, some more harshly than others depending upon their views.

simple: I already understand your opinion on the matter. As the articles I posted already point out, your opinion is not correct according to the law as it currently exists or legal precendent.

First you said that you were deriving your conclusions from the constitution, so I asked you to direct me to the relevent section. You replied by providing an [incorrect] interpretation of what you perceive to be the job of the executive branch of the government.

If you disagree with this assertion, then quote the portion of the constitution you think is relevent and refutes the position. Why do you find providing evidence for your opinions so hard to do; instead choosing to assert your personal opinions as legal fact?

And yes, if you think that our constitution allows for one single branch, namely the enforcement or "executive" branch, to produce policies, interpret whether particular laws are constitutional or not, and then act upon such opinions, then why would you question whether we are becoming a police state? Your personal [incorrrect] interpretation of the constitution describes a police state since this nation's inception.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

you must be some sort of constitutional genius. I've shown you time and time and time again FACTS and EVIDENCE that my stated opinions were based on constitutional law and yet you STILL say that i'm incorrect. Are you a lawyer? Are you a member of congress or the judiciary? Because if you aren't, then you bloody well should be with your constitutional information.

Per your request, since all of MY opinions are always incorrect, here is the relevant information from the constitution to back up my incorrect opinion and conclusion.

Quote:

From Art. II, Sec. III of the US Constitution:
He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.

And yes, if you think that our constitution allows for one single branch, namely the enforcement or "executive" branch, to produce policies, interpret whether particular laws are constitutional or not, and then act upon such opinions, then why would you question whether we are becoming a police state? Your personal [incorrrect] interpretation of the constitution describes a police state since this nation's inception.[/QUOTE]
Since you appear to be the constitutional genius on the board, point out to me where my 'opinion', according to the article that I posted, where the constitution states that the executive branch is NOT responsible for enforcing the law.

Boys, boys, boys, can't we have a calm and rational conversation? Oh wait, I forgot that this is Politics and calm and rational have never cast a shadow on this particular venue.

After reading and rereading the various posts here, I think that I see the point of irritation here - the Executive branch is not expressly responsible for interpreting the Constitution. However, in the real world, it goes on every day and it has since the day the Constitution was ratified. Every law has to be applied to the real world, and the Executive branch is the one that has to figure out how to do that. For instance, if Congress passes a law stating that "no person in a yellow personal vehicle engaged in interstate commerce shall make a left turn on alternate Thursdays", the Executive branch is the one stuck with figuring out if that means that a truck with yellow racing stripes is an ambiturner (thank you, Derek Zoolander).

The Executive branch also has the option of saying that this law is too much of a hassle and that they're going to focus their energy on more important things, like fighting the revolution that dksuddeth is always aggitating about. Congress would be left with the choice of repealing the law, leaving it alone or retooling it into something that the Executive branch wants and needs. Its pretty rare for Congress to waste time passing laws that the Executive branch doesn't at least pay lip service to and say that they want and need the legislation.

Dksuddeth, can you give an example of the USSC declaring a law constitutional and telling the Executive branch to enforce it followed by the Executive then declaring the law still to be unconstitutional? I've never heard of such a blatant disregard for the separation of powers and I wonder if it ever happened or if you were just making a point.

We don't necessarily have to go into my credentials, but you're welcome to search back through my posts to find out whether I am qualified to render opinions on questions pertaining to the constitution. To make it short for you, I am, but that's not the point. If you had only read the articles I posted, we wouldn't even be down this path:

Quote:

The Constitutional and Practical Problems With Bush's Use of Signing Statements

Given the incredible number of constitutional challenges Bush is issuing to new laws, without vetoing them, his use of signing statements is going to sooner or later put him in an untenable position. And there is a strong argument that it has already put him in a position contrary to Supreme Court precedent, and the Constitution, vis-à-vis the veto power.

Bush is using signing statements like line item vetoes. Yet the Supreme Court has held the line item vetoes are unconstitutional. In 1988, in Clinton v. New York, the High Court said a president had to veto an entire law: Even Congress, with its Line Item Veto Act, could not permit him to veto provisions he might not like.

The Court held the Line Item Veto Act unconstitutional in that it violated the Constitution's Presentment Clause. That Clause says that after a bill has passed both Houses, but "before it become[s] a Law," it must be presented to the President, who "shall sign it" if he approves it, but "return it" - that is, veto the bill, in its entirety-- if he does not.

Following the Court's logic, and the spirit of the Presentment Clause, a president who finds part of a bill unconstitutional, ought to veto the entire bill -- not sign it with reservations in a way that attempts to effectively veto part (and only part) of the bill. Yet that is exactly what Bush is doing. The Presentment Clause makes clear that the veto power is to be used with respect to a bill in its entirety, not in part.

The frequency and the audacity of Bush's use of signing statements are troubling. Enactments by Congress are presumed to be constitutional - as the Justice Department has often reiterated. For example, take what is close to boilerplate language from a government brief (selected at random): "It is well-established that Congressional legislation is entitled to a strong presumption of constitutionality. See United States v. Morrison ('Every possible presumption is in favor of the validity of a statute, and this continues until the contrary is shown beyond a rational doubt.')."

Bush's use of signing statements thus potentially brings him into conflict with his own Justice Department. The Justice Department is responsible for defending the constitutionality of laws enacted by Congress. What is going to happen when the question at issue is the constitutionality of a provision the President has declared unconstitutional in a signing statement?

Does the President's signing statement overcome the presumption of constitutionality? I doubt it. Will the Department of Justice have a serious conflict of interest? For certain, it will.

Should thus Congress establish its own non-partisan legal division, not unlike the Congressional Reference Service, to protect its interests, since the Department of Justice may have conflicts? It's something to think about.

These are just a few practical and constitutional problems that arise when a president acts as if there is his government, and then there is the Congress' government. Signing statements often ignore the fact the only Congress can create all the departments and agencies of the Executive Branch, and only Congress can fund these operations.

And the power to create and fund is also, by implication, the power to regulate and to oversee. Congress can, to some extent, direct how these agencies will function without infringing on presidential power.

How do you take a sentence granting authority for the presidency to enforce laws and interpret that to mean that the passage also gives him authority to create policy/law (legislative branch) and/or interpret whether a law or its implementation is constitutional (judicial branch since Marbury)?

It's reasoning like the above that compels me to continually urge you to attend a constitutional law class or a legal reasoning course. IF you ever make it to West Coast, please PM me because I will personally see to it that you can sit in one of my classes or a colleague's.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

the_jazz, as a policy matter, the executive branch may do the things you're discussing, but they don't get to create legislation and render constitutional decisions about their actions that are binding. and this is exactly dksuddeth's point: that the executive branch can create [legitimately] policy/law in face of congressional proceedings via "signing statements" and that the president, through his sole discretion, can act or not act based on his view of the constitutionality of a piece of legislation. that's not true either.

your example speaks to the enforcement of a piece of legislation due to pragmatism, not constitutionality. There is nothing alllowing the president to sign a law into existence and THEN write below it, but in some instances, at my sole discretion, I will disregard it. the presumption of constitionality of congressional legislation used to bleed all the way over to the courts, only until Marbury did the court extend its ability to "override" this presumption of constitutionality and ability of judicial review of congress.

two problems with what's going on here: 1) there isn't any constitutional basis for the president to interpret constitionality of laws and selectively apply them and 2) if that were the case, then we would already have had a police state since the government's inception

what is your working definition of a police state? the one I am most familiar would be when enforcement ("police") entities make laws, interpret them, and then enforce them. and that's why these three "duties" were split between three branches of government in ours.

and from my view, I was speaking calmly and rationally, so please contain your condescencion and speak to me with respect.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Dksuddeth, can you give an example of the USSC declaring a law constitutional and telling the Executive branch to enforce it followed by the Executive then declaring the law still to be unconstitutional? I've never heard of such a blatant disregard for the separation of powers and I wonder if it ever happened or if you were just making a point.

Not sure of exact details here, but the first example is between andrew jackson, chief justice Marshall, and the cherokee indians concerning in Cherokee Nation vs. Georgia. The USSC determined that the federal treaty that the Nation signed with the Federal government took precedence over the laws of Georgia and the Indian Removal Act and ordered that the Cherokee could not be forcibly removed. Andrew Jackson ignored that ruling and ordered the troops to remove the Cherokee anyway. (The quote attributed to Jackson, "John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it!", is most likely false)

The next one concerns Abraham Lincoln. During the Civil War, Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus and started arresting people who criticized the president and the war effort for the crime of sedition. Chief Justice Taney, who was sitting in the Maryland district Circuit Court, ruled "1. That the president [...] cannot suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, nor authorize a military officer to do it. 2. That a military officer has no right to arrest and detain a person not subject to the rules and articles of war [...] except in aid of the judicial authority, and subject to its control."
This angered Lincoln who then issued an arrest warrant for Justice Taney and had federal marshalls carry out the warrant. So this would be a case of the courts declaring an action/law unconstitutional and the president doing it anyway.

The latest would have been US vs. Padilla but before the USSC could actually rule on that case, Padilla was transferred out of military custody and put in to federal DOJ custody for other charges. This was a way of avoiding a ruling which would have forced Bush's hand in either continuing to use a law deemed unconstitutional or capitulating to the USSC and it's decison on constitutionality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

Since the USSC has already ruled that 'line item veto' is unconstitutional, the president appears to be using a similar process to bypass the wishes of congress. All this means is that Congress is failing in its own responsibility to hold the president accountable by censure or impeachment, something I said in an earlier post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

It's reasoning like the above that compels me to continually urge you to attend a constitutional law class or a legal reasoning course. IF you ever make it to West Coast, please PM me because I will personally see to it that you can sit in one of my classes or a colleague's.

Hence the problem with the interpretation of the constitution today. The constitution was not written so that only scholars could understand it. It was written so that ordinary men could understand it. As a man with a huge interest in becoming a lawyer, do not be surprised if I do PM you for information.

Rad Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 and get back to us if you still think the president wasn't allowed to suspend habeas corpus proceedings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

Now I see where we might be misunderstanding each other. I don't believe that I ever said that the president could CREATE legislation, but that he could determine which laws to enforce and not enforce based on his own interpretation of that law being constitutional or unconstitutional. If I inadvertently misled anyone in to believing that I said the president can make laws, my apologies, for I most certainly did not mean for that to come across.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

two problems with what's going on here: 1) there isn't any constitutional basis for the president to interpret constitionality of laws and selectively apply them and 2) if that were the case, then we would already have had a police state since the government's inception

If the executive refuses to enforce a law, who's going to enforce it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

Rad Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 and get back to us if you still think the president wasn't allowed to suspend habeas corpus proceedings.

This is a limitation and power afforded only to congress, not the executive. That is why it is in Art. 1 and not Art. 2

This is why it's a hotly contested power during the war on terrorism. In fact, if I remember right, the USSC ruled on this with the Padilla case stating that only congress had the power to suspend habeus corpus and the president could not do this without specific authorization via legislation by congress.

Maybe I'm still not getting this - there is always going to be selective application of the law. Always. There has never been an exception in the history of the world. In Chicago, that's referred to "clout", and the rest of the country seems to have adopted the concept pretty well. If you are connected to the right people, some laws won't apply to you in some circumstances.

The pornography industry is a great example. It was a big deal to the Reagan administration (as seen by the tome that is the Meese Report), and they enforced the federal obsenity statutes, at least in the first term. After that, the will sort of petered out (no pun intended) and it hasn't been until GW Bush that any systematic effort has been made to reign porn in. Part of that is the money that's been changing hands, and it's one of the most profitable US-based industries going.

Quote:

http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...src=rss&rpc=22
Judge orders halt to NSA wiretap program
Thu Aug 17, 2006 2:14pm ET168

By Kevin Krolicki

DETROIT (Reuters) - A federal judge ordered the Bush administration on Thursday to halt the National Security Agency's program of domestic eavesdropping, saying it violated the U.S. Constitution.

The ruling marked a setback for the Bush administration, which has defended the program as an essential tool in its war on terrorism.

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor said the warrantless wiretapping under the "Terrorist Surveillance Program" violated free speech rights, protections against unreasonable searches and the constitutional check on the power of the presidency.

Quote:

http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/eGov/ta...06%2010204.pdf
From page 23-24:

...it is important to note that if the court were to deny standing based on the unsubstantiated minor distinctions drawn by Defendants, the President's actions in warrantless wiretapping, in contravention of FISA, Title II, and the First and Fourth amendments, would be immunized from judicial scrutiny. It was never the intent of the Framers to give the President such unfettered control, particularly where his actions blatantly disregard the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights. The three separate branches of government were developed as a check and balance for one another. It is within the court's duty to ensure that power is never condensed into a single branch of government."

From Page 33:

"The President of the United States, a creature of the same Constitution which gave us these Amendments, has undisputedly violated the Fourth [Amendment] in failing to procure judicial orders as required by FISA, and accordingly has violated the First Amendment Rights of these Plaintiffs as well."

From page 40:

"The Government appears to argue here that, pursuant to the penumbra of Constitutional language in Article II, and particularly because the President is designated Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, he has been granted the inherent power to violate not only the laws of the Congress but the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution, itself.

We must first note that the Office of the Chief Executive has itself been created, with its powers, by the Constitution. There are no hereditary Kings in America and no power not created by the Constitution. So all "inherent power" must derive from that Constitution."

This eloquently sums up the risks that liberal, activist judges can expose this country to:

Quote:

http://www.theamericanmind.com/mt-te...es/018538.html

Terrorist Spying Case Heard in Detroit

In a federal court in Detroit the ACLU challenged the U.S. government on the legality of NSA terrorist wiretaps. The ACLU wants the program immediately halted even though like the rest of us (including the judge) they don't really know how it works. The Plaintiffs can't prove they're being spied on. Their argument is the existence of the program prevents them from talking to people and doing research. Well, maybe, maybe not. Journalists and scholars are dumb. If they have the perserverance and imagination they can find ways to avoid the appearance of being spied on.

Government lawyers want the case tossed because it could reveal classified information.....

....<b>Suppose Judge Anna Diggs Taylor agrees with the ACLU and orders the program shut down. Is the ACLU willing to accept responsibility for another terrorist attack on U.S. soil? It's easy to preen about civil liberties in the abstract when not all the facts are known.</b>

IMO, Bush should ignore the rabid ACLU liberal crowd and keep doing what needs to be done to protect out country. Lincoln suspended parts of the constitution, temporarily, and he did not allow judges or congress to stand in the way of what he deemed neccessary to preserve the union in a time of war.

1) It's easy to get a retrospective warrant from the courts and there's a mechanism in place to do so. The Bush administration is just being lazy and/or deliberately circumventing the Fourth Amendment.

2) Where's the call for executing the judge? Is that the new call of the Right or have I been misled by dksuddeth?

Sorry, I'd have more but the Blue Angels are practicing outside my window right now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

2) Where's the call for executing the judge? Is that the new call of the Right or have I been misled by dksuddeth?

why on earth would I call for the execution of a judge that ruled via the constitution?

Here are some definitions that I found for police state on the interweb (answers.com)_:

Police State
1) A state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic, and political life of the people, especially by means of a secret police force.

2) A nation whose rulers maintain order and obedience by the threat of police or military force; one with a brutal, arbitrary government.

3) A police state is an authoritarian state which uses the police, especially secret police, to maintain and enforce political power, often through violent or arbitrary means. A police state typically exhibits elements of totalitarianism or other harsh means of social control. In a police state the police are not subject to the rule of law and there is no meaningful distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive.

A government does not describe itself as a "police state". Instead, it is a description assigned to a regime by internal or external critics in response to the laws, policies and actions of that regime, and is often used pejoratively to describe the regime's stance on human rights, the social contract and similar matters.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoonDog

so how many examples or displays of these 'definitions' would be necessary for people to realize that that may just be what we have here?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

so how many examples or displays of these 'definitions' would be necessary for people to realize that that may just be what we have here?

You obviously haven't lived in any other country where liberties and civil rights as you know them do not exist. I have, and I'll take this place over any other place I've ever been to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

You obviously haven't lived in any other country where liberties and civil rights as you know them do not exist. I have, and I'll take this place over any other place I've ever been to.

so, by that reasoning, because the USA isn't as bad as other places, we should not be complaining? It also doesn't answer the question.....how many examples would be required for people to actually consider that maybe we are a police state?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

by the words so long as there is any form of militia or armed people to control what and how people act in and of itself is a police state.

The very fact that you can speak out against as you do now, or wish to do on the street corner without police taking you away with no due process is very much a freedom afforded unlike other countries.

It doesn't matter how many examples, because see the examples change because the PEOPLE change. We don't live under the same single ruler for generations. While some things seem like the are similar on it's face, you could go into politics yourself and try to make a chane, unlike countries that are really police states.

So long as the constitution stands as the head of all law and so long as citizens carry arms the US will never become a police state. As much as other countries fear what the US can/will do the US government is fearful of what it's citizens can/will do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoonDog

Here are some definitions that I found for police state on the interweb (answers.com)_:

3) A police state is an authoritarian state which uses the police, especially secret police, to maintain and enforce political power, often through violent or arbitrary means. A police state typically exhibits elements of totalitarianism or other harsh means of social control. In a police state the police are not subject to the rule of law and there is no meaningful distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive.

Ok, so somebody explain to me why some animals are more equal than others? Like this Illinois State Trooper who just had his illegal posession of a machine gun charge dropped.

http://www.ilsd.uscourts.gov/Opinion...nting_MTDs.pdf

Quote:

This is a case about a man with a gun – in this case, a law enforcement officer for the Illinois State Police, Sergeant Vest. Charged with illegal transfer and possession of a machine gun, Vest faces not only the end of his law enforcement career, but also loss of liberty. Given that such punishment could be proper for illegal behavior, in this particular case, the Court finds it inappropriate to allow the case to proceed on the merits, as it deems the statutes discussed within are unconstitutionally vague as applied to Vest.

If this were any civilian, they'd be facing 10 years in prison for doing the same exact thing that this ISP officer did.

Tell me again, we're not a police state? or is it just Illinois?

DK, the proof that we (both the US and Illinois) are not in a "police state" is the fact that this guy was brought up on charges at all. If he was above the law, they never would have bothered charging him with anything. When you read the decision, you'll note that the plaintiff is consistently referred to as "the Government" - that same government that you're intent on branding a police state.

I see this case as proof that your basic premise is wrong.

Are you going to call for the execution of this judge next, as is your usual style?

You're really stretching on this one. I honestly don't think that you bothered to read past the introduction of the decision, which is what you quoted above. This decision revolves around whether or not Vest had the permission to purchase and use the weapon in question as a part of his duties as the equipment officer for the Illinois State Police SWAT team and head rifle instructor for the department. There's also the question as to whether or not Vest's superior in the ISP had the authority to grant him permission to buy the gun or if the authority had to come from the Federal government. Given that the judge came down squarely on the side of states' rights, I would think that you would be pleased with this.

Quote:

If this were any civilian, they'd be facing 10 years in prison for doing the same exact thing that this ISP officer did.

If you'd actually read the decision, you'd know that it's absolutely impossible for a civilian to "the same exact thing". The case revolves solely around Vest's employment with the State Police, which excludes civilians explicitely.

Jazz, per your inference, we are not a police state unless they summarily execute people accused of crimes. Fine, by that definition, we are not a police state. I can assume then, that at this point, you will consider nothing less to be a police state.

To refer to a individual policeman as 'the government' SHOULD equal out to an individual being 'the people'. That should categorically confirm, without a doubt, that the second amendment is then NOT a states right, but an individual right.

I read the whole decision. What I see is a federal judge utilizing particular statements out of context and then obfuscating terms of agency and trooper to clear one of their LEO's. This LEO, as an individual, authorized, bought, and transferred, without the express authority of the ISP department, a machinegun. If a civilian tried that, it would result in his immediate arrest.

I realize that this particular case means nothing to the statists, socialists, and communists around the country, seeing how you're completely fine with the government saying what you can and cannot do, and this is whats killing this country.

What will you do when the government tells you that the freedom of speech is now restricted to 'the people' only when authorized, or that the freedom of the press is limited to what the government allows them to print?

sad state of america.

dk, by your same arguments, it's been a police state at least since Clinton, since he lied under oath and didn't seem to perjure himself.

Foxy Brown and Martha Stewart both went to jail for the same crime.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

dk, by your same arguments, it's been a police state at least since Clinton, since he lied under oath and didn't seem to perjure himself.

I'd agree, in so far as people in positions of the government were not held accountable for their crimes. Look at Janet Reno. Never charged for the murders at Mt. Carmel

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

Foxy Brown and Martha Stewart both went to jail for the same crime.

But Bush's harken trade got a free pass. are we on the same side? sounds like it.

DK, you're arguing so completely out of context that I'm having a very hard time believing that you've missed the basic tripping point of your arguement. You're far too intelligent to miss something this fundamental. Let's start this again.

The federal government brought the charges. To me, that fact in and of itself completely negates your arguement for the existance of a police state. If we were in a police state on a national level, as you posit throughout this thread, then the fact that the feds are bringing up charges AT ALL against an officer is hard evidence that there is no such police state. In my first post, I never referred to the officer as the "government" - that referrence was for the prosecution.

If you read the decision, I would love to know what other evidence, statements and testimony you are privy to that would allow you to say that the judge took them "out of context". Clearly you have hard evidence to the contrary, and I'd love to know what it is and why it wasn't used in court. If you have no such evidence or transcripts of the proceedings, then stating that he took anything out of context is a strawman.

Here's my favorite part of your post:

Quote:

This LEO, as an individual, authorized, bought, and transferred, without the express authority of the ISP department, a machinegun. If a civilian tried that, it would result in his immediate arrest.

The judge's entire arguement centers around the fact that Vest did in fact have proper authorization.

Quote:

During the hearing, when
discussing whether a supervisor could have properly granted Vest the authority to
legally possess the machine gun, his attorneys asked, “Where does [Vest’s supervisor]
get the evidence that he has the authority to grant it when there’s no definition of
what constitutes authority?” (Doc. 84 - Transcript, 25:17-19). This inquiry dovetails
with the previous discussion regarding the apparent ambiguity and vagueness of the
“by or under” phrase of the law enforcement exception.

It seems abudantly clear to me.

Seriously, what purpose would it serve for a police state to levy accusations of this sort against members of the police?

Let me also point out that there is no execution inference in my post, and your statement that I implied anything of the sort just goes to show that you've completely missed the boat on this one.

Police State
1) A state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic, and political life of the people, especially by means of a secret police force.

I'm not sure that we have anything that truly approaches the level of a "Secret Police" force in this country as of yet. I would also have to argue that the government does not yet exercise "rigid" controls on the social, economic, and political life of the citizens of the US. Not quite yet, at least.

2) A nation whose rulers maintain order and obedience by the threat of police or military force; one with a brutal, arbitrary government.
I don't we are here yet either. I don't think recent presidents have threated the use of police and/or military force internally to maintain "order & obedience".

3) A police state is an authoritarian state which uses the police, especially secret police, to maintain and enforce political power, often through violent or arbitrary means. A police state typically exhibits elements of totalitarianism or other harsh means of social control. In a police state the police are not subject to the rule of law and there is no meaningful distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive.

The police in the US are subject to the rule of law, and are most definitely distinct from our major, national political entities.

A government does not describe itself as a "police state". Instead, it is a description assigned to a regime by internal or external critics in response to the laws, policies and actions of that regime, and is often used pejoratively to describe the regime's stance on human rights, the social contract and similar matters.
I think that our international critics might accuse us of human rights lapses due to Guantanamo Bay, Iraqi prisoner abuse, etc. But those incidents, grouped as they are around the war, might not constitute the full range of such behaviors across our social spectrum to qualify us as a police state.