No, the army is the standing army. Dumbass. There were constables, sherrifs, and peace officers during the Founding Father's time too. Only difference is now a lot of these police are privatized, for-profit corporations.
I have been to court enough times to know they don't want to bring in the kid that's living on the streets, he has no money to provide the court. They want to get hard working law abiding citizens and squeeze two hundred or more dollars out of them everytime they are caught jaywalking. The privatization of our legal system has made it into a cutthroat business. And crackheads aren't good for business. That's why an OVI will cost thousands more dollars than smoking meth or shooting up fentanyl behind the wheel. Open the books you filthy fucking thieves!
I'm aware that privatizing police duties causes problems. It still doesnt change the fact that the founding fathers were concerned about the federal government's standing army, not that the town constable's office would bloom into a for-profit mega corporation 200 years later.
It appears that through a bit of legal legerdemain, congress re-approves the budget for the US Army every two years to avoid conflict with the Constitution. Thus, de jure, no standing army. De facto, however, there is a standing army. None of this has ever been tested in court.
It seems incredibly obvious that the founding fathers were concerned with an overpowered federal government dominating the states. The actual army IS the standing army they warned about. Looking for some deeper meaning about how it really was talking about municipal or county police is just stupid
You are not wrong. "I'm just doing my job." That's how and why the tyrants win. And largely why we are where we are.
The police are the standing army the founders warned us about.
No, the army is the standing army. Dumbass. There were constables, sherrifs, and peace officers during the Founding Father's time too. Only difference is now a lot of these police are privatized, for-profit corporations.
I have been to court enough times to know they don't want to bring in the kid that's living on the streets, he has no money to provide the court. They want to get hard working law abiding citizens and squeeze two hundred or more dollars out of them everytime they are caught jaywalking. The privatization of our legal system has made it into a cutthroat business. And crackheads aren't good for business. That's why an OVI will cost thousands more dollars than smoking meth or shooting up fentanyl behind the wheel. Open the books you filthy fucking thieves!
I'm aware that privatizing police duties causes problems. It still doesnt change the fact that the founding fathers were concerned about the federal government's standing army, not that the town constable's office would bloom into a for-profit mega corporation 200 years later.
It appears that through a bit of legal legerdemain, congress re-approves the budget for the US Army every two years to avoid conflict with the Constitution. Thus, de jure, no standing army. De facto, however, there is a standing army. None of this has ever been tested in court.
It seems incredibly obvious that the founding fathers were concerned with an overpowered federal government dominating the states. The actual army IS the standing army they warned about. Looking for some deeper meaning about how it really was talking about municipal or county police is just stupid