Interesting, although I wonder about his grasp on reality. Police serve not the courts nor the legislature, that is true; but they also do not serve the people. They serve their own interests, just like everybody does. If that interest appears to align with the courts and legislature, then most cops will go along with that. If that interest appears to align with the people, then most cops will go along with that. They have a particular interest in not getting their asses shot, and in not ending up hanging from a lamp post. They should choose wisely, because neither the courts nor the legislature are capable of doing this to cops, but the people are - given enough provocation.
Their cushy government pay-checks,bennies and early retirement packages that their socialist unions got them, are far more important than the Constitution and the Bill of Rights....government worker mentality.
Is the Constitution, to which high officials take an oath, one where the meaning of the words in the text is plain for everyone to read and follow, or is the meaning what the present members of the judicial branch tell us what it means? Or maybe what the government official tells the employees of his agency?
Recall that in a different venue, officials like Lt. Vance would inform their employees that they consider members of Oath Keepers to hold extremist views about the Constitution. So what does the governor instruct his officials regarding Heller or other Court decisions that he clearly disagrees with? By his actions he is trying to circumvent the law. What would this official say about Dred Scott where the Court held that runaway slaves were not persons but were property?
None of these gun-grabbers mention that an official can just resign rather than violate an oath to uphold a law he finds to be odious. Indeed any police officer, judge or petty bureaucrat can resign the instant they are told to enforce a dysfunctional view of the Constitution, but how many do? I haven't heard of anyone.
My personal position is that the Oath is to the text of the Constitution and not to the Supreme Court. In being faithful to that Oath, I am willing to be informed by the Supreme Court, but not controlled by the Supreme Court.
In a different context, say jury duty, the government doesn't hesitate to hammer on the oath the victim (er juror) took, in order to cower them into seeing things their way and moving to convict an otherwise innocent person. Maybe it is time to do some oath-hammering of our own. If you look at a squad of officers working a gun-grabbing case, how many officers does it take to refuse to violate their oath before unit cohesion is eroded? Maybe this dynamic is just like what happens in a jury when a firm hold-out turns the verdict.
One other advantage- hamming on the oath will drive liberals nuts. And it certainly is far more peaceful than some alternatives.
The problem is that police as a term has become a TITLE OF NOBILITY. They feel especially entitled above and beyond the average citizen. Legislatures create this with another set of unjust and blatantly unconstitutional law "exempting" police from this that and the other.
It's similar to the gun carry garbage. Folks live to get their permits and claim some victory in getting one. They say they stand for the Second but in reality they allow infringement. Think about what permit means. Then understand that carry is legislatively ILLEGAL but that your permit exempts you.
Bullshit. The Second EXEMPTS YOU! Police must be returned to EQUAL status as other Citizens.
Nothing else solves it. Not pension reduction, not pay scale reform, none of it. They gotta be HELD ACCOUNTABLE just like everyone else.
We must hammer OATH alright - oath of the LEGISLATURE and all within it. For that body has engaged in corrupting the others by passing " laws" that are so blatantly and obviously unconstitutional.
Time for pitchforks, torches, tar and feathers. ( notice that today's torches are BLACK RIFLES).
7 comments:
I hope that all of the police in CT see that video, and ponder it deeply.
Interesting, although I wonder about his grasp on reality. Police serve not the courts nor the legislature, that is true; but they also do not serve the people. They serve their own interests, just like everybody does. If that interest appears to align with the courts and legislature, then most cops will go along with that. If that interest appears to align with the people, then most cops will go along with that. They have a particular interest in not getting their asses shot, and in not ending up hanging from a lamp post. They should choose wisely, because neither the courts nor the legislature are capable of doing this to cops, but the people are - given enough provocation.
Their cushy government pay-checks,bennies and early retirement packages that their socialist unions got them, are far more important than the Constitution and the Bill of Rights....government worker mentality.
Is the Constitution, to which high officials take an oath, one where the meaning of the words in the text is plain for everyone to read and follow, or is the meaning what the present members of the judicial branch tell us what it means? Or maybe what the government official tells the employees of his agency?
Recall that in a different venue, officials like Lt. Vance would inform their employees that they consider members of Oath Keepers to hold extremist views about the Constitution. So what does the governor instruct his officials regarding Heller or other Court decisions that he clearly disagrees with? By his actions he is trying to circumvent the law. What would this official say about Dred Scott where the Court held that runaway slaves were not persons but were property?
None of these gun-grabbers mention that an official can just resign rather than violate an oath to uphold a law he finds to be odious. Indeed any police officer, judge or petty bureaucrat can resign the instant they are told to enforce a dysfunctional view of the Constitution, but how many do? I haven't heard of anyone.
My personal position is that the Oath is to the text of the Constitution and not to the Supreme Court. In being faithful to that Oath, I am willing to be informed by the Supreme Court, but not controlled by the Supreme Court.
In a different context, say jury duty, the government doesn't hesitate to hammer on the oath the victim (er juror) took, in order to cower them into seeing things their way and moving to convict an otherwise innocent person. Maybe it is time to do some oath-hammering of our own. If you look at a squad of officers working a gun-grabbing case, how many officers does it take to refuse to violate their oath before unit cohesion is eroded? Maybe this dynamic is just like what happens in a jury when a firm hold-out turns the verdict.
One other advantage- hamming on the oath will drive liberals nuts. And it certainly is far more peaceful than some alternatives.
--theBuckWheat
The problem is that police as a term has become a TITLE OF NOBILITY. They feel especially entitled above and beyond the average citizen. Legislatures create this with another set of unjust and blatantly unconstitutional law "exempting" police from this that and the other.
It's similar to the gun carry garbage. Folks live to get their permits and claim some victory in getting one. They say they stand for the Second but in reality they allow infringement. Think about what permit means. Then understand that carry is legislatively ILLEGAL but that your permit exempts you.
Bullshit. The Second EXEMPTS YOU!
Police must be returned to EQUAL status as other Citizens.
Nothing else solves it. Not pension reduction, not pay scale reform, none of it. They gotta be HELD ACCOUNTABLE just like everyone else.
We must hammer OATH alright - oath of the LEGISLATURE and all within it. For that body has engaged in corrupting the others by passing " laws" that are so blatantly and obviously unconstitutional.
Time for pitchforks, torches, tar and feathers.
( notice that today's torches are BLACK RIFLES).
@ The Buckwheat:
That's only because none of them have died yet for violating their oaths.
Once they start dying, the others will have BFOs (Brilliant Flashes of the Obvious).
Until the authoritah begin to experience personal consequences of violating their oaths of office, nothing is going to change.
Diamondback
Joseph "Paul" Vance
31 Greenleaf Ave Waterbury, CT 06705-2710
Home (203) 573-0146
DOB: 02/03/1953
(203) 573-0146
Associated: Margaret W, Vance, Paul J. Vance, Jason P. Vance, Paul P. Vance
Lt. J.Paul Vance’s Education
Naugatuck Valley Community College
1984 – 1986
The University of Connecticut
General Studies
1971 – 1972
Activities and Societies: Attended Naugatuck valley Community College
Department Spokesman/Media Relations Commander
Connecticut State Police
June 1974 – Present (38 years 7 months)
The Society of Police Futurists International
Post a Comment