TexasCHLforum.com

VMI77 wrote:
(snip)

But I think the biggest buffer here is money. The Federal government is bankrupt. States like Texas are in much better financial shape than the Federal government. I don't know how long the Federal government has left, but I expect to see its power greatly diminished in my life time by economic reality alone.

(snip)

I'm not predicting a rosy future by any means but I tend to think that Federal power has pretty much reached its zenith and it's going to be on the wane for the rest of my lifetime.

I hope that you're right on these two issues. I'd love to see the balance of power shift back toward the states. I'm not hoping for complete dissolution of the Union, but less power in the Yankee Capitol (DC) is always a good thing. Let's keep our fingers crossed that all ends up well for us and our children...

VMI77 wrote:

Vol Texan wrote:

1.8.4 ACTION ITEM: Discretionary federal funding for law enforcement programs could be influenced by that department’s efforts to improve their diversity and cultural and linguistic responsiveness.

As a parallel example, the federal government has no right to dictate how we drive, but by withholding tax dollars (or threatening to do so), they have been able to institute a national seat belt law. Nowhere in the law does it say it is a federal crime not to buckle up, but make no mistake, they have used the power of the purse to force their will on the states - and the states have never once fought back. What makes us think that it would be different if they did the same with our police?

Because the stakes are orders of magnitude higher. While I'm opposed to such nanny state laws, in the scheme of things, the seat belt law isn't that big a deal compared to turning your entire state over the Federal law enforcement.

I appreciate your perspective on this, and I do agree, 'turning the entire state over to Federal law enforcement' would be virtually impossible for them to do. But that's not what I'm saying here. I'm not suggesting that all local LEOs would suddenly put on a 'federal' badge instead of a 'local' badge. But I do think that the federal government could use the power of the purse to drive different behaviors.

The seat belt law is the perfect example here. The Federal government wanted this, they used the power of the purse to drive the states to pass state laws regarding seat belts, and now the local LEOs happily enforce those laws.

Lets say that the feds come up with new favorite rule: all LEOs MUST wear body cams. Can they write a federal law saying that this must happen? Likely no. Could they decide to withhold funding from any department that does not comply? Sure they could...and departments would subsequently create local policies regarding the body cams once the threat of money being withheld comes into play. Suddenly we have another federally-driven behavior implemented by locals.

Sure, seat belts, body cams, etc...that's all good stuff, right? Keeping people safe from themselves...who in their right mind would argue against that?!? (Count me in. I despise seat belt laws. I'll wear it if I want, and I'll enforce it on my child, but it disgusts me that it is a requirement that has been driven down by not just the state, but the federal government as well.)

But what about when the federal government steps in further...requiring local organizations to do other things?

• What if they wanted to install RFID trackers in all license plates so they could track the movement of every car, everywhere, every day? Hmmm...the local folks already do that to some extent with toll tags, so it's not that much of a reach to go further.
• What if they wanted the local agencies to report the names, addresses, etc. of all CHL license holders en masse? Sure, the state may say no, but only until the $$ runs dry. Then, you never know.
• What if they wanted the local agencies to reduce standards to ensure that the demographics of the department exactly match the demographics of the neighborhoods? Sure, having a diversity of LEOs is a good thing, but forcing it is not always so. If the funds are cut until the diversity grows, then you'll be certain that somewhere, somehow, a local agency will be forced to make some bad hiring decisions.

No, I'm not a tinfoil hat conspiracy guy, but I do see de facto workarounds of the 10th Amendment all over the place, and this bugs me. It's my second-favorite of the Bill of Rights, and I hate to see it weakened so often.

The Annoyed Man wrote:
Since the power of the federal government to federalize all state and local police nationally does not exist in the Constitution, the only possible exception I can think of would be under a national declaration of martial law. And absent a compelling national emergency of some sort, that's not going to happen. Even if it did, it could only be a temporary measure.

So for this to happen, it would have to be by means of some kind of a coup, and I just don't think they could pull that off.

While I agree that the actual federalization of local police could be blocked, I do fear that the de facto federalization is just a signature away from happening. It may already be happening in select locations, to a small degree (that's just a gut feeling, I have no data to validate that idea). Note the section in the article:

1.8.4 ACTION ITEM: Discretionary federal funding for law enforcement programs could be influenced by that department’s efforts to improve their diversity and cultural and linguistic responsiveness.

As a parallel example, the federal government has no right to dictate how we drive, but by withholding tax dollars (or threatening to do so), they have been able to institute a national seat belt law. Nowhere in the law does it say it is a federal crime not to buckle up, but make no mistake, they have used the power of the purse to force their will on the states - and the states have never once fought back. What makes us think that it would be different if they did the same with our police?