science?
politics?
and making a
difference?
home
projectcreation 

















POLITICALLY INCORRECT SCIENCE
dig for dinosaurs



creation evidence mueseum
institute for creation research
answers in genesis
SITES THAT MAKE A DIFFERENCE

florida family association
national motorists association
postal watch
ssn# privacy matters
turn off the TV

famous quotes on liberty
us history
vince foster and the truth
what happened to ron brown?
hilliary, stop her now

patriot party
constitution party
libertarians
nader vs adl

aobs store
john birch
right to keep and bear arms
national rifle association  NRA
guns and the christian
100 top gunsites
gun owners of america
gun sites one hundred
jews ftpo gun ownership
keep and bear arms
national ammo day
women with guns
us concealed carry association
american patrol
bill of rights day
bureaucrash
the unibomber manifesto
steal this book abbe hofman

3rd continental congress
border secure
enimies foreign and domestic
center for reclaiming america
reclaimingamericanow
michiganmilitia
save-a-patriot
missilethreat
minuteman
indiana militia
free west alliance
escape artist
leaderless resistance
great migration

free state project
center for individual rights
demilitarize the police

national ID
secure borders
oklahoma bombing investigation
thomas paine and common sense
weapons to control civilians
wing-TV

students rights on campus

the F scale

church and government

Does the eagle
  mount up at your command,
   and make its nest on high?
It dwells on the rock,
  and resides on the craig of the rock
     and the stronghold.
From there it spies out the prey;
Its eyes observe from afar. 
                                              Job 39: 27-29
Legal Helps

erwin rommel school of law
jury rights and responsibilities
jury rights project
jury handbook
illlegal
citizens for judicial accountability
judicial accountability initiative law
institute for justice
families against mandatory minimums
on not talking to the feds
on the rights of criminals
are the police constitutional
constitutional society
committee on the judiciary
webster's 1828 Dictionary search
american center for law and justice
christian law association
liberty fund


zabba people search
criminal case search
state vs rivinus
lee county clerk
us constitution
us people services




I ACTUALLY AM A VISITOR FROM ANOTHER PLANET. This is not too hard to believe, as my critics, who are many, will tell you without blushing that I am definitely something from another planet.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, I am told that you people spend somewhere approaching a quarter Trillion dollars a year (that's 250 Billion with a "B" dollars per year) on a military establishment. And I was in the restaurant here, being from outer space, I was talking to this fellow, who told me he was a Christian, and he apparently thought this was great.
So I asked him, "why do you spend all this money?"
And he scratched his head, and said "Well gee, now that the Soviet Union is all dissolved, I don' t know."
I said "well, why did you used to spend a quarter Trillion dollars a year on your military establishment?" And he said "Oh! We wanted to defend ourselves from communism!"
And I asked "what is communism?"
And he said "Communism is a foreign and alien ideology that threatens by military force to impose itself over our objection and against our will."
I thought that was kind of interesting, and I told him that I know a little something about communism, and I asked him if he knew what communism was and he said, "well, no".
And I asked him if he had been trained in the public schools, and he said "yes." So I walked him through the communist manifesto, as I will you now.
The communist manifesto was created by a fellow named Moses Mordecai Levi. You Americans out here know him a Karl Marx, he was the son of a rabbi, and I asked why this guy went by an alias? The discussion fairly quickly elevated to the status level of Battle-Stations Missle:
I said, "The first plank of the communist manifesto is:
Abolition of all property and land ownership and the application of all rents for public purposes."
And I asked this Christian, "Do you own your own home?"
He said "Yep."
I said, "What happens if you stop paying the property tax?
He said "The sheriff will sell it."
I said, "I am woefully confused, of course, I am from another planet. How can the sheriff sell what you own?"
He was sorrowfully silent. So I said "isn't it a fact that you hold title and that you are not an "allod" on the land and isn't your problem actually that you have an equity position in real property and the state wherein you live owns the land and that's why they can move your butt off of it when you don't pay their rent?" And as he stared into the ceiling, I said "if you pay property tax you practice the first plank of the communist manifesto. On the spaceship down here I was reading this big thick book called the Bible, the Bible you Christians use, and I understand that you are in violation of Leviticus 25:23 if you do that." He looked puzzled...
The second plank of the communist manifest is: Heavy progressive income tax.
You people don't fill out Illinois state form 1040's here do you, and you don't fill out form 1040's for the federal government do you? Because if you do, you practice the second plank of the communist manifesto and you are in violation of your Bible at Malachi 3:8 and Deuteronomy 4:13. 
He loosened his tie...
I said the third plank of the communist manifesto is: Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
I said "How long have you lived in Illinois?" He said "All my life." I said "You don't have any probate courts here, do you? You don't have a legal profession that is wall to wall teaching you to fill out wills instead of create trusts, do you? Because if you know anyone who has been through probate court, or if you have personally been through probate court, you have practiced the third plank of the communist manifesto and you are in violation of Deuteronomy 21:15-17 and Numbers 18:20-24." . He loosened his tie a little more...
The fourth plank of the communist manifesto is: Confiscation of property of all immigrants & rebels.
"You don't turn on the TV around April 1st in Illinois and see them drag some tax protestor off to jail, do you?" "Annually," was the reply.  "Well", I said, "if you participate in that or allow that to happen, or if that has happened to you, that's the fourth plank of the communist manifesto, and it is a violation of Leviticus 26:17 and Proverbs 28:1." His eyes started to glaze over.
I looked at him and said the fifth plank of the communist manifesto is:  Centralization of credit by the creation of a national bank.
I said, "You pay your debts at law, in silver, don't you? You don't discharge your obligations in equity, do you?" He started to squirm. I said "if you rely on this green paper money for your sustenance, if your mind thinks in terms of this green paper when you go to purchase things, you practice the fifth plank of the communist manifesto, and you are in violation of Leviticus 19:35-36, Deuteronomy 25:13-16 and the aforementioned nasty and nefarious Exodus 20:15.
EXODUS 20: 15 reads THOU SHALT NOT STEAL."
He started to become uneasy....
I said, the sixth plank of the communist manifesto is: Centralization of the means of communication & transport in the hands of the state.
"You don't have ports of entry out here on the Interstate, do you?  Your trucks don't have to drive in and out of these scales, do you?  You don't drive automobiles with the admiralty flag of the state of Illinois on the back with the yearly rental fee stuck in the middle on a sticker, do you? Because if you do, you practice the sixth plank of the communist manifesto and you are in violation of Deuteronomy 7:2 and Exodus 23:32-33." He started to figit uncomfortably.
I said the seventh plank of the communist manifesto is: Government control of factories and the instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing in to cultivation of wastelands and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
I said, "You don't have a Bureau of Land management, do you? You don't live under the administrative circumstance of the Department of Agriculture, do you? And you don't have companion circumstances in the state law along with EPA and a host of other things, because if you allow yourself to live under that system, you practice the seventh plank of the communist manifesto and you are in violation of Leviticus 25: 1-7, actually Leviticus 25: 1-10. He closed his eyes.
I said the eight plank of the communist manifesto reads: Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
I said, "Do you have a Social Security number?" He as he shook his head up and down sorrowfully, I said "well doesn't that mean that you're a fourteenth Amendment juristic person a merchant in interstate commerce under contract over time for profit and gain in a regulated enterprise and you have waived all your constitutional rights under contract in exchange for privileges, franchises and immunities?" He said "Privileges?" I said "yes, privilege! PRIVATE LAW: Privilege." He put his chin in his solar plexus. I said "If you have a Social Security number, you practice the eighth plank of the communist manifesto, and you are in violation of your Bible at Leviticus 19:13 and Deuteronomy 24:14&15." He became physically agitated.
Number nine, I said: A combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries. Gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equitable distribution of population over the country.
"You don't have a Federal Emergency Management Association in Illinois, Do you? You don't have FEMA at the state level, do you?  Because is you do, you practice the ninth plank of the communist manifesto and you're in violation of Leviticus 25: 1-7. By this time he was just plain angry.
I finished by quoting the tenth plank of the communist manifesto:  Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Conform education with industrial productions.
I said "Are you a homeowner?" He said "yeah." I said "you pay the property tax?" He said "Yeah." I said "Do you know where 75% of the property tax goes in this state?" He said "no." I said "It goes to support the public fool ..ahh .. the public school system. I looked at him, I said "You don't tithe your children to the state, do you? You raise them at home the way Yahweh told Moses to tell you to do, don't you?" As he got up and walked away, I said "If you support the public education establishment, you are in violation of Deuteronomy 4: 9-10, Deuteronomy 6: 1-25 and Deuteronomy 11:19. And you practice the tenth plank of the communist manifesto."
And I went and got him and brought him back and sat him down and I said "You know, I am from outer space and one of the reasons they sent me to this planet is that I'm not the brightest firecracker that ever went off in our galaxy. But what I'm trying to figure out is why the hell would you spend 250 Billion "Dollars" a year defending yourselves against something that you willfully and premeditatively do, under the color of law, and practice every second of every minute of every hour of every day all year long?
He said, "My God, I never thought about that! What do you think we should do?"
I said, "I don' t know. Did the communists ever run a presidential candidate?" He said, "Oh yeah, Gus Hall, the venerable ancient 80 year old president of the communist party used to run every time until the Democrats took over the Congress after WWII."
I said to him, "If Gus Hall would have been elected President of the United States, do you think he would have abolished property tax, do you think he would have abolished the income tax, do you think he would have instructed the legal profession to only create trusts for families to hold property in, and that he would have abolished the probate courts?  Do you think he would have stopped the incarceration of so-called Tax rebels?  Do you think Gus Hall would have closed the federal reserve?  Do you think he would have shut down the federal communications commission and allowed you to flip through the dials on your TVs here in Chicago and watch television stations unlicensed by the government?  Do you think he would have eliminated all the bureaucracies that control trade, commerce, business, industry and agriculture?  Do you think he would have dumped the Social Security Administration and admitted that there was no trust fund, and that the whole thing was just a gigantic chain letter used to alter your citizenship status in the thirties and redistribute your wealth?  That Roosevelt, he was a pretty crafty guy, wasn't he?"
I said "Do you think Gus Hall would have closed the public school system and sold the public schools back to the families in the neighborhoods wherein they existed?" As I opened up the copy
of the Bible the motel clerk told me I could keep for free, my Christian friend got up and left, and I couldn't bring him back.
The above is a transcript of a tape by:
Peter Jon Simpson
Erwin Rommel School of Law                                              
LEGAL and GOVERNMENT Tips:






SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

Did you know that the church has, and always had tax-exempt and tax-deductable status without filing for the non-profit 501 (c) 3 status that near 100% of churches have applied for and possess today?

Sen. Lynden B Johnson, of Texas, gave us this idea as a necessity for churches in 1954, before he became president due to JFK's mysterious demize. Before that, it was for secular non-profits only.  Now its a tool used to silence the church.

Shed it, you don't need to beg for what is already yours, and become either harrassed by the IRS, or a liberal puppet!!!!

The contents of this site and each individual page is protected by Common Law Copyright, © Norm Cook, 2006 - 2008
Jerusalem Homosexuals Push for World Pride Again
By Hilary White

JERUSALEM, August 23, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Jerusalem's Open House for Pride and Tolerance announced this Sunday it would hold a gay pride parade in Jerusalem. The local homosexual magazine, Gogay, reported that though some members of the organization expressed concerns over possible dangers, the executive decided to go ahead in a 5 to 1 vote.

The saga of the Jerusalem Gay Pride event has been playing since the summer of 2005 with religious leaders from all three major faiths of Israel demanding that the ancient city they all hold as holy not be used as a platform for activism promoting immoral sexual behaviour.

In June 2005, city officials in Jerusalem cancelled what was to have been the fourth annual gay pride event. In one of the most politically and religiously volatile cities in the world, where security threats are a fact of daily life, the homosexual movement was willing to risk the lives of residents to make their political point.

Jerusalem City Council was having none of it. They said in a statement, “It is not right to allow the march or other planned activities to take place in the streets of Jerusalem, fearing that it will create an uproar, offend a wide sector of city residents and out of fear of public disturbances.”

In June this year, Israel's Chief Rabbi Shlomo Amar wrote to Pope Benedict XVI formally asking for help in stopping homosexual activists from staging a “World Pride” parade in Jerusalem. The weeklong event was set to take place August 6-12.

Politicians in the Knesset presented a petition of over 100,000 signatures opposing the event. A poll showed that 69 percent of Jerusalem residents opposed the event with only 12 percent in support. Twenty-four of the 31 members of the Jerusalem city council also signed a petition against it.

The outbreak of hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah put an indefinite hold on the planned event, but the recent ceasefire has opened the issue once again.
In June, Brooklyn-based Rabbi Yehuda Levin, a prominent pro-life leader in the US Jewish community and founder of Jews for Morality, organized an international coalition of rabbis and Muslim and Christian leaders to stop the event planned for 2006. Religious leaders that included Israeli-Arab MK Sheikh Tzartzur and Rabbi Menachem Fruman, as well as rabbis from as far away as Russia and Venezuela, demanded that the event be cancelled.

Fruman said that he had long felt that the conflict over homosexuality “is a religious one,” and urged Muslim leaders to join in opposition.


Jerusalem Police Again Refuse to Permit Gay Pride Parade
Parade organizers admit deliberately targeting Jewish holy days for the parade
By Gudrun Schultz

JERUSALEM, Israel, August 30, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The battle over homosexual demonstrations in Jerusalem took yet another turn yesterday, as city police announced they would not permit a Gay Pride parade to take place in Jerusalem on September 21.

Parade organizers Open House for Pride and Tolerance announced the new date for the homosexual demonstration on Monday, after the parade was cancelled in August due to the violence between Israel and Lebanon.

Jerusalem police refused to grant permission for the parade, saying the date chosen by Open House was too close to the Jerusalem New Year, Ynet News reported yesterday. September 23 marks the beginning of the Jewish holy days of Rosh Hashana, Yom Kippur and Succot, observed during the end of September and the beginning of October.

The police said they would consider permitting the parade if organizers would submit other dates for the event.

Open House organizers admitted to Ynet News that they had deliberately targeted the Jewish holy days when rescheduling the parade. The organization has threatened to petition the court for permission to hold the event as planned, and said if denied official authorization they will hold the parade anyway, in defiance of the courts and the police.

Plans to hold the controversial event so close the Jewish New Year had offended leaders in the Jewish community, who saw the choice as a deliberate affront to faithful Jews in the city.

Jewish, Muslim and Christian leaders in Israel and worldwide battled for over a year to prevent World Pride organizers from staging the international homosexual event within a city seen as holy by believers of all three faiths.


Artical Index Link
WORLD GAY PRIDE.  THE THE END?
Visitor From Another Planet
Tips
COMMUNITY BASED GOVERNMENT

Tips on Constitutional Law
Law enforcement in the Founders' time was a duty of every citizen. Citizens were expected to be armed and equipped to chase suspects on foot, on horse, or with wagon whenever summoned. And when called upon to enforce the laws of the state, citizens were to respond "not faintly and with lagging steps, but honestly and bravely and with whatever implements and facilities [were] convenient and at hand." Any person could act in the capacity of a constable without being one, and when summoned  by  a law  enforcement
officer,  a  private  person   became
a temporary  member  of the  police
department. The law also presumed
that any person acting in  his public
capacity as  an officer was rightfully
appointed.
POLITICALLY INCORRECT Tip  
Read the following not as revolt but as asserting ones rights, and then wonder how long you will be able to continue!!

With the announcement by the Department of Justice (sic) that 300 FBI agents formerly assigned to watching Soviet spies in the US (domestic counter intelligence) are now to be used to "combat crime", the federal government is preparing the way for a major assault upon those persons opposed to their policies. Many ..... groups dedicated to the preservation of the America of our forefathers can expect shortly to feel the brunt of a new federal assault upon liberty.

It is clear, therefore, that it is time to rethink traditional strategy and tactics when it comes to opposing a modern police state. America is quickly moving into a long dark night of police state tyranny, where the rights now accepted by most as being inalienable will disappear. Let the coming night be filled with a thousand points of resistance. Like thefog which forms when conditions are right and disappears when they are not, so must the resistance to tyranny be.

from an article by Louis Beam 1983.
Recommended Books
           CLICK HERE

Video clips
fetal hand

video clips
fetal hand



POLITICAL PERSUASIONS:  Got any?                                 I do and would      love to see a return to a Community based government
Early America was built on a principle of, "of the people, for the people, by the people", as is clearly seen not only in the Bill of Rights, but in the thread of the local community.  Three distinct groupings or sectors of the population were clearly seen in each of the communities.  These were the Jury, the Posey and the Militia.  Where are these today?  They were as much a part of American life as "baseball and apple pie".
So much for so long has gone missing from the common culture, that today's leftists say anybody who even thinks such thoughts are fanatics, radicals, extremists and dangerous.  On the contrary, if we still relied on these "people" principles, our citizens, neighborhoods and nation would be much safer, and the budget would always have a surplus.  With a few other community based services, taxes would be more like $100 a head, rather than $10,000.00 a head.
Following are just a few community based ideas that I feel would make us smarter, safer, richer and I feel, very CONSTITUTIONAL:
All important decisions made at local level

Law Enforcement  
Volunteer citizens acting under deputation
Every person given policing instruction in school and the return of               specific police and arrest powers for general public
Deputized citizens and Posey of the same
Small police force elected to run the volunteer system

Judiciary  
Jury based on actual Grand and Petit juries acting autonomously              without being instructed by “gov”
Perjury acted on with EVERY VIOLATION by defendants, plaintives,            witnesses, lawyers and judges
Law suits only brought against people guilty of a crime

Laws
Return to common law. with laws framed by legislators, but ratified            at the polls, and never made by the judiciary
Simplified and most rescinded until the general public understands            the law
Safe from 95% of today’s litigation.
Immigration limited to integration and assimilation as AMERICAN              citizens

Military
Militia based, with a very small fulltime military for training and          oversight
Homeland defense and wars, if any, fought by the militia
Large well trained reserve, trained as a graduation requirement in                school
Every law abiding person must own and maintain military weapons            in their home
Each home be provided fallout/bomb shelter

Education
Community based local schools with no busing, only local school                boards with complete jurisdiction
Basic core curriculum, including vocational training for every student
Unlicensed and unpaid teaching and done by senior year students              as the practicum for college preparation and graduation
College prep training, as an add on year
All students taught law, rights and responsibilities as teachers,                  military, police and jury intensive instruction, as well as posey,                militia, deputy and government representative responsibilities, in              addition to morality, manners, respect, integrity, discipline and                  self-dicipline

Media
Locally owned and operated within each county
Community based and overseen by a randomly selected  rotating               board;
Report what is actually going on, where the people live rather than           what the acadiemians are trying to institute. and responsible for "               slants and biases"

Prisons
Work camps in crude yet humane boot camps
With the posibility of returned rights as a one time incentive to                    rehabilitation
All public works done by prisons
      Re-education and financial restitution of victims in every case

Federal Government 
Congress elected annually, then meeting only for brief periods of that                 year, with a 4 year term limit
Non-career positions, not 9-5 job with massive perks, with a President as          a servant, not in position of a monarch
Designed to increase the position of the individual not foreign          governments
Withdraw from 90% of foreign contracts and treaties.  UN, WTO, NAFTA,          WMO, etc.
The federal balance of power acknowledges the supreme court, not as                the supreme power
Certain degrees or preparation will limit term served. Political scientist,             lawyers, socialist or billionaire does not make all equal in site of law

Licensing
90% done away with, replaced by independent voluntary certification          controling professions
Only mandatory licensing is where public safety is in jeopardy, (pilots,               car drivers, etc.) then on a very limited basis
No monopolies, medicine, teachers, lawyers

Taxation
Small, Fair, Only as necessary, and always representative


TO THE TOP OF THE PAGE
NEWS HIGHLIGHTS:

Walter Cronkite endorses Campaign to Force Christianity out of U.S. Public Life
US “First Amendment First” Campaign Targets Churches, Religious Groups
By Gudrun Schultz

SAN JOSE, California, February 28, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A new campaign to force Christian influence out of the public sphere was launched last week in San Jose, California, in response to what is seen as a returning strength of religious organizations in American society.

Led by members of the Interfaith Alliance, an organization dedicated to countering the influence of the conservative Christian Coalition on federal politics, the new campaign is designed to promote policies that would silence the political voice of the “religious right.”

Called ‘First Amendment First’, the campaign has been billed as a defense of the separation of church and state, which organizers claim is threatened by religious organizations’ involvement in political lobbying and endorsement of candidates.

Recommendations promoted by the campaign would see sweeping bans imposed on church activities affecting public policy, including a prohibition on church endorsement of political candidates. Research and health policies should not be founded on “religious doctrine”, the campaign states and a ban should be imposed on schools promoting a particular religion.

As well, campaign petitions include an end to state funding of any charitable organization that “discriminates in its hiring” or requires people hold a particular faith to receive services.

American news personality Walter Cronkite, a veteran of US media, endorsed the campaign, as did the Rev. Welton Gaddy, president of the Interfaith Alliance.

Cronkite, now 90, served as anchor for CBS Evening News from 1962 to 1981. He is the spokesman and honorary chairman of the Alliance, which includes multi-faith and atheistic members. In addition to opposing religious influence on politics, the organization is dedicated to promoting public acceptance of homosexuality, calling for an end to “discrimination based on sexual orientation.”




Something to Think About

The new rebel is a skeptic and will not entirely trust anything.  He has no loyalty; therefore, he can never be really a revolutionist.   And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denounciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it. Thus he writes one book complaining that imperial oppression insults the purity of women, and then writes another book, a novel, in which he insults it himself.  He curses the Sultan because Christian girls lose their virginity, and the curses Mrs. Grundy because they keep it.  As a politition he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then as a philosopher that all life is a waste of time.  A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself.  A man denounces marriage as a lie and then denounces aristocratic prolifigates for treating it as a lie.  He calls a flag a bauble and the blames the oppressors of Poland or Ireland because they take away that baauble. The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts.  Then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes to a scientific meeting where he proves that they practically are beasts.  In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infiniteskeptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines.  In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality, and in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men.  Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt.  By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything.       G. K. Chesterton
LAW ENFORCEMENT AS A UNIVERSAL DUTY
Law enforcement in the Founders' time was a duty of every citizen.32 Citizens were expected to be armed and equipped to chase suspects on foot, on horse, or with wagon whenever summoned. And when called upon to enforce the laws of the state, citizens were to respond "not faintly and with lagging steps, but honestly and bravely and with whatever implements and facilities [were] convenient and at hand."33 Any person could act in the capacity of a constable without being one,34 and when summoned by a law enforcement officer, a private person became a temporary member of the police department.35 The law also presumed that any person acting in his public capacity as an officer was rightfully appointed.36
Laws in virtually every state still require citizens to aid in capturing escaped prisoners, arresting criminal suspects, and executing legal process. The duty of citizens to enforce the law was and is a constitutional one. Many early state constitutions purported to bind citizens into a universal obligation to perform law enforcement functions, yet evinced no mention of any state power to carry out those same functions.37 But the law enforcement duties of the citizenry are now a long-forgotten remnant of the Framers' era. By the 1960s, only twelve percent of the public claimed to have ever personally acted to combat crime.38
The Founders could not have envisioned 'police' officers as we know them today. The term "police" had a slightly different meaning at the time of the Founding.39 It was generally used as a verb and meant to watch over or monitor the public health and safety.40 In Louisiana, "police juries" were local governing bodies similar to county boards in other states.41 Only in the mid-nineteenth century did the term 'police' begin to take on the persona of a uniformed state law enforcer.42 The term first crept into Supreme Court jurisprudence even later.43
Prior to the 1850s, rugged individualism and self-reliance were the touchstones of American law, culture, and industry. Although a puritan cultural and legal ethic pervaded their society, Americans had great toleration for victimless misconduct.44 Traffic disputes were resolved through personal negotiation and common law tort principles, rather than driver licenses and armed police patrol.45 Agents of the state did not exist for the protection of the individual citizen. The night watch of early American cities concerned itself primarily with the danger of fire, and watchmen were often afraid to enter some of the most notorious neighborhoods of cities like Boston.46
At the time of Tocqueville's observations (in the 1830s), "the means available to the authorities for the discovery of crimes and arrest of criminals [were] few,"47 yet Tocqueville doubted "whether in any other country crime so seldom escapes punishment."48 Citizens handled most crimes informally, forming committees to catch criminals and hand them over to the courts.49 Private mobs in early America dealt with larger threats to public safety and welfare, such as houses of ill fame.50 Nothing struck a European traveler in America, wrote Tocqueville, more than the absence of government in the streets.51
Formal criminal justice institutions dealt only with the most severe crimes. Misdemeanor offenses had to be dealt with by the private citizen on the private citizen's own terms. "The farther back the [crime rate] figures go," according to historian Roger Lane, "the higher is the relative proportion of serious crimes."52 In other words, before the advent of professional policing, fewer crimes — and only the most serious crimes — were brought to the attention of the courts.
After the 1850s, cities in the northeastern United States gradually acquired more uniformed patrol officers. The criminal justice model of the Framers' era grew less recognizable. The growth of police units reflected a "change in attitude" more than worsening crime rates.53 Americans became less tolerant of violence in their streets and demanded higher standards of conduct.54 Offenses which had formerly earned two-year sentences were now punished by three to four years or more in a state penitentiary.55
THE DEVELOPMENT OF DISTINCTIONS
The treatment of law enforcement in the courts shows that the law of crime control has changed monumentally over the past two centuries. Under the common law, there was no difference whatsoever between the privileges, immunities, and powers of constables and those of private citizens. Constables were literally and figuratively clothed in the same garments as everyone else and faced the same liabilities — civil and criminal — as everyone else under identical circumstances. Two centuries of jurisprudence, however, have recast the power relationships of these two roles dramatically.
Perhaps the first distinction between the rights of citizen and constabulary came in the form of increased power to arrest. Early in the history of policing, courts held that an officer could arrest if he had "reasonable belief both in the commission of a felony and in the guilt of the arrestee.71 This represented a marginal yet important distinction from the rights of a "private person," who could arrest only if a felony had actually been committed.72 It remains somewhat of a mystery, however, where this distinction was first drawn.73
Moreover, the distinction was illegitimate from its birth, being a bastardization of an earlier rule allowing constables to arrest upon transmission of reasonably reliable information from a third person.75 The earlier rule made perfect sense when many arrests were executed by private persons. "Authority" was a narrow defense available only to those who met the highest standard of accuracy.76 But when Americans began to delegate their law enforcement duties to professionals, the law relaxed to allow police to execute warrantless felony arrests upon information received from third parties. For obvious reasons, constables could not be required to be "right" all of the time, so the rule of strict liability for false arrest was lost.77
The tradeoff has had the effect of depriving Americans of certainty in the executions of warrantless arrests. Judges now consider only the question of whether there was reasonable ground to suspect an arrestee, rather than whether the arrestee was guilty of any crime. This loss of certainty, when combined with greater deference to the state in most law enforcement matters, has essentially reversed the original intent and purpose of American law enforcement that the state act against stern limitations and at its own peril. Because arrest has become the near exclusive province of professional police, Americans have fewer assurances that they are free from unreasonable arrests.
Distinctions between the privileges of citizens and police officers grew more rapidly in the twentieth century. State and federal lawmakers enshrined police officers with expansive immunities from firearm laws78 and from laws regulating the use of equipment such as radio scanners, body armor, and infrared scopes.79 Legislatures also exempted police from toll road charges,80 granted police confidential telephone numbers and auto registration,81 and even exempted police from fireworks regulations.82 Police are also protected by other statutory immunities and protections, such as mandatory death sentences for defendants who murder them,83 reimbursement of moving expenses when officers receive threats to their lives,84 and even special protections from assailants infected with the AIDS virus.85 Officers who illegally eavesdrop, wiretap, or intrude upon privacy are protected by a statutory (as well as case law) "good faith" defense,86 while private citizens who do so face up to five years in prison. The tendency of legislatures to equip police with ever-expanding rights, privileges and powers has, if anything, been strengthened rather than limited by the courts.88
But this growing power differential contravenes the principles of equal citizenship that dominated America's founding. The great principle of the American Revolution was, after all, the doctrine of limited government.89 Advocates of the Bill of Rights saw the chief danger of government as the inherently aristocratic and disparate power of government authority.90 Founding-era constitutions enunciated the principle that all men are "equally free" and that all government is derived from the people.91
THE ABSENCE OF CONSTITUTIONAL CRIME-FIGHTING POWER
But the constitutions of the Founding Era gave no hint of any thin blue line. Nothing in their texts enunciated any governmental power to "fight crime" at all. "Crime-fighting" was intended as the domain of individuals touched by crime. The original design under the American legal order was to restore a semblance of private justice. The courts were a mere forum, or avenue, for private persons to attain justice from a malfeasor.67 The slow alteration of the criminal courts into a venue only for the government's claims against private persons turned the very spirit of the Founders' model on its head.
To suggest that modern policing is extraconstitutional is not to imply that every aspect of police work is constitutionally improper.68 Rather, it is to say that the totality and effect of modern policing negates the meaning and purpose of certain constitutional protections the Framers intended to protect and carry forward to future generations. Modern-style policing leaves many fundamental constitutional interests utterly unenforced.
Americans today, for example, are far more vulnerable to invasive searches and seizures by the state than were the Americans of 1791.69 The Framers lived in an era in which much less of the world was in "plain view" of the government and a "stop and frisk" would have been rare indeed.70 The totality of modern policing also places pedestrian and vehicle travel at the mercy of the state, a development the Framers would have almost certainly never sanctioned. These infringements result not from a single aspect of modern policing, but from the whole of modern policing's control over large domains of private life that were once "policed" by private citizens.                                                                                                            from the essay "Are Cops Constitutional?" by Roger Roots