Social Question

rojo's avatar

Does the increasing militarization of our local police forces constitute the formation and maintenance of a "Standing Army" within a civilian population that the Founding Fathers were so dead set against?

Asked by rojo (24179points) January 26th, 2016

As asked.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

4 Answers

Cruiser's avatar

Congress does not control the expenditures of local police forces so IMO this would not fit the working definition of the “raise and support Armies” clause.

Lightlyseared's avatar

No. The US army is the standing army the founding fathers were worried about. They thought if you had a large army you’d end up with large debts and taxes to pay for it. In the time of war you end up giving the executive greater discretionary powers and you end up getting involved in all sorts of crap you’d be better off avoiding. And they may have had a point.

The increasing militarisation of the police is a side effect of the increasing militarisation of the civilian population they police.

SecondHandStoke's avatar

This former new Yorker knows that the NYPD is a paramilitary band of thugs that operate with near total impunity and practically no oversight.

New Yorkers tolerate the fact that the NYPD will hold and search any individual without cause.

A New York cop lied to my face when I was pulled over for rolling through a red light on my freaking bicycle:

The constable said that If I paid by ticket quickly in person the fine would be $20.

When I slogged myself up into the jungle that is upper Manhattan the clerk said “That will be one hundred and ninety Dollars please”.

I told her that the officer said the ticket would be settled for $20.

She explained that the cop gave a figure of 20 to avoid a protracted argument there on the tarmac.

Cruiser's avatar

@Lightlyseared The concern the founding fathers had was about who had control over funding the military forces of our new born country. If the leader/President had that control there would be little anyone could do to prevent said leader/President from seizing control of the army to for whatever reason overthrow the Government if, he indeed, had control over the monies and the army. Primarily to prevent exactly what was the impetus for the Revolutionary War that was so fresh in their minds at that time. So with the “raise and support Armies” clause, this control of funding our armies is the sole responsibility of Congress and why we have separation of powers and the 3 branches of our Government so no one entity can seize power of anything our country does and controls without the other 3 branches being directly involved.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther