How Law Enforcement Officers got their Power

by Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera


My enrolled Students know how the Officers named in the Constitution of September 17, 1787 got their power. For readers who have not yet accepted my generous offer in my July 7, 2011 Post, I will summarize the transfer and substitution of power process, George Washington plotted in the Constitutional Convention of May 25, 1787. First the Office is created in a document which will later be submitted for ratification to entities, which can confer a duty that results in a grant of power to the person occupying that Office.

I will give two examples, which can be verified in the Constitution of September 17, 1787. The President of the United States is thought to be the head of the executive branch, but in Article I Section 7, the President of the United States is given the duty to approve or object to Bills which have been passed by the House of Representatives and Senate. As these are his only duties, the President of the United States is part of the legislative branch.

The language in Article I Section 3 Clause 6: “the Chief Justice shall preside,” “when the President of the United States is tried” for impeachment, imposes a legislative duty on the Office of Chief Justice.

In both examples, the keyword is “shall.” If the President of the United States approves a Bill, “he shall sign it” and if he objects, “he shall return it.” When the President of the United States is impeached the Chief Justice shall preside. The President of the United States and Chief Justice have jobs fancy jobs, but jobs nonetheless.

Both the President of the United States and the Chief Justice are employees of Congress, as they have no little or no discretion as to how they will perform their duties.

So, if the highest federal law enforcement Officers, the President and Chief Justice of the United States are just employees, what more could your own local police and sheriff be?

My Students know the Constitution of September 17, 1787 was established, but was not adopted so proprietary power not government power would be the force behind Officer/Employees. No one else knows the so-called government operates like a commercial enterprise, because no one in government has taken the Article VI oath to use the Constitution of September 17, 1787 to limit government.

Local law enforcement is limited to the territory owned by the federal government, the United States of America under the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777. Ask your local law enforcement, where is your written authority?



Regular readers of these Posts can test them by using them to question the legal authority of any person who claims a power to enforce laws.

The following is an example of what an enrolled Student or student auditing my Basic Course in Law and Government might write:  Dear Law Enforcement Person, I am studying law using the materials provided on the Internet at , which divides law into written law and unwritten law.  Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera claims governments can only exist because of written law and that law is the Organic Laws of the United States of America, which expressly limits written law to a defined territory. Do you agree or disagree that the written law is the only law you can enforce and that law is limited to a specific territory defined by written law?

If you do not fully understand the content of this letter to a person in law enforcement, you need to take advantage of the offer I have made in the Post dated July 7, 2011.

Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera

Roxanne Dunbar Ortiz:

. The violent appropriation of Native land by white settlers was seen as an individual right in the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, second only to freedom of speech. Male colonial settlers had long formed militias for the purpose of raiding and razing Indigenous communities and seizing their lands and resources, and the Native communities fought back. Virginia, the first colony, forbade any man to travel unless he was “well armed.” A few years later, another law required men to take arms with them to work and to attend church or be fined. In 1658, the colony ordered every settler home to have a functioning firearm, and later even provided government loans for those who could not afford to buy a weapon. Similarly, New England colonial governments made laws such as the 1632 requirement that each person have a functioning firearm plus two pounds of gunpowder and ten pounds of bullets. Householders were fined for missing or defective arms and ammunition. No man was to appear at a public meeting unarmed.4

These laws stayed on the books of the earliest colonies and were created in new colonies as they were founded. The Second Amendment, ratified in 1791, enshrined these obligations as constitutional law: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The continuing significance of that “freedom” specified in the Bill of Rights reveals the settler-colonialist cultural roots of the United States that appear even in the present as a sacred right. Several of the colonies that declared independence in 1776—Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Virginia—had already adopted individual gun rights measures into their state constitutions before the Second Amendment was passed at the federal level.

Settler-militias and armed households were institutionalized for the destruction and control of Native peoples, communities, and nations. With the expansion of plantation agriculture, by the late 1600s they were also used as “slave patrols,” forming the basis of the U.S. police culture after enslaving people was illegalized. That is the inseparable other half of the settler-colonial reality that is implicit in the Second Amendment.

Leave a Reply