"Herb Martin" <news@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
news:481c8602$1$30484$4c368faf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Larry" <x@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:x-CFCB78.11231803052008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> In article <7cTSj.2867$_.1050@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>> Magus <nope@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>> Deadrat wrote:
>>> > Magus <nope@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>>> > news:aYPSj.68898$Q52.4211@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> >
>
>
>>> There *are* departments of the federal police, they just aren't
>>> named "police departments".
>>
>> Once again a resort to a dictionary definition as authority. Why
>> does everyone do this?
>>
>> There is no federal police department. There is no general federal
>> police power. There are, of course, federal law enforcement agencies
>> that enforce the laws that are within the jurisdiction of the federal
>> government to enact, but a police department that does not make.
>>
>> Get it?
>
> Ok, so there are Federal Law Enforcement Agencies but no police?
>
> There were no police (in the modern concept) in America at the time of
> the Constitution either.
>
> Pretty much useless factoids.
>
> Police, Sherriff, Constable, Marshall, FBI, or other LEO -- A rose by
> any other name would smell as sweet.
>
Still lost, I see.
|
