"Scout" <me4guns@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
news:W84Tj.11289$Fv.9122@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Deadrat" <a@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:1F3Tj.925$ah4.205@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> "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.
>
> Still unable to refute the facts, I see.
I've given you the salient fact: it's an im****tant part of our system
that the feds cannot criminalize state law. You want to talk about
whether the FBI can be called a department. That's why you're so lost.
|
