drmiler We are not talking about the executive imposing a sentence in court. We are talking about enforcing the laws like the police, FBI, Border Patrol, and IRS etc. That is what Bush is not doing. The end result may end up in court but without the executive (President at the federal level and Governor at the State Level etc.) we have no enforcement of our laws. The courts can not arrest people or choose to rule on a person or issue. The FIRST step is the responsibility of the Executive and then if warranted a trial follows.

You're "STILL" incorrect. While the president does have ultimate control over the FBI, CIA, IRS and Border Patrol. He "does" not control the police. They are "state and municipal" employees, not "federal" ones. And like I said earlier:

Work as a police officer A Police Constable of West Yorkshire Police on patrol police officer (also known as a constable in some countries) is employed in most cases by national, state/provincial or municipal governments and has the responsibility (or duty) of enforcing federal, state/provincial laws along with municipal/city ordinances. They also have the responsibility of keeping the public peace. This is usually done by uniformed pro-active patrolling within their jurisdiction looking for and investigating law breakers, and by responding to calls for service. Police officers are required to keep notes of all situations in which they take action and appear as witnesses during both criminal prosecutions and civil litigation. One of the lesser-known but most time-consuming duties of officers is completion of documentation of activity ("reporting").

I would like you to go to this link and "show me" where it says the "police dept." is under the presidents control. Link

drmiler

I am talking about FEDERAL LAW. Immigration laws, Border security, FBI, Homeland security, ICE, IRS. The laws these agencies are responsible to enforce are under the authority of the President and are being IGNORED!

You're "STILL" incorrect. While the president does have ultimate control over the FBI, CIA, IRS and Border Patrol. He "does" not control the police. They are "state and municipal" employees, not "federal" ones. And like I said earlier:

I hate defending an idiot but even a clock is write twice a day. A Mayor is the chief executive of his city. The city council makes laws. The police under the control of the Mayor enforce the law. A Governor is the chief executive of his state, the legislature write the laws and the state police under the control of the the Governor enforce the laws. The President is the chief executive of the federal government.

Each has a judicial branch the third leg in the stool. The legislators write the laws, the chief executive signs the law putting it into effect. To ensure all is done legally the Judicial Branch oversees the actions in a court of law. If the government breaks the laws as interpreted by the Judge the judge has the right to drop all charges or impose sanctions on the government. The purpose of a judge is to see that the defendant is given the full benefit of the doubt and the government is not abusing its power over the individual.

I hate defending an idiot but even a clock is write twice a day. A Mayor is the chief executive of his city. The city council makes laws. The police under the control of the Mayor enforce the law. A Governor is the chief executive of his state, the legislature write the laws and the state police under the control of the the Governor enforce the laws. The President is the chief executive of the federal government.

I still believe you're wrong. What you're saying is correct to a point. But your ending statement says it all. At the "state or municipal" level they are just that. That's why they have a state level of government.

I still believe you're wrong. What you're saying is correct to a point. But your ending statement says it all. At the "state or municipal" level they are just that. That's why they have a state level of government.

Right and at the federal level you have the federal police. FBI, U.S. marshals, and the DEA work under the DOJ. Secret Service and the IRS are under the Treasury department. They are supposed to enforce federal laws only and are under the control of the Executive Branch of government.

Paladin 77

It is Federal Laws I have been talking about. That is why it is Bush that is responsible. Immigration, IRS etc have allowed millions to come into our country illegally, fail to pay taxes and suck the life out of local and state governments. In addition, \because we have not taken control of our borders, anyone could come into our country and bring WMD to use against us. What has Bush done-- NOTHING. He did not even request the added border agents HE SAID WERE NEEDED!

Right and at the federal level you have the federal police. FBI, U.S. marshals, and the DEA work under the DOJ. Secret Service and the IRS are under the Treasury department. They are supposed to enforce federal laws only and are under the control of the Executive Branch of government.

Sorry sir but there is no such thing as "federal police". That's what the US marshals are for.

Sorry sir but there is no such thing as "federal police". That's what the US marshals are for.

Ok, let me help you out here. The print is small so you might not have noticed the period after the word police. followed by the types of police.

It is Federal Laws I have been talking about. That is why it is Bush that is responsible. Immigration, IRS etc have allowed millions to come into our country illegally, fail to pay taxes and suck the life out of local and state governments. In addition, \because we have not taken control of our borders, anyone could come into our country and bring WMD to use against us. What has Bush done-- NOTHING. He did not even request the added border agents HE SAID WERE NEEDED!

Ok, we have not arrested anyone for being here illegally. You are correct I have never seen Mr. Bush arrest anyone since he took office.

Sorry sir but there is no such thing as "federal police". That's what the US marshals are for. Ok, let me help you out here. The print is small so you might not have noticed the period after the word police. followed by the types of police.

You're correct I did miss the period. But here's another salient point. A state or municipal police officer might arrest you for a certain offense whereas a marshal might give you a pass on it because what you did is not a "felony". Or a federally chargeable offense. In other words there might not be a federal law covering what you did.

You're correct I did miss the period. But here's another salient point. A state or municipal police officer might arrest you for a certain offense whereas a marshal might give you a pass on it because what you did is not a "felony". Or a federally chargeable offense. In other words there might not be a federal law covering what you did.

Very true! The problem we have is that local governments are refusing to arrest people for federal offences. They refuse to arrest people suspected of being here illegally or notifying the feds when they arrest an illegal for local offences. These rules are made up by the local chief executive to protest the war on terror, and or the president. My feeling on this is if they refused to even alert the feds we should fail to fund the locals with federal dollars. End highway, and law enforcement dollars to those cities and states that have publicly stated they will not obey the laws of the land. See how long they stay in office. But in doing something like that would only jeopardize citizens so it is not practical.

Very true! The problem we have is that local governments are refusing to arrest people for federal offenses. They refuse to arrest people suspected of being here illegally or notifying the feds when they arrest an illegal for local offenses. These rules are made up by the local chief executive to protest the war on terror, and or the president. My feeling on this is if they refused to even alert the feds we should fail to fund the locals with federal dollars. End highway, and law enforcement dollars to those cities and states that have publicly stated they will not obey the laws of the land. See how long they stay in office. But in doing something like that would only jeopardize citizens so it is not practical.

I'd have to agree on this. If they won't even notifying the feds then they are "not" doing their job. Even if it's because it's their chief saying it, they can refuse to follow it. Or bring suit against the chief.

Or bring suit against the chief.

Tell me what flunky cop is going to go against the chief executive who signs his paycheck. It would be a quick transition from cop to unemployed cop.

Tell me what flunky cop is going to go against the chief executive who signs his paycheck. It would be a quick transition from cop to unemployed cop.

I'll agree to the last, but not the first. You're correct it would be a quick trip to the unemployment line. However the "chief of police" is not the one signing their checks. That would be the city/county treasurer.

Yeah, when you said Chief I was thinking the Mayor not the chief of police.

It is the right of col the political hack to not answer my questions or respond to my comments. I will defend his rights with the last breath of his life. But it makes me think that his silence is his way of saying he lost the argument and that I was right and he was wrong again. Just my opinion.