Talk:Police power (United States constitutional law)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Definition of police power

An anonymous writer wrote:

So defining it as the ability to make laws and use coercion really isn't accurate. The federal government can also make laws and use coercion, but it lacks the police power. Thus there is no federal family code, property code, etc.

But the Federal government is not a state. Therefore, this argument is irrelevant. The definition was correct and NPOV before someone removed the fact that making laws is included in police power and before the words "when necessary" were added.

In contrast, the law dictionary describes police power from the point of view of lawyers and jurists, including their belief that laws really do rule, as per the physically-impossible "rule of law" doctrine. The law dictionary does not express a neutral point of view.

72.49.75.99 19:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

People Confusing Concepts

I think people are getting hung up on the term "police". When the concept of "police powers" originated, it wasn't linked to the bobbies in blue hats hitting robbers over the head with big sticks. "Police powers" have nothing to do with "police officers" or even "police departments". It is not a concept intrinsically linked to violence, or crime, or protection of citizens. "Police powers" are commonly invoked to justify a large variety of legislative actions that are thought to be generally for the benefit of citizens or the state.

66.236.15.114 17:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

the term "police" has a long history that predates the American legal system, and "police power" is about the exercise of state power, whether through the courts, constitutional arrangements, or the club-wielding Bobby. Outside of law school, "police power" does denote the powers of the state invested in the boys and girls in blue. Try searching for "police power" on Amazon, and see how many books about policing come up. But you are right that the specific legalistic definition needs to be disentangled from the others to make the article less muddled.

Bobanny 01:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the specific phrase "police powers" has a definition that is intrinsically tied to the inherent powers of a sovereign state (supranational entities of delegated sovereignty such as the federal governments of the U.S. and E.U. lack the police power). At the same time, there is clearly a colloquial use of the phrase police power which typically is used to describe the abuse of power by law enforcement officers (or law enforcement agencies). I think the easiest solution is either to develop two different articles, or two distinct sections within this article, that can direct people to the relevant section.

134.67.6.15 00:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

"Modern" Divine Right

Removed the "modern" section under 'Divine Right'..whoever included that obviously has no idea what he's talking about. User:Spock 205.174.162.86 06:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Antecedent Basis for ALL law, Constitutions, and Police Power

Black's definition does not remove any ambiguity. The definition is misleading.

"The inherent and plenary power of a sovereign to make all laws necessary and proper to preserve the public security, order, health, morality, and justice. It is a fundamental power essential to government, and it cannot be surrendered by the legislature or irrevocably transferred away from government."

First, the "plenary power of a sovereign" does not apply go government. The sovereign(s) is/are the People. All governmental power derives from the People. Such power is essential to government, but does not originate nor lie with government if not enumerated in the Constitution. It cannot be surrendered by the legislature, because in their limited, constitutional, and representative role they are the voice of the People as expressed through the consent of the governed. It also cannot be transferred away from government because government in its limited, enumerated, and Constitutional sense is the People.

This is why the "police power" is not mentioned in the constitutions, and aptly referred to as the inherent or reserved power of the state. The State does not have sovereignty greater than that of the People. The People collectively deposit a bit of their sovereignty into the political body, the State, for the sole purpose of protecting and preserving their individual lives, liberties, and property.

The government of the State that manifests through the will of the People, or State, in the constitution is merely a political artifice for putting into effect the wishes of the People; again, solely and legitimitely for preserving their individual lives, liberties, and property. Therefore, the People, possessing all sovereignty, are therefore the "sovereign", and the possessors of the police power. The police power is not the property or authority of the government, but that of the People. If the government should act in a way that threatens or diminishes the health, safety, welfare, or morals of the People then the People possess the power, through the exercise of their inherent and reserved "police powers", to defend themselves against government.

The government often cites that the "sovereign" is not subject to statutes, in possession of the police power..... but the government is not sovereign. The State is sovereign, but only because of the sovereignty of the People in thier natural capacity to form a collective political body that they bestow a limited and specific part of their sovereignty. The People are always the origin of State sovereignty, and the masters of government.

The history of police power which dates back to England, where the sovereign at that time was the monarchy and not representative of the People, is often misquoted by our government to imply that the State takes on a life of its own and exists as its own entity in full possession of sovereignty over the People. Following the Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the united States of America, it was understood that individual liberty is paramount to that of the State because the exercise of liberty stops where it infringes upon another's. The People, therefore, are the police power.

The Federal Government cannot possess any police power because said power rests with the People. The Federal Government is not a creation of the People, but of the States. Since the Federal Government is a political body begotten from a political body, and not a natural body, it possesses none of the inherent sovereignty aside from that which stands in contrast to other sovereign nations. One of the preceeding statements is true, regarding the modern interpretation of law by lawyers and jurists favoring the notion that law originates with government, but those viewpoints are inconsistent with the notion of popular sovereignty postulated by John Locke [1] and Algernon Sydney [2]. Things which are created can never be greater than the creator. Since People created the government, the government can never, legitimately, possess or exercise more power over the People. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|Marcmckoy 01:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)]] comment added by 75.132.245.87 (talk) 14:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

This article is a mess

Someone who remembers the "police power" cases from law school better than I do needs to clean up this pigpen. There are a LOT of cases from the U.S. Supreme Court and the state supreme courts on the proper scope of police power (as in the general plenary power of the sovereign to regulate things). It seems to me that a lot of ignorant people are confusing it with issues of police procedure, police brutality or criminal procedure. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

misstating of 10th amendment

article: Under the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution, the powers prohibited from or not delegated to the Federal Government are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

the "prohibited by it" clause in the 10th refers to powers prohibited by the constitution to the states, not by the constitution to the federal government. the prohibition applicable to the federal government comes from the power not being delegated. the 10th amendment squeezes plenty into a single sentence. as in the article, most attempts to rephrase it in one sentence fail. easier to quote it, or divide into multiple sentences. 70.90.84.254 (talk) 22:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup

If there are no objections, I am going to remove this from "Law Enforcement" WikiProject; as made clear in the discussion below, police powers relate to a state's plenary authority to regulate health, welfare, safety, and morality of its citizens. It doesn't fall within the narrow category of Law enforcement, as it is a far broader concept.

Also, there seems to have been a lot of discussion by persons without legal experience or training. The federal government does indeed have police powers - they just aren't as far-ranging as state police powers, which are essentially "plenary" (although the Supreme Court may limit their scope by invoking the rational basis standard in certain circumstances). See, for example, the following definition from Black's:

The power of a state to enforce laws for the health, welfare, morals, and safety of its citizens, if enacted so that the means are reasonably calculated to protect those legitimate state interests.

If there aren't any constitutional scholars out there, I'm hitting the library this summer. Not having a clean version of this article bothers me... Alphachimera (talk) 05:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree the article is basically rubbish. In my view any notable verifiable content should be merged into one of the two aticles Law enforcement agency powers and-or Law enforcement and society. "Police power" is actually too narrow and exclusionary of many other police power possessing entities. A page with this title should remain but become a disambiguation page with links to the aforementioned two pages, and perhaps a few others too. Peet Ern (talk) 13:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Post Script: I do not think the article should be removed from the Law Enforcement Project. Law enforcement is about a lot more than just the enforcement of "modern" codifications. If the current project seems to narrow, it might be better to grow the project slightly, but the way I see it the concepts attempted to be described here do fit the Law Enforcement Project. Peet Ern (talk) 14:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Law enforcement agency powers and law enforcement and society are two entirely different concepts than "police powers", which is a legal term of art to describe a much more general concept of the extent to which governments have the power to create law and govern those under them. For example, in the alternative, powers can be "enumerated" like in the US constitution, which are far more limited in scope.Pckilgore (talk) 18:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. The article, as it stands, is indeed rubbish, but if written properly would certainly fall under the scope of Law Enforcement. I've added an unbalanced template to the page, hopefully it will attract editors more familiar with non-US law. Msaunier (talk) 03:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

"Police power in the United States "

Is this article about the US only - or is there a world outside this nation?

• Agreed, I shall attempt to clean it up a bit, but this will ultimately need to be adressed by editors more familiar with the subject. Msaunier (talk) 03:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

There's a world outside the US of course but the phrase "police power" appears to be peculiar to US Constitutional law, at least as far as I know. I article only source confirms this. Btw, if you think the article is too US-centric the appropriate tag is globalise and not unbalanced, but don't think there's any need for either tag. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 14:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

why redirection from regulatory state

why the term regulatory state is redirected to 'police power"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polimor (talk • contribs) 18:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)