E-mail Scott
Scott's Links
About the Author
Opinion Archives
Social Media:
Facebook
Twitter
Tumblr
Google Plus
YouTube
Flickr
PhotoBucket
Monthly Archives:

January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
November 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
December 2012
January 2013
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
June 2013
July 2013
August 2013
September 2013
October 2013
November 2013
December 2013
January 2014
February 2014
March 2014
April 2014
May 2014
June 2014
July 2014
August 2014
September 2014
October 2014
November 2014
December 2014
January 2015
February 2015
March 2015
April 2015
May 2015
June 2015
July 2015
August 2015
September 2015
October 2015
November 2015
December 2015
January 2016
February 2016
March 2016
April 2016
May 2016
June 2016
July 2016
August 2016
September 2016
October 2016
November 2016
December 2016
January 2017
February 2017
March 2017

Powered by Blogger
Subscribe via RSS

Monday, August 15, 2016

A federal death penalty for killing cops?

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM (#)

A proposal floating around that the federal government should mandate the death penalty for cop killers is a fundamentally anti-conservative idea, attacking conservative principles on multiple levels. Conservatives need to categorically reject this idea in the interest of preserving our Constitution.

First of all, a mandatory federal death penalty for cop killers embraces Leftist "hate crime" logic. Most of our police officers are good, dedicated public servants but their lives are not intrinsically more valuable than the lives of everyone else. Just as "hate crime" laws make certain victims more valuable than others, a mandatory death penalty for cop killers gives police special legal status not available to anyone else.

Even if this was a good idea, it is a terrible idea for the federal government. This proposal is yet another dramatic expansion of federal power at the expense of state sovereignty. The federal government has no constitutional authority to be regulating crimes committed on the local level. That is up to the state legislatures. If we are truly committed to devolving federal power to the states, then we cannot support policies that expand federal power, even if those policies support an alleged "law and order" agenda.

Furthermore, even if the Constitution granted the federal government the authority to regulate local crime, that would have to be a law passed by the U.S. Congress. The President would be radically exceeding his authority by signing an executive order mandating the death penalty for police officers. The President cannot write and pass legislation by himself. Conservatives who decry President Obama's executive orders cannot turn around and support an executive order like this and maintain credibility.

As conservatives, we need to maintain our conservative principles and not be blown about by the winds of populism. This means adhering to the rule of law and the wise limits on federal power in our Constitution. These limits exist for a reason, because our founding fathers recognized that the federal government will always be trying to expand its own power. That is the road to tyranny.

(0 Comments)

Note: All posts must be approved by the blog owner before they are visible on the blog.

Comments:

Post a Comment


Below are the rules for commenting on ConservaTibbs.com.

  1. A reasonable level of civility is expected. While it is expected that controversial political and social issues may generate heated debate, there are common-sense limits of civility that will be enforced.

  2. This blog is a family-friendly site. Therefore no cursing, profanity, vulgarity, obscenity, etc. will be allowed. This is a zero-tolerance rule and will result in automatic deletion of the offending post.

  3. Anonymity has greatly coarsened discourse on the Internet, so pseudonyms are discouraged but not forbidden. That said, any direct criticism of a person by name cannot be done anonymously. If you criticize someone, you have to subject yourself to the same level of scrutiny or the comment will be deleted.

  4. Please keep your comments relevant to the topic of the post.

  5. All moderation decisions are final. I may post an explanation or I may not, depending on the situation. If you have a question or a concern about a moderation decision, e-mail me privately rather than posting in the comments.

Thank you for your cooperation.