Constitutionality of Federal Law Enforcement?

[natedog]

I've heard it said that Federal law enforcement agencies are unconstitutional- not the laws they enforce (ahem, ATF)- but the actual agencies themselves. Does anyone have any input on this?

[Phantom Warrior]

In what sense?  I just skimmed the Constitution and it doesn't seem to prohibit a federal police force.  Given the powers to punish certain crimes it gives the federal government it makes a certain amount of sense to have a federal police force to enforce those.  

On the other hand, there is nothing in the Constitution mandating the creation of a federal police force.  So it could be argued that since there is no requirement to form one, a federal police force is "unconstitutional."  

I know U.S. Marshals were founded in 1789, so it would seem that they were at least founded in agreement with the original interpretation of the Constitution.

[griz]

Like PW, I would assume the founders intended the federal laws to be enforced in some way. They didn't want a standing army however, and were concerned about the military becoming the law.

[natedog]

BTT

[RGO]

U.S. Constitution - Amendment 10

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


The Constitution does not authorize the creation of federal police forces; therefore, they are all unconstitutional.  There is no argument about it.  This amendment is simply (illegally) ignored.

There aren't provisions for very many federal crimes in the Constitution, either.