Originally Posted by
sundance435
Your understanding and interpretation of the history of law enforcement, standing armies, etc., is precarious at best. First, your statement about sheriffs is only half true. That's what sheriffs were and are in England, but here, even before the Revolution, either they or constables were the chief law enforcement officers in each county/precinct and they deputized as necessary to enforce state laws. There was no state law enforcement.
Second, your interpretation of "militias" executing federal laws, well, I don't even really know where to begin with that. First, there is no prohibition in the Constitution against the federal government having a standing army. Literally all it says is that Congress shall appropriate the money for it (for periods no longer than 2 years, which is still true today) and the President shall command the armed forces as they are funded by Congress. The power to enforce federal law is given entirely to the Executive in the Constitution. The Executive has always accomplished this by appointing/deputizing others. In the early years of the Republic, the Marshals Service was the only federal law enforcement, not some "militia". Taxes, customs, etc. were collected by revenue agents, but they were nothing like law enforcers and were not empowered as such - dude won't pay the duties on his hemp imports? Notify the Marshals.
Bookmarks