4 ms·

> IRS-CI agents did shoe-leather detective work, carried guns, and made arrests, just like their FBI and DEA counterparts. I would love to see someone attempt

> IRS-CI agents did shoe-leather detective work, carried guns, and made arrests, just like their FBI and DEA counterparts. I would love to see someone attempt a Constitutional justification for the IRS's dedicated police force. That I would dearly love to see.

legalcorrection 5y ago
What makes you think the Constitution has anything to say on the matter? I mean, on what basis would you think the FBI is constitutional but the IRS's criminal investigations division isn't?
- JasonFruit 5y ago
  That's an interesting position you ascribe to me on no evidence whatsoever. If you read the Constitution, there's a body in each state which is supposed to "execute the Laws of the Union", and it's not the FBI either.
  - legalcorrection 5y ago
    Almost immediately after the US Constitution came into effect in 1789, the first federal law enforcement agency, the US Marshals Service, was created. So clearly, the founding generation thought that federal law enforcement was authorized by the Constitution. Federal law enforcement is clearly justified under the necessary and proper clause. Without federal law enforcement, there is no ability to force states to comply with federal law, which the Constitution clearly requires by 1) explicitly saying that federal law is supreme over state law, and 2) prohibiting various practices by the states. Imagine a federal court having to call upon state police to enforce their subpoenas, subpoenas that may target the people who sign the state polices' checks. Or imagine the Department of Justice having to call upon the state militia to arrest a state's governor for the commission of a federal crime. I think it's pretty obvious that federal law enforcement is "necessary and proper" to the exercise of Congress's enumerated powers. There is no sovereignty without the ability to deploy violence to enforce it.
    - JasonFruit 5y ago
      > the founding generation thought The thoughts of the founding generation do not determine constitutionality, though with regard to the ratifying conventions they can inform our grasp of contemporary understanding of the document's meaning. In fact, the first few presidential administrations illustrate how fraught was their relation to the constitutional structure. > Federal law enforcement is clearly justified under the necessary and proper clause. It doesn't have to be justified in that way, because it's provided for in the document. One of the constitutional powers of Congress is "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions." You recommend that I imagine "the Department of Justice having to call upon the state militia to arrest a state's governor"; I have no difficulty doing so. Are there inconveniences attendant on that method of law enforcement? Of course, but my response is twofold: first, it's the "necessary and proper" clause, not the "convenient and desirable" clause. Not everything the federal government might find convenient and desirable lies within their power, because, second, the Constitution was written to make the exercise of federal power inconvenient in cases where it is in conflict with the will of the states. > There is no sovereignty without the ability to deploy violence to enforce it. You say this as though sovereignty were a uniquely federal phenomenon. Not only do the states hold a measure of sovereignty, but the ultimate sovereignty in the United States resides in the people, of whose power the state militias were intended to be an instrument. Both these loci of sovereignty are endangered by precisely the distortion of the constitutional order that you approve.

legalcorrection 5y ago

What makes you think the Constitution has anything to say on the matter? I mean, on what basis would you think the FBI is constitutional but the IRS's criminal investigations division isn't?

JasonFruit 5y ago
That's an interesting position you ascribe to me on no evidence whatsoever. If you read the Constitution, there's a body in each state which is supposed to "execute the Laws of the Union", and it's not the FBI either.
- legalcorrection 5y ago
  Almost immediately after the US Constitution came into effect in 1789, the first federal law enforcement agency, the US Marshals Service, was created. So clearly, the founding generation thought that federal law enforcement was authorized by the Constitution. Federal law enforcement is clearly justified under the necessary and proper clause. Without federal law enforcement, there is no ability to force states to comply with federal law, which the Constitution clearly requires by 1) explicitly saying that federal law is supreme over state law, and 2) prohibiting various practices by the states. Imagine a federal court having to call upon state police to enforce their subpoenas, subpoenas that may target the people who sign the state polices' checks. Or imagine the Department of Justice having to call upon the state militia to arrest a state's governor for the commission of a federal crime. I think it's pretty obvious that federal law enforcement is "necessary and proper" to the exercise of Congress's enumerated powers. There is no sovereignty without the ability to deploy violence to enforce it.
  - JasonFruit 5y ago
    > the founding generation thought The thoughts of the founding generation do not determine constitutionality, though with regard to the ratifying conventions they can inform our grasp of contemporary understanding of the document's meaning. In fact, the first few presidential administrations illustrate how fraught was their relation to the constitutional structure. > Federal law enforcement is clearly justified under the necessary and proper clause. It doesn't have to be justified in that way, because it's provided for in the document. One of the constitutional powers of Congress is "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions." You recommend that I imagine "the Department of Justice having to call upon the state militia to arrest a state's governor"; I have no difficulty doing so. Are there inconveniences attendant on that method of law enforcement? Of course, but my response is twofold: first, it's the "necessary and proper" clause, not the "convenient and desirable" clause. Not everything the federal government might find convenient and desirable lies within their power, because, second, the Constitution was written to make the exercise of federal power inconvenient in cases where it is in conflict with the will of the states. > There is no sovereignty without the ability to deploy violence to enforce it. You say this as though sovereignty were a uniquely federal phenomenon. Not only do the states hold a measure of sovereignty, but the ultimate sovereignty in the United States resides in the people, of whose power the state militias were intended to be an instrument. Both these loci of sovereignty are endangered by precisely the distortion of the constitutional order that you approve.