What Part of 'Law Enforcement' Don't They Get?

On Wednesday Attorney General Eric Holder held a closed door meeting with a group of police chiefs from across America (including a several from Arizona). The subject of this secretive meeting was Arizona's new immigration law (SB1070) and the opposition of these select members of the police community. It is possible that prior to the meeting Eric Holder (America's top law enforcement officer) may finally have read the law which he has been so busy condemning. It is also possible that some of his guests may have taken the time to read this lengthy (10 page) piece of legislation.

Maybe it's just me, but I thought that once the legislature had written and passed a bill and the governor had signed it into law that it was the sworn duty of the police to enforce that law. Just for my own gratification I looked up the Loyalty Oath Of Office used in the state of Arizona.


I ___________________________ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the
(type or print name)
Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the State of Arizona, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same and defend then against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge the duties of the office of
___________________ according to the best of my ability, so help me God (or so I do affirm).
(name of office)

The oath seems pretty clear to me, short and to the point. Maybe I'm missing something here, but there doesn't seem to be any provision which would allow law enforcement officials to not enforce any law which they disagree with.


Perhaps Mr. Holder should be concerned with the disregard that some law enforcement officers have for their sworn duty. Shouldn't AG Holder be investigating those municipalities which are clearly flaunting federal immigration law under the guise of their utopian "sanctuary" programs? Perhaps Mr. Holder should be held accountable for his words and actions regarding Arizona's law, which have encouraged a number of law enforcement officers to abandon their sworn duty.


If members of the law enforcement community were allowed to selectively enforce laws based upon their own preference, chaos would reign. If any law enforcement official should find that they are unable to uphold their oath of office then they should resign their position for the good of their community or face the legal consequences. What part of ‘law enforcement' don't they get?


Gee, who paid for these police chiefs to fly into Washington D.C. to meet with Mr. Holder behind closed doors?


May 27th 2010


paboehmke@yahoo.com

 
On Wednesday Attorney General Eric Holder held a closed door meeting with a group of police chiefs from across America (including a several from Arizona). The subject of this secretive meeting was Arizona's new immigration law (SB1070) and the opposition of these select members of the police community. It is possible that prior to the meeting Eric Holder (America's top law enforcement officer) may finally have read the law which he has been so busy condemning. It is also possible that some of his guests may have taken the time to read this lengthy (10 page) piece of legislation.

Maybe it's just me, but I thought that once the legislature had written and passed a bill and the governor had signed it into law that it was the sworn duty of the police to enforce that law. Just for my own gratification I looked up the Loyalty Oath Of Office used in the state of Arizona.


I ___________________________ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the
(type or print name)
Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the State of Arizona, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same and defend then against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge the duties of the office of
___________________ according to the best of my ability, so help me God (or so I do affirm).
(name of office)

The oath seems pretty clear to me, short and to the point. Maybe I'm missing something here, but there doesn't seem to be any provision which would allow law enforcement officials to not enforce any law which they disagree with.


Perhaps Mr. Holder should be concerned with the disregard that some law enforcement officers have for their sworn duty. Shouldn't AG Holder be investigating those municipalities which are clearly flaunting federal immigration law under the guise of their utopian "sanctuary" programs? Perhaps Mr. Holder should be held accountable for his words and actions regarding Arizona's law, which have encouraged a number of law enforcement officers to abandon their sworn duty.


If members of the law enforcement community were allowed to selectively enforce laws based upon their own preference, chaos would reign. If any law enforcement official should find that they are unable to uphold their oath of office then they should resign their position for the good of their community or face the legal consequences. What part of ‘law enforcement' don't they get?


Gee, who paid for these police chiefs to fly into Washington D.C. to meet with Mr. Holder behind closed doors?


May 27th 2010


paboehmke@yahoo.com

 

RECENT VIDEOS