Talk:Police power (United States constitutional law)
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
This article seems to lack a neutral point of view.
characterizing it as "power of a state to make laws and to use physical violence in order to coerce its subjects into obeying those laws" seems to miss the point of this legal concept and tells the reader more about the writer's dislike of it.
Black's Law dictionary defines it as follows:
"The inherent and plenary power of a sovereign to make all laws necessary and proper to preserve the public security, order, health, morality, and justice. It is a fundamental power essential to government, and it cannot be surrendered by the legislature or irrevocably transferred away from government."
So defining it as the ability to make laws and use coercion really isn't accurate. The federal government can also make laws and use coercion, but it lacks the police power. Thus there is no federal family code, property code, etc.
The essential legal concept, which the article hints at, is the difference between governments of inherent authority versus governments of delegated authority. The U.S. Congress as the latter can only act under a specific delegation of power (like the commerce clause). But states have a presumption of power to do anything needed for the public good, limited only by what the Constitution has taken away.
Thus the difference: presumption of no power unless specifically granted versus presumption of power unless specifically taken away.
well put! violence is certainly not the defining characteristic...
Fact vs opinion
If the article "seemed" to lack a neutral point of view before, it definitely lacks one now. The addition of the phrase "when necessary" turns the definition of police power into an opinion, rather than a fact.
The statement added to the first paragraph that asserts that police power has some kind of metaphysical source is also an opinion, and should be labelled accordingly. It should read something like this:
- Police power is regarded by legal professionals as having one of several sources, yadda yadda yadda.
..which would more clearly convey neutrality, but would still require citation.
That police use violence to make people obey laws is a fact. That the violence is "necessary" is an opinion.
Necessity is an opinion that depends on how much lawbreaking the police are willing to tolerate. From the POV of Draco (lawgiver), it seemed "necessary" to punish even the most minor infraction with death. On the other extreme, from the point of view of anarchists, all police violence seems totally unnecessary. Your point of view is probably somewhere in between. None of these points of view, not even the centrist point of view, is equivalent to the neutral point of view.
The idea that laws promote "justice" is also an opinion, only valid from some people's point of view. From other points of view, laws seem to create injustice. Again, the article can't comment on the justice or injustice of police power or any aspect of it because that would give the article a non-neutral point of view.
And please sign your posts to this page with four "~" characters.
- 18.104.22.168 18:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Portraying it solely as the power to commit violence is POV inherently favorable to anarchists, because that's how they view the government. When you say "the power to commit violence", there is an inherent connotation of injustice in this, and you would rarely use such wording to describe anything but that which you viewed to be unjust.22.214.171.124 (talk) 23:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
This is 'en" Wiki, so YES it should be US-Centric.
If you prefer a more worldly view perhaps you should start a Wiki in the language of the place you intend the article to represent. ie: 'uk.wikipedia.org" for the United Kingdom or "nl.wikipedia.org" for The Netherlands, translating into English as you see fit to include it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 11:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- No, actually, that is completely wrong. "en" Wikipedia is intended to be a general English language encyclopedia, not a US-centric one. Perhaps you should propose us.wikipedia.org, in which all the articles will be written in American. Msaunier (talk) 03:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- uk.wikipedia.org is the Ukrainian wikipedia. Anyway, the letters before .wikipedia.org denote language, not nationality. Also, the wikipedia in every language is supposed to represent a worldview, it's not owned by any nationality. Why should I be deprived of knowledge about how the Chinese view things just because I only speak English? I appreciate your concern, really, but I'm a big boy, I can make these decisions myself, I don't need you to censor these things from me. And seriously, are you trolling when you argue that the English have no business having their views represented in the English wikipedia? That's supposed to be a right reserved for Americans? Even if the speakers of every language were entitled to bias their own wikipedias and shelter their speakers poor eyes from undesirable information, that wouldn't imply that one nationality that speaks the language should be privileged in this affair to the detriment of all others. And, just for the sake of pursuing your multiple layers of stupidity even further, should we even assume that to be the case, why would this privileged nationality be the most powerful nationality, rather than the originating nationality? Do you lose all rights to your language when one of your colonies outstrips you? And what if another English speaking nation exceeded America in power at some point in the future? Do we have to rewrite the entire thing to the bias of the new propaganda masters? Or would you, as you seem to be doing, merely make up more rules seemingly designed with purpose in mind besides favoring your nationality?188.8.131.52 (talk) 00:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
This article is a train wreck and a symptom of everything wrong with WP
This article was perfectly fine at its original title since its creation on 9 May 2006.
Then a certain user created a mess by inappropriately moving it to its current title on 30 July 2014, without bothering to do the kind of things that sensible, experienced WP editors do in good faith: (1) propose the move first; (2) build consensus first; (3) just find out what other people think; or (4) just DOING SOME RESEARCH on what is police power is. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to figure out whether that's part of a pattern of inappropriate conduct on the part of that user. In any event, I've expressly called it out here so that hopefully someday some admin can discern a pattern.
And then when User:BD2412 did the right thing by trying to propose a move back to the correct article name, then the proposal was blocked by a group of editors who are clearly unfamiliar with either the U.S. or the continental European conception of "police power" (which in either sense is a lot broader than law enforcement power and refers to the power of government to provide for public safety and general welfare).
It is because of this kind of craziness that 99% of U.S. lawyers will not touch WP with a ten foot pole and as a result, 75% of WP law-related articles are incoherent, grossly inaccurate train wrecks. With much sadness, I must abandon this article, like so many others, to the blind leading the blind. --Coolcaesar (talk) 14:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- If you assume that the only topics allowed to take an undisambiguated title are US law topics, you're going to have a problem, since (1) Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, not a U.S. law encyclopedia (2) Wikipedia does not give primacy to U.S. law. (3) the world is much larger than USA+Europe, and Wikipedia covers such. ;; I think the biggest problem is assuming that this is a U.S. law encyclopedia, when it isn't. There shouldn't be a problem using disambiguated article titles, since the coverage still exists. What is important, coverage, or whether the article carries disambiguation? Why should it be the primary concern to lawyers whether their personal pet topics carry disambiguation or not? If the content is there, then it is covered. -- 184.108.40.206 (talk) 04:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- I note for the record that nine months have elapsed and no response was made with respect to any of the sources I cited above. That silence is evidence of an irresponsible argument from ignorance with no good faith basis. Responsible editors, acting in good faith, take responsibility for their edits and defend or concede points on the merits. I reiterate my position that the editors responsible for this fiasco need to be carefully monitored to prevent any further damage to the integrity of the encyclopedia. It is terribly tragic that such a simple and basic concept has been turned into a gigantic train wreck in this fashion and it is for this reason that most lawyers and academics do not take Wikipedia seriously. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)