State Eyes Mayors Court Changes

That is a good thing since all of those village use their "so-called" Police Department to earn income for the village when they pull over and ticket motorists.

There is no reason for those villages to pay for someone to sit in a car with very little to do except to pull over motorists. Plus there is the overhead such as car maintenance, replacing cars and equipment as they wear out, gas, overtime for the police officer, etc.

Also, I believe that a mayor of the village does not make a good judge because it is a conflict of interest. The mayor wants to bring in money for the village and having the mayor as a judge is not a good idea. If the village is paying a judge to oversee their courtroom, then there is additional expenses involved here.

I do not believe villages and small towns should be in the business of pulling over motorists. That is the job of the sheriff and Ohio Highway Patrol.

Well I think Dustin is Wrong about the police department, we need cops in tremont because of the crime there is nothing for these kids to do so they go around and mess with peoples stuff....I think its a very good idea that we do have our own cops and so what if they pull alot of people over you shouldn't be speeding in the first place....

I live in Donnelsville and just having a police presence deters so much. Donnelsville does not run on the monies collected from tickets. Villages run off of TAX MONEY....not speeding tickets. Yes, people get pulled over in Donnelsville...because they are SPEEDING....doing well over 35mph through town. We consider Donnelsville a safe place for our children. It would not be so safe if people could run through there at whatever speed they chose. Honestly, not many tickets are written in a month. As for the Sheriff's dept.? HA! It takes them forever to answer a call. Our police chief is accessible day or night and will be right there when needed. Also, the biggest speed violators through our village? Anyone guessing? Sheriff Deputies in marked cars late at night. They FLY through here, no sirens, no lights. So much for letting them police our community.
Before passing judgement on whether or not a small village needs their own police force....try living in one first.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
This was written by Franklin, almost certainly his original thought sometime shortly before February 17, 1775 as part of his notes for a proposition at the Pennsylvania Assembly.
When reflecting on the American struggle for independence from Great Britain (1775-1783), one of the things that stands out was how the colonists had lost faith in the system they previously lived under. Arguing that the British crown had violated their innate rights of life, liberty, and property, they enumerated their grievances on paper, noting that "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
The Articles of Confederation (1781) and the subsequent Constitution (1791) of the "United States of America" were a product of this disillusionment with the British system of common law, where government action was circumscribed by custom. Obviously, the American Founders held that this limitation was not sufficient to prevent tyranny, and they set out to create a better form of government, based on written laws, to better "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."
If there are doubts about the clarity of this intent, let these words of Thomas Jefferson dispel any: "In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution" (1798).
Fast-forward to 2005. The USA PATRIOT Act, adopted in the aftermath of the 9/11/2001 terrorist attacks, gives unprecedented power to the executive branch. The 43rd president of the United States, George W. Bush, snaps at one of his aides who argues that some of the PATRIOT Act's provisions may be unconstitutional: "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face! It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"
Over the years, the American Constitution inspired many imitations. Most of them, however, were never intended to be the chains to bind the government, but rather the chains with which the governments would bind their subjects. In the immortal words of Lord Acton, "power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
One could even argue that a system based on written laws was more vulnerable to abuse than one based on custom and tradition. If laws are just words on "goddamned pieces of paper," it's easy enough to alter the meaning of the words, and pretend the laws are still in effect, unchanged. And if that fails, there is always an Enabling Act of some sort, making sure the worst abuses were covered by a legal fig leaf.
This explains why today's tyrants still pay lip service to laws, even as they break them on a daily basis.
If there is one constant about politicians everywhere, it would be that whatever power they have is never enough; they must always have more.
law has become corrupt, embracing the dubious notion that law can be whatever the ruling elites say it is. The truth so successfully repressed by modern states is that written laws can only work when the meaning of words is not being perverted. Constitutions cannot protect liberty if they imply that liberty is something granted by the state; for if so, then the state can just as easily take it away. If people don't care about freedom, they will find themselves in servitude soon enough, laws or not.
That "decent respect to the opinions of mankind" the American Founders referred to seems to be gone as well. As the modern history of the Balkans clearly shows, "they would not dare" is a naïve belief at best. The dangerous delusion that governments are still bound by the chains of constitutions has lulled people to sleep, while thugs of all stripes have gone on to create a Hobbesian universe in which might makes right and life is nasty, brutish, and short.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
This was written by Franklin, almost certainly his original thought sometime shortly before February 17, 1775 as part of his notes for a proposition at the Pennsylvania Assembly.
When reflecting on the American struggle for independence from Great Britain (1775-1783), one of the things that stands out was how the colonists had lost faith in the system they previously lived under. Arguing that the British crown had violated their innate rights of life, liberty, and property, they enumerated their grievances on paper, noting that "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
The Articles of Confederation (1781) and the subsequent Constitution (1791) of the "United States of America" were a product of this disillusionment with the British system of common law, where government action was circumscribed by custom. Obviously, the American Founders held that this limitation was not sufficient to prevent tyranny, and they set out to create a better form of government, based on written laws, to better "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."
If there are doubts about the clarity of this intent, let these words of Thomas Jefferson dispel any: "In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution" (1798).
Fast-forward to 2005. The USA PATRIOT Act, adopted in the aftermath of the 9/11/2001 terrorist attacks, gives unprecedented power to the executive branch. The 43rd president of the United States, George W. Bush, snaps at one of his aides who argues that some of the PATRIOT Act's provisions may be unconstitutional: "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face! It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"
Over the years, the American Constitution inspired many imitations. Most of them, however, were never intended to be the chains to bind the government, but rather the chains with which the governments would bind their subjects. In the immortal words of Lord Acton, "power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
One could even argue that a system based on written laws was more vulnerable to abuse than one based on custom and tradition. If laws are just words on "goddamned pieces of paper," it's easy enough to alter the meaning of the words, and pretend the laws are still in effect, unchanged. And if that fails, there is always an Enabling Act of some sort, making sure the worst abuses were covered by a legal fig leaf.
This explains why today's tyrants still pay lip service to laws, even as they break them on a daily basis.
If there is one constant about politicians everywhere, it would be that whatever power they have is never enough; they must always have more.
Constitutions cannot protect liberty if they imply that liberty is something granted by the state; for if so, then the state can just as easily take it away. If people don't care about freedom, they will find themselves in servitude soon enough, laws or not.
That "decent respect to the opinions of mankind" the American Founders referred to seems to be gone as well. As the modern history of the Balkans clearly shows, "they would not dare" is a naïve belief at best. The dangerous delusion that governments are still bound by the chains of constitutions has lulled people to sleep, while thugs of all stripes have gone on to create a Hobbesian universe in which might makes right and life is nasty, brutish, and short.