County Sheriff has jurisdiction over President

I got a video in my email today from my local tea party representative and could not find any mention of it on ATS although it is not new. I was excited to see that their has actually been a supreme court ruling for states rights and stating local authority over federal
The following is excepts from a dialogue written by Richard Mack on Ron Paul's Website in May of 2008.

the Constitution’s conferral upon Congress of not all governmental powers, but only discreet, enumerated ones.”

Scalia then quotes the basis of the sheriffs’ suit in quoting the Tenth Amendment which affirms the limited powers doctrine, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution…are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” To clarify this point, we need to understand that the powers and jurisdiction granted to the federal government are few, precise, and expressly defined.

This is the video I received.
Oathkeepers ex sheriff Richard Mack video


Sorry, not savvy enough to know how to embed.

He is saying that he and a person named Printz brought a lawsuit against the Brady bill and won because the US can't force a local sheriff to take on a government mandate.

Okay, I may not have said it right but here are other links and those of you who have a better understanding than myself can affirm or deconstruct.

From the same Ron Paul website.

The office of sheriff has a long and noble history. It dates back over a thousand years and originated in England. The sheriff is the only elected law enforcement official in America. He is the last line of defense for his citizens. He is the people’s protector. He is the keeper of the peace, he is the guardian of liberty and the protector of rights. A vast majority of sheriffs will agree with all of this until they are asked to apply these principles of protection to federal criminals...

...and some sheriffs have indeed taken very courageous stands against the feds coming in to their counties to “enforce” their laws. Cattle, lands, homes, bank accounts, cash, and even children have been seized and prisons filled all in the name of federal enforcement of EPA rules, The Endangered Species Act, IRS rules, (of which there are over 10 million pages) Forest Service and Dept. of the Interior technicalities and the list goes on and on. The sheriff of NYE County, Nevada stopped federal agents from seizing a rancher’s cattle and even threatened to arrest the feds if they proceeded against his orders. Sheriffs in Wyoming have told the agents of all federal bureaus to check with them before serving any papers, making any arrests, or confiscating any property.

Yes, he has the right and the duty to do so. In Mack/Printz v USA, the U S Supreme Court declared that the states or their political subdivisions, “are not subject to federal direction.” The issue of federal authority is defined even further in this most powerful Tenth Amendment decision. The two sheriffs who brought the suit objected to being forced into federal service without compensation pursuant to some misguided provisions of the Brady Bill. The sheriffs sued the USA (Clinton adm.) and won a major landmark case in favor of States’ Rights and local autonomy.

There are many mores issues in this worthy of discussion but I must admit I am not well versed enough at this point. Hopefully enough savvy ATS members will post their take on this to help all of us understand it better.

This is a discussion of the lawsuit at Cornell University

It was interesting to me and gave the gov.'s standing as well as the dissenter's standing.

I have come to understand that unless you give a very strong or controversial viewpoint here on ATS that not much notice is taken. It is my sincere desire that this be affirmed or denied and/or understood for what it is.

It would also be great for each of us to know if your county sheriff is in agreement and supports this ruling. If any local sheriff does not adhere to this we can simply get the word out and vote them out. To me, this gives us greater power to protect our freedom than anything the fed may try to take away.

Legal rights mean nothing, without the power to enforce them. I seriously don't know whether the sheriff had power over the Brady bill or whatever, but he wasn't able to enforce his theoretical rights.

I have the right to insult a police office. It's guaranteed to me under the First Amendment. I can go up to a cop and tell him he's a fat, donut-eating thug, and he can't legally do me any harm. I live in Chicago. How long do you think my freedom of speech would last, were I to actually say something like this to a cop? Right up to the time he whacked me over the head with his club, and arrested me for "disorderly conduct" or "resisting arrest" or some such charge. I can just about guarantee you that my assertions of rights would end with some painful injuries, and a night in jail.

My rights don't mean a thing, if I can't enforce them. Neither do anyone else's right mean anything, if they can't enforce them.

reply to post by chiron613

My rights don't mean a thing, if I can't enforce them. Neither do anyone else's right mean anything, if they can't enforce them.

And that is the crux of the matter I think. Though it is speaking specifically to county sheriff's (don't know if it relates to police as they are not elected). If your county sheriff does not uphold these principles, then get him out of office. I would think that is much easier than convincing a nation not to vote for a certain president.

The courts have ruled that the country sherriff has precedence over the feds. This means he can protect the people under his jurisdiction and the courts will back him up, which means restraining orders, and if the feds continue, contempt of court sentences for violationg officers. Of course, the sherriff has to have the balls to stand up to the feds.

Legal rights mean everything.

Ask any man or woman in Jail right now, rotting away. It controls their lives.

YES....This is true, and this is WHY the mainstream media came out recently and attacked the oath keepers.



We are in a whole heep of trouble if the people of this country are not allowed to confirm their oath to protect this country's people.

All they are saying is that they will uphold their sworn oath.

It's THE ONLY thing that keeps the system of checks and balances in place.

Sure they have been corrupted, but they are in place!

Restoration is alot easier than creation.

Our country's basic principles in conception were pretty much the best "design" since ancient times.

Why not help keep others free?

I swear I live in the twilight zone......2+2=7

reply to post by liveandlearn


These are the videos I found on Shefiff Mack on YouTube.

Sheriff Mack - Leader - Sheriff's Begin Revolt Against Federal Authority


Sheriff Richard Mack - Response to "The Second Wave: Return of the Militias" - Part 1


Sheriff Richard Mack - Response to "The Second Wave: Return of the Militias" - Part 2


Sheriff Richard Mack - Response to "The Second Wave: Return of the Militias" - Part 3


Sheriff Richard Mack - Response to "The Second Wave: Return of the Militias" - Part 4


Sheriff Richard Mack - Response to "The Second Wave: Return of the Militias" - Part 5


Sheriff Mack Power of the County Sheriff Part 1


Sheriff Mack The Power of the County Sheriff Part 2


Sheriff Mack The Power of the County Sheriff Part 3


Sherfiff Mack The Power of the County Sheriff Part 4


Sheriff Mack The Power of the County Sheriff Part 5


[edit on 24-10-2009 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

reply to post by The_Brave

Legal rights mean everything.

Exactly, you are so right!. And ignorance of the law has gotten us where we are.

We all need to know where or own county sheriff stands on this issue and if they support us or they are are afraid of the feds. Do they have what it taktes to stand up for us? I suspect the answer to this in the majority is no. Let's get them out of office.

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas


I have watched two of the video's and find nothing but positive information.

To be fair, I did find an article condemning his job as sheriff from his successor, par for the course in my opinion, considering he bucked the establishment.