The Sheriff Who Sold His County

reply to post by Xcathdra

This is not in dispute, and is the reason for the 3/5 compromise.

History disagrees with you. It is in dispute and i posted a link showing it is in dispute. JPZ and myself have both destroyed your arguments and yet you simply ignore the evidence and repeat what you already said. Saying the same things over and over does not bolster your argument.

Further even if your erroneous 3/5 argument were true it has nothing to do with this thread and is off topic. This topic is not even about the constitution it is about the county sheriff. Please stay on topic.

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by MikeNice81

 

They are a government onwed incorporation that must answer to the people. Just like any city is "incorporated" but must still answer to the people.

Unified Police Department Of Greater Salt Lake in Salt Lake City, UT IS A PRIVATE COMPANY categorized under Police Departments

www.manta.com...

edit on 13-6-2011 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)

Just about any police department is on that site. I hate to tell you again, but the company is owned by the local government and the citizens. By paying taxes in that area you become a holder in the corporation. The department still has to answer to the people. It is not a traditional "private" company.

It is owned by the government with the tax payers and citizens being the holders of the corporation.This is common practice to protect the department, chief, city, and/or county if something happens. It also gives the department greater leeway in dealing with contractors and buying necessary equipment.

The North Carolina Departmen of Crime Control and Public Safety is listed on the website you listed. They answer directly to the state Atorney General. They are far from a traditional private company.

Whatever, you know what I'll just make this easy. You're right some super secret group of people bought all of the police stations in America. Oh no we are all screwed. They have turned our once fine policemen in to a corporate goon squad. Our last line of protection has disappeared forever.

reply to post by hawkiye


It is in dispute and neither of you have destroyed my argument. I would urge you to read up on your history, familiarize yourself with the FEderalist papers, Supreme Court rulings and Congressional legislation from the time period dealing with slavery.

Ignoring the facts and intent behind the 3/5 compromise doesnt change what it is and what it was designed for.

Secondly, refer your comment about being off topic to JPZ since he is the one who felt the need to go down this road.

Third, dont chastize me when you yourslef participated in that conversation.

As I stated before, the theme here is deny ignorance, not embrace it.

The OP was written by Soveriegn Citizens. They completely ignored the fact that the State Constitution is what grants a Sheriff his authority, not the Federal Constitution. The actions taken to create a metro department do not violate any constitution, Federal or State.

The view that a Sheriff is the top law enforcement officer in the land is not universal, and a few states actually place their authority one step below State Police.

Please explain to us how the US Constitution is even relevant to this thread? Its very obvious that the OP writer does not have a clue, so maybe you can help him out.

reply to post by Xcathdra

The view that a Sheriff is the top law enforcement officer in the land is not universal, and a few states actually place their authority one step below State Police.

In many places the order is municipality, sheriff, and then state agencies. That is from lowest to highest. Usually a sheriff is considerred the top guy for his county when it comes to warrants and running the jail. Sheriff's deputies have jurisdiction across a given county. This is so that they can execute their duties to maintain the jail and execute warants (or civil processes) without having to rely on each municipality in a given area. This is doubly important in rural areas that have large swathes of land that do not fall under the jurisdiction of a city or town.

The sheriff's department may be asked to step in and aid local police departments in their county. In many areas this is most evident in the school "resource officer" position and DARE programs. It is also common for the sheriff's department to be the agency that maintains the county's Special Respone Team or SWAT team.

In many places a sheriff can not even over ride the town's chief. This myth of the magical sheriff has always confounded me.

Crap!

I'm so glad I left that God-forsaken place!

So, is this new private corporation (police-state) funded by tax-payers?

See the conflict of interest?

reply to post by MikeNice81


I am very familiar with how law enforcement works. The argument I am making is the people making the accusations have no concept of how the system works. They dont understand the sheriffs authority comes from the State constitution, and will vary from state to state on where a sheriff lands in terms of authority over what.


People are going after the Federal consitution in their arguments, when in reality it has nothing at all to do with what is going on in Salt Lake County.

These people have their calws sunk in and have no desire to actually understand how it works. Trying to explain it to them is also almost impossible since the paranoia is constantly present.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Did you not see the link provided earlier that details this new corporation?

is a private company funded by tax-payers!!!

Unified Police Department Of Greater Salt Lake in Salt Lake City, UT is a private company categorized under Police Departments. Register for free to see additional information such as annual revenue and employment figures. Companies like Unified Police Department Of Greater Salt Lake usually2 offer: Law Enforcement Labor Services, Law Enforcement Psychological Services, Law Enforcement Services, Law Enforcement Support Services and Law Enforcement Training Services.

reply to post by loveguy


I think I would find a better argument than a site that allows any person to create any business they want without verification.

If you want an example give me 30 minutes and I will make a corporation for you.

As an example, one of the "offical links" is this -

www.do-something.com...://www.manta.com/c/mt7k1nj/unified-police-department-of-greater-salt-lake&campaig n_id=12485988&

While the link info says Unified Police Department of Greater Salt Lake, the link does not take you there. Instead it takes you to a webpage that is designed to skim personal information from people.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by loveguy
[more Instead it takes you to a webpage that is designed to skim personal information from people.

Thanks for the reply.
Did you just link me to a phishing site?
I'm pretty certain that is a serious T&C violation.

If you really want my personal info, send me a u2u...

reply to post by Xcathdra


I was just trying to elaborate on what you were saying about the sheriff's power. Trust me we are on the same side of this. No matter how you tell them they won't understand.

Private just means that they are not traded on wall street. As a tax paying citizen of the district you can demand to audit the books, vote on the board of directors (the city council and sheriff), and do anything a share holder in a normal company can do. An incorporated city or police department works very different than a publicly traded company.

If people would take the time to understand what the word private means in this context they might not flip out so much.LEarn why your police department becoming a "public" corporation would be much worse.

Originally posted by loveguy

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by loveguy
[more Instead it takes you to a webpage that is designed to skim personal information from people.

Thanks for the reply.
Did you just link me to a phishing site?
I'm pretty certain that is a serious T&C violation.

If you really want my personal info, send me a u2u...

I see once again you dont bother to read posts.. You really need to work on that, as it will allow you to actually take part in the conversation while making sense, instead of coming across as to lazy to read and lost.

I used YOUR source, not mine, so maybe you should review the T and C so you dont violate it in the future.

The next time you want to use a source that shows a Police Department as a corporation, dont choose one that allows any person to make an entry without any type of verification.

reply to post by MikeNice81

Whatever, you know what I'll just make this easy. You're right some super secret group of people bought all of the police stations in America. Oh no we are all screwed. They have turned our once fine policemen in to a corporate goon squad. Our last line of protection has disappeared forever.

I am right because I have done the research and you haven't and they are all listed as private for profit corporations. You can get a Dun & Bradstreet account and see that all government entities right down to your local Schools and water boards etc. are privately owned corporations and this including your state and federal EVEN THE UNITED STATES IS PRIVATELY OWNED and not accountable to the people. They have private principles (majority owners) of those corps the people have never heard of. Many of the principles have offices located in D.C. etc.

According to the Cleafield doctrine (several supreme court rulings) when government descends to a corporation it is no longer government it becomes an entity entirely separate from government:

“ . . . the government descended to the level of a mere private corporation and takes on the character of a mere private citizen . . . For the purposes of suit, such corporations and individuals are regarded as an entity entirely separate from government.” Bank of U.S. v. Planters Bank, 9 Wheat. 22 U.S. 904, U.S. v. Erie Ry Co., 106 U.S. 327; Clearfield Trust Co. v. U.S. 318 U.S. 363 (1943).

“When governments enter the world of commerce, they are subject to the same burdens as any private firm or corporation.” U.S. v. Burr. 309 U.S. 22; See 22 U.S.C.A. 286e. Bank of U.S. v. Planters Bank of Georgia. 6 L. Ed. (9 Wheat) 244; 22 U.S.C.A. 286 et. Seq., C.R.S. 11-60-103.

We have no government we have a corporate fascist state posing as government! This is of course why they ignore the constitution and principles of freedom that originally built this nation.

I am sure I am wasting my time on this with you but others will appreciate these facts. Here is some of what I looked up when I had an account:

PS You can Go to www.selectory.com... and see if they still have a free 7 day trial. If they do start typing in your local municipal corps. Look up your state and all its agencies police departments etc. etc. none of them has any authority as officers etc. that's why they do what they want and ignore your constitutional rights

Government Of The United States

D-U-N-S® Number: 16-190-6193
Company Name: Government Of The United States
Also Known As: U S Government

Mail Address: The U S Capitol
Washington, DC, USA 20515-0001
View Map
County: District Of Columbia
MSA: Washington-Arlington-Alexandria

Country Phone Code: 1
Phone: 202-224-3121
Web Address: www.firstgov.gov

Location Type: Headquarters
Subsidiary Status: Non Subsidiary
Plant/Facility Size: 1,600 Sq Ft
Owns/Rents: Owns
Foreign Trade: Import/Export
Year Established: 1787
Ownership: Private
Accountant: David M Walker Comptroller Ge
Prescreen Score: Low Risk

Corporate Family Tree for this Company

Employee Count:
(All Sites) 2,717,080
Employment:
(Individual Site) Current Year: 3

Executives: Barack H Obama - President
Mr Joseph R Biden - Vice President

Add Decision Maker

Executive Biographies:
Barack H Obama YEAR OF BIRTH: 1961 GRADUATED FROM COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY AND HARVARD LAW SCHOOL. 1992-2004 TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO. COMMUNITY ORGANIZER, AND PRACTICED AS A CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY IN CHICAGO BEFORE SERVING THREE TERMS IN THE ILLINOIS SENATE FROM 1997 TO 2004. UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS FROM JANUARY 3, 2005 UNTIL HIS RESIGNATION ON NOVEMBER 16, 2008, FOLLOWING HIS ELECTION TO THE PRESIDENCY. HE WAS ELECTED 44TH PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ON NOV 4, 2008 AND SWORN IN ON JAN 20, 2009.

Mr Joseph R Biden YEAR OF BIRTH: 1942 GRADUATED IN 1965 FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE IN NEWARK WITH A BACHELOR OF ARTS. RECEIVED HIS JURIS DOCTOR FROM SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW IN 1968. ADMITTED TO THE DELAWARE BAR IN 1969. BECAME AN ATTORNEY IN 1969, AND WAS ELECTED TO A COUNTY COUNCIL IN 1970. BIDEN WAS FIRST ELECTED TO THE SENATE IN 1972 AND BECAME THE SIXTH-YOUNGEST SENATOR IN U.S. HISTORY. HE WAS RE-ELECTED TO THE SENATE IN 1978, 1984, 1990, 1996, 2002, AND 2008, AND WAS THE FOURTH MOST SENIOR SENATOR AT THE TIME OF HIS RESIGNATION. HE RESIGNED ON JANUARY 15, 2009, FOLLOWING HIS ELECTION TO THE VICE PRESIDENCY AND WAS SWORN IN ON JANUARY 20. 2009.

SIC Code(s): 91990401 - General government, Federal government (Primary)

Line of Business: United States Federal Government

NAICS Code(s): 921190 - Other General Government Support (Primary)

United States Department of Homeland Security

D-U-N-S® Number: 05-236-8391
Company Name: United States Department of Homeland Security

Mail Address: 245 Murray Dr SW Bldg 14
Washington, DC, USA 20528-0003
View Map
County: District Of Columbia
MSA: Washington-Arlington-Alexandria

Country Phone Code: 1
Phone: 202-282-8000

View Comprehensive Record

Location Type: Headquarters
Subsidiary Status: Subsidiary
Plant/Facility Size: 103,700 Sq Ft
Owns/Rents: Owns
Year Established: 2002
Ownership: Private
Prescreen Score: Low Risk

Headquarters: Executive Office of the United
1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington, DC, USA, 20501-0001
202-456-1414

Global Ultimate Parent: Government Of The United
The U S Capitol
Washington, DC, USA 20515-0001

202-224-3121
Global Ultimate Parent
D-U-N-S® Number: 161906193

United States Border Patrol Explorer Post 456

D-U-N-S® Number: 12-314-2957
Company Name: United States Border Patrol Explorer Post 456
Also Known As: Usbp Explorer Post 456

Mail Address: 1608 N Kings Hwy
Douglas, AZ, USA 85607-6155
View Map
County: Cochise

Country Phone Code: 1
Phone: 520-805-6900

Location Type: Single Location
Subsidiary Status: Non Subsidiary
Plant/Facility Size: 2,200 Sq Ft
Year Established: 1990
Ownership: Private
Prescreen Score: Low Risk

Employee Count:
(All Sites) 2
Employment:
(Individual Site) Current Year: 2

Sales:
(All Sites) $50,000
US (Estimated/Modeled)
Sales:
(Individual Sites) $50,000
US (Estimated/Modeled)

Executives: Ms Carla Provost - President

Add Decision Maker

SIC Code(s): 86410000 - Civic and social associations (Primary)

Line of Business: Civic Organization

NAICS Code(s): 813410 - Civic & Social Organizations (Primary)

Maybe you will get a clue when you are living under a bridge or cooling off in a fema camp/gulag

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by loveguy

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by loveguy
[more Instead it takes you to a webpage that is designed to skim personal information from people.

Thanks for the reply.
Did you just link me to a phishing site?
I'm pretty certain that is a serious T&C violation.

If you really want my personal info, send me a u2u...

I see once again you dont bother to read posts.. You really need to work on that, as it will allow you to actually take part in the conversation while making sense, instead of coming across as to lazy to read and lost.

I used YOUR source, not mine, so maybe you should review the T and C so you dont violate it in the future.

The next time you want to use a source that shows a Police Department as a corporation, dont choose one that allows any person to make an entry without any type of verification.

Well, it's been 30 mins and more, what you got for me? In reference to this post;

reply to post by loveguy I think I would find a better argument than a site that allows any person to create any business they want without verification. If you want an example give me 30 minutes and I will make a corporation for you. As an example, one of the "offical links" is this - www.do-something.com...://www.manta.com/c/mt7k1nj/unified-police-department-of-greater-salt-lake&campaig n_id=12485988& While the link info says Unified Police Department of Greater Salt Lake, the link does not take you there. Instead it takes you to a webpage that is designed to skim personal information from people.

reply to post by Xcathdra

It is in dispute and neither of you have destroyed my argument. I would urge you to read up on your history, familiarize yourself with the FEderalist papers, Supreme Court rulings and Congressional legislation from the time period dealing with slavery.

Then allow me to destroy your argument now. First of all, I would urge you to specifically cite the Federalist Papers, and Supreme Court rulings instead of pretending that name dropping alone is all you need to do in order to back up your wild ass assertions.

Secondly, and in regards to this remark:

Secondly, refer your comment about being off topic to JPZ since he is the one who felt the need to go down this road.

The truth of the matter is that you went down the road with this assertion here.:

How exactly are they going to get around the issue with colored people? I mean they only count a 3/5 of a person if we go by their plain textr reading of the Constitution.

It is your "plain 'textr' reading of the Constitution" assertion that was destroyed, but you insist on a continued assertion that what you have said is true, when it is not only false, you are demonstrably being dishonest.

Since you insist on a plain reading of the text of the Constitution, your continued arguments only undo you further:

The assertion the 3/5 clause does not refer to black or people of color is rather naieve, especially the manner in which it is written. It specifically refers to white people and Indians.

Do you even know what "specifically" means, or do you honestly believe I am so naive that I cannot read the text of the "three fifths" Clause for myself in order to know that no specific mention of "white people" is made within that text. It is you who is using terms such as "colored people" and "white people". It is you liberally construing the actual language of the text to mean something other than what it says.

If the text said all you are claiming it say's, then the Thirteenth Amendment would have been irreconcilable with the Constitution, making it unconstitutional. The Thirteenth Amendment is not in any way irreconcilable with the Constitution, because regardless of the history behind it, regardless of the motives, facially the text remains innocuous, does not ever speak of slaver specifically until the Thirteenth Amendment was passed, and most assuredly does not use language such as "colored people", or "white people".

The rules of statutory construction - rules the Framers were well aware of - require that each and every word of a statute be given significance. If the "three fifths" Clause had used words such as "colored people" and "white people" then the rules of statutory construction would demand we give those words significance. Those words are not used, and the only person I know of demanding we give these colorful words significance is you. Perhaps as an LEO you have become quite comfortable in the belief that if you make a demand of people they better damn well comply or else, but there is the world as you think it should be and there is the world as it is.

Look, you can point to the sky and declare that it is made of tangerine gumdrops and marshmallow clouds, and then to the rivers and claim they flow with milk chocolate as loud and as long as you want, it will not make the assertion any truer.

The biggest concern is your proclivity to dismiss other peoples clear understanding of the Constitution as being wrong, while you then present what you believe to be the "correct" understanding, which is no where near correct. You not only do this with the Constitution, you do this with SCOTUS rulings, and lower court rulings as well.

Declaring other peoples clear understanding of the Constitution as wrong is akin to you declaring the sky is made of tangerine gumdrops and marshmallow clouds. You have the right to make such declarations, and you are clearly comfortable in your expectations that people accept your declarations as "law", but none of this makes you correct, or right, and it certainly does not make erudite. The attitude you portray here is one of; "Look, I am a law enforcement officer, so I know the law better than you do, and I am sick and tired of knowing it better than you, and if only you would come to accept my assertions as true, then we could all know the law as I do."

It would be nice, my friend, that instead of trying to make the law something other than it is, you would just simply come to know the law.

The importance of this thread, and its topic, is that Sheriff's are duly elected law enforcement personnel, as opposed to the employees of administrative agencies. The difference between the two is that the duly elected Sheriff and those deputized under that Sheriff are accountable to the people in ways that administrative agencies are not. The Sheriff works for the people directly, and so do the Deputy Sheriff's. A police officer, on the other hand, works for the Chief of Police, who in turn either works for the Police Commissioner, or Mayor or other such politician, creating a comfortable buffer between the police officer and the people.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by hawkiye

 

It is in dispute and neither of you have destroyed my argument. I would urge you to read up on your history, familiarize yourself with the FEderalist papers, Supreme Court rulings and Congressional legislation from the time period dealing with slavery.

Ignoring the facts and intent behind the 3/5 compromise doesnt change what it is and what it was designed for.

Secondly, refer your comment about being off topic to JPZ since he is the one who felt the need to go down this road.

Third, dont chastize me when you yourslef participated in that conversation.

As I stated before, the theme here is deny ignorance, not embrace it.

The OP was written by Soveriegn Citizens. They completely ignored the fact that the State Constitution is what grants a Sheriff his authority, not the Federal Constitution. The actions taken to create a metro department do not violate any constitution, Federal or State.

The view that a Sheriff is the top law enforcement officer in the land is not universal, and a few states actually place their authority one step below State Police.

Please explain to us how the US Constitution is even relevant to this thread? Its very obvious that the OP writer does not have a clue, so maybe you can help him out.

I agreed it is in dispute. We have destroyed your argument and you keep using the nonsensical term "sovereign citizen" what ever that means. I have studied the history of this nation quite extensively and it disagrees with you IMO.

You are off topic with you 3/5 argument and you brought it up not JPZ he corrected your error. I gave you a little leeway cause we all do at times but since you took a mile its time to get back on topic.

I also said it had nothing to do with the federal constitution, and you are wrong state constitutions do not grant sheriffs thier authority the county sheriff was around before any constitutions and the people on the counties are what created the sheriff, the state and federal constitutions. The county is a higher authority then the state or the feds in historical American jurisprudence. Of course it is backward now because of ignorance.

Now please keep it on topic or I'll be forced to ask the mods to monitor and correct you if necessary The topic is about the systematic dismantling of the office of the county sheriff.

In fact why don't you start a thread about people who want to get back to the constitution and your 3/5 argument etc. its an interesting topic just not germane here?

Originally posted by hawkiye
Now please keep it on topic or I'll be forced to ask the mods to monitor and correct you if necessary The topic is about the systematic dismantling of the office of the county sheriff.

In fact why don't you start a thread about people who want to get back to the constitution and your 3/5 argument etc. its an interesting topic just not germane here?

edit on 14-6-2011 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)

You guys have not destroyed my argument, and as I said before, you guys need to learn your history before opening your mouths about it. Simply ignoring the fact doesnt change the meaning of the 3/5 clause no matter how you attempt to obfuscate around it.

The key phrase you and JPZ ignore is "al other persons". Lets see, if the clause mentions free persons, and mentions Indians, who does all other person represent?

The answer you are looking for is slaves. Again, the majority of slaves at the time were black.

The comment about the Constiution was very much relevant since violating it is commonly invoked by free citizen / soverign citizen flunkys who dont do research who demand a return to the consitution in plain text minus case law. JPZ is the one who went down the road of trying to, and incoreectly, correcting my comment about the 3/5 clause. You are the one who jumped on the bandwagon and kept it going, so dont blame me for your foolishness and blind following of someone else.

Ignore it all you want, it doesnt change the fact you and JPZ are wrong.


** Back to the Topic **

The topic is not about the dismanteling of the office of sheriff in the least bit. What it is is an example of how people are so out of touch with how the Constitution and laws work that any perceived injustice must be a violation of the same and at the Federal level.

The office of the Sheriff is established through the State Constitution, NOT the US Constitution. The Office of the Sheriff, and the duties of that office, are prescribed by the legislature of the state. The creation of counties within states are also created / disbanded by the State legislature as well. The manner in which cities are formed and their classification status is also set forth by the State legislature, up to and including when if and how a municpality can form a police department.

The only requirement of the Sheriff in the State if Utah is to maintain the jail and perform civil process. They are required to provide security for special courts that take place within their county.

Aside from those requirements the other accusations towards the sheriff and his duties is based on nothing but complete ignorance and a lack of research by people who want to spout off about something they apparently know nothing about. Here is some reading material for you. I suggest you actually go through before you make any more comments about the OP article and make yourself look even more ridiculous.

Utah Code -- Title 17 -- Chapter 22 -- Sheriff
Utah Code -- Title 17 -- Chapter 52 -- Changing Forms of County Government

Over view of Salt Lake County Law Enforcement area and reasons provided to voters
Salt Lake County Sheriff
Salt Lake County Unified Police Department

This process started as early as 2007 and required the State of Utah to make changes to State Laws in order to create a unified Police department. In 2009 the State Legislature passed the modifications. Whats even funnier is the way the article, and your own argument in this matter are so wrong its not even funny. Please show me and everyone else where it says the Sheriff is done?

I wouldnt look to hard since its not true. The Sheriff will remain in command of the UPD as well continue the functions of the Office of Sheriff, which includes maintaining the jail and civil process. The Sheriff will still be up for election and the people are still able to vote the position in or out of office. The residents do not lose their ability of redress of greivances being they are still represented by their elected officals they chose to represent them (we dont live in a democracy, we lkive in a Representative REpublic - Learn the difference and share it with your sovereign citizen friends would you please).

Under the UPD setup the Sheriffs office loses its budgeting ability, instead turning it over to a board of mayors. The Sheriff / UPD head can veto what the board does, and the board can overturn what the sheriff / upd command does (for budgeting).

If people would do research they would find that the budgeting system being used in Salt Lake County is pretty much the norm everywhere else. The Sheriffs office is a seperate entity to the county comission, since one is executive and the other is legslative.

To create a check and balance the budget for the sheriffs office goes through the county commission. So again, the article is nothing but fear mongering by sovereign citizen flunkys who wrote the article and who are woefully ignorant of how things in government work

This is not illegal
The Sheriff did not sell the county
The State Legislature retains authority over how law enforcement works inside Utah - Always has, always will.
The State Legislature passed laws allowing for unified police departments.
The Sheriff is still present as a law enforcement officer of the county and under the setup runs the UPD
The Sheriff is still an elected position with respoinsibility for the Jail and Process.
If the board fires the UPD, and the UPD commander is the sheriff, the Sheriff remains as Sheriff.

So again, you really should learn how things work before spouting off about them, especially in this case where you post a fear mongering article that is heavy on ignorance and lacks any factual information.

Deny Ignorance, dont embrace it and for Gods sake, do some research would you please.



Also - Some info

The Three-Fifths compromise was a compromise between Southern and Northern states reached during the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 in which three-fifths of the population of slaves would be counted for enumeration purposes regarding both the distribution of taxes and the apportionment of the members of the United States House of Representatives. It was proposed by delegates James Wilson and Roger Sherman.

Delegates opposed to slavery generally wished to count only the free inhabitants of each state. Delegates supportive of slavery, on the other hand, generally wanted to count slaves in their actual numbers. Since slaves could not vote, slaveholders would thus have the benefit of increased representation in the House and the Electoral College. The final compromise of counting "all other persons" as only three-fifths of their actual numbers reduced the power of the slave states relative to the original southern proposals, but increased it over the northern position.

Also, The Federalist paper #54 deals with approtionment and how to count slaves, which in this case it was decided they were property.

I am dumbstruck as to why people will blatently ignore History and pretend something didnt occur when in fact it did.

reply to post by Xcathdra

The key phrase you and JPZ ignore is "al other persons". Lets see, if the clause mentions free persons, and mentions Indians, who does all other person represent?

You make this wild ass assertion, in spite of the fact that I am on record in this thread of being the one who pointed to the phrase "all other persons" to correct your erroneous assertion. It was you ignoring it, and alarmingly now you pretend we are ignoring it. It is alarming because it points to an unreasonable proclivity on your part and an all to willing proclivity to distort the truth.

JPZ is the one who went down the road of trying to, and incoreectly, correcting my comment about the 3/5 clause. You are the one who jumped on the bandwagon and kept it going, so dont blame me for your foolishness and blind following of someone else.

JPZ, of course, correctly corrected your erroneous assertion, whether you like it or not. JPZ went down the road you paved, and did so, because of your lamentations that people do not understand the Constitution.

Also you should let JPZ actually make the legal arguments, at least he has a clue about what he is talking about. You do a much better job of just grabbing his coattails and commenting after the fact, repeating what he says.

What are you trying to do with this remark, pit hawkiye and I against each other? Divide and conquer, is it? It will not work! I cannot speak for hawkiye, but I hold high hopes for you brother, and do believe that you are one of the good guys, in spite of your outrageous liberal constructions, and would like to see a road all of us can go down together as allies, and not as something other than allies.

It is really quite pointless to bicker over whether the "three fifths" Clause was about slavery or not, my point was simply that the language itself does not say what you are claiming it says, and that this has significance.

The State Legislature retains authority over how law enforcement works inside Utah - Always has, always will.

In all the links you provided in this last post, it is telling that you avoided linking the actual Constitution for the Sate of Utah. A simple reading of the plain text of that document will inform you on who actually retains the authority of how all government inside Utah works, and it begins with the Preamble of that Constitution:

Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we, the people of Utah, in order to secure and perpetuate the principles of free government, do ordain and establish this CONSTITUTION.

Long before any establishment of counties, Sheriff's, or even legislatures, that same Constitution begins with Article I which is that states Declaration of Rights. Those same Declaration of Rights begin with Section 1, which states:

All men have the inherent and inalienable right to enjoy and defend their lives and liberties; to acquire, possess and protect property; to worship according to the dictates of their consciences; to assemble peaceably, protest against wrongs, and petition for redress of grievances; to communicate freely their thoughts and opinions, being responsible for the abuse of that right.

By expressly declaring these specific rights, it is well established and settled that there are certain areas that the state legislature has no authority over, including the right to self defense, protestation against wrongs, and defending their liberties, the only caveat being each individual has to accept responsibility for these actions.

More importantly, regarding this issue and your assertions, there is Section 2, of Article I, of the Utah State Constitution, which states:

All political power is inherent in the people; and all free governments are founded on their authority for their equal protection and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform their government as the public welfare may require.

All political power being inherent in the people, with no specific language even daring to pretend that this inherent political power was surrendered upon the ordination of this Constitution, your assertions of legislative authority is - while not factually incorrect - is also not entirely truthful, as you are placing the cart before the horse. The people have authority...original political power...and when discussing authority, it is unsettling to read your words, brother.

There is an extremely disturbing attitude among all officials in all branches of government where the people are treated as subjects to their authority, as opposed to the other way around, which is - in fact - the Constitutional and lawful way, that all government officials are subjects of the people, and their employment as a government official is not a right, but is a privilege afforded them by the people.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Right...

All others refers to slaves, as has been pointed out time and again to you, which you ignore. My argument is correct and stands. Complain all you want about it, it wont change my response.

The Constitution of the State of Utah establishes the legal framework for their Government. That Government establishes the setup of subornidate entities and governments inside the State of Utah. All the other BS you are talking about is nice, but has nothing to do with the basic facts of what occured in the County. All actions taken were legal and in complaince with State Laws, which were passed by the peoples representatives they sent to represent them in State Government.

The Utah State Legisltaure retains the right to pass, repeal or modify laws so Salt Lake County can form a Unified Police Department.

The article says the County Sheruiff sold his county, when it was never his county to begin with. The County is not going anywhere, and as I pointed in out the links you ignore, the State Legislature prescribed the types of Governments that can be used for county administration.

The Sheriff position is still present, and people will still vote people in and out of that office. The Sheriff still maintains control over the Jail, civil process and certain court proceedings.

The Sheriff will also be the head of the Unified Police Department unless otherwise changed by the County Government and Mayors of the resopective cooperating cities.

All of this is fact, as opposed to the article, which is science fiction that is written in a manner to lead people who are unable to think for themseleves to a conclusion that is false. People hear something about the authority of a sheriff and cling to it without doing any research what so ever.

Deny ignroance, dont embrace it, and learn how your government works and operates. At ALL levels.

reply to post by Xcathdra

All others refers to slaves, as has been pointed out time and again to you, which you ignore. My argument is correct and stands. Complain all you want about it, it wont change my response.

Little children will take the same attitude and seemingly believe, as you do, that their continued tantrum will compel the adult to acquiesce, but a wise adult dealing with such a child knows better. Scream and holler all you want, my friend, the best you can do to support your contentions is point to what other people say it means. Your strongest example of these other authorities, would be Federalist 54, but I cannot help but wonder if you actually read the whole of that text.

Such is the reasoning which an advocate for the Southern interests might employ on this subject; and although it may appear to be a little strained in some points, yet, on the whole, I must confess that it fully reconciles me to the scale of representation which the convention have established.

Even Publius, cannot help but admit to the strained logic used to reach his conclusions, but your strained logic is far worse. Your argument began by claiming that a "plain reading of the text" of the Constitution shows us that "colored people" are counted as three fifths of a person. A plain reading of that text, however, demonstrates how wrong such an assertion is, and rather own up to that - as an adult would - you instead went a dug a deeper hole by then claiming that the text "specifically" mentions "white people", even though a plain reading of the text again demonstrates how wrong you are.

All you can do is point to other authorities in order to justify your assertions, but your mistake was using "plain reading" in the same breath as your translations of what was actually said. Either you can own up to this mistake, or keep pretending that somehow you are right. That choice remains yours, but you are surely undermining your own arguments by such capriciousness.

The Constitution of the State of Utah establishes the legal framework for their Government. That Government establishes the setup of subornidate entities and governments inside the State of Utah. All the other BS you are talking about is nice, but has nothing to do with the basic facts of what occured in the County.

All the other BS? I suppose you mean by that, that my pointing to the Preamble, and Declaration of Rights, that firmly establish the people as the true and genuine authority is just, in your mind, BS. This is what makes your assertions so disturbing and all one has to do is let you keep rambling on the way you do. It rarely takes you long to begin showing your genuine attitude about the people, and their proper authority. To you it is just BS. Once you make claims like this, does it really matter what else you are saying, since it is all founded on the belief that the people are subordinate to gods like you. All that is left to say, is to use your own words:

Deny ignroance, dont embrace it, and learn how your government works and operates. At ALL levels.

Would that you stop embracing ignorance, and proudly so, and learn how your government works and operates, at ALL levels, then maybe you wouldn't be such a disturbing government official.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


As the OP requested, bring it back to topic and leave the Constituional argument out of it. He doesnt want us going back and forth over a constitutional argument that you dont understand with relation to slavery (Im guessing you are a denier of our history for some unknown reason, but if that works for you, go for it).

Back on topic, and to borrow part of my last post -
The Constitution of the State of Utah establishes the legal framework for their Government. That Government establishes the setup of subornidate entities and governments inside the State of Utah. All the other BS you are talking about is nice, but has nothing to do with the basic facts of what occured in the County. All actions taken were legal and in complaince with State Laws, which were passed by the peoples representatives they sent to represent them in State Government.

The Utah State Legisltaure retains the right to pass, repeal or modify laws so Salt Lake County can form a Unified Police Department.

The article says the County Sheruiff sold his county, when it was never his county to begin with. The County is not going anywhere, and as I pointed in out the links you ignore, the State Legislature prescribed the types of Governments that can be used for county administration.

The Sheriff position is still present, and people will still vote people in and out of that office. The Sheriff still maintains control over the Jail, civil process and certain court proceedings.

The Sheriff will also be the head of the Unified Police Department unless otherwise changed by the County Government and Mayors of the resopective cooperating cities.

All of this is fact, as opposed to the article, which is science fiction that is written in a manner to lead people who are unable to think for themseleves to a conclusion that is false. People hear something about the authority of a sheriff and cling to it without doing any research what so ever.

Deny ignroance, dont embrace it, and learn how your government works and operates. At ALL levels.