It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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).
Feel free to argue with yourself from this point on out and by all means keep using those big words in an effort to look smart to other people in the thread.. The OP requested a return to the topic at hand, which apparently is beyond your capabilities. Get over it and move on - we are not going to agree on this topic, so why keep going back and forth. You beleive what you want, Ill beleive what I want. Case closed. Now, can we move on to the topic?
Originally posted by Hawkiye
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?
What part of the above do you not understand? I am not the one ending the argument on the 3/5 issue, the OP is, so take your "you dont have the authority" argument up with the person who said to stop, which is NOT me.
You can beleive what ever revisonist version of history you want to put together.
There is nothing more to discuss on this topic at all...
The office of the Sheriff is established through the State Constitution
Please show me and everyone else where it says the Sheriff is done?
SALT LAKE COUNTY, Utah—
The details of a new metro police force for Salt Lake County, a feat that has taken several years to accomplish, have now been finalized. As of January 1, 2010, The Salt Lake County Sheriffs Office will be dissolved and will be replaced with a new metro police department. The new department will be run by mayors of participating cities.
"It's happened, today we are formalizing what has really been a several year initiative to create a consolidated police entity that is managed by municipal mayors," said Sheriff Winder of the Salt Lake County Sheriff's Office.
“It’s important that people recognize the agency, and they will no longer say ‘Sheriff’s Office.’ It’s anticipated they will say Unified Police Department…” Sheriff Winder told KCPW in August 2009.
(Source: kcpw.org...)
The State Legislature retains authority over how law enforcement works inside Utah - Always has, always will.
We adhere to that principle today, and conclude categorically, as we concluded categorically in New York: "The Federal Government may not compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program." Id., at 188. The mandatory obligation imposed on CLEOs to perform background checks on prospective handgun purchasers plainly runs afoul of that rule...
("the State has no legitimate interest in protecting nonresident[s]"). As Madison expressed it: "[T]he local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere." The Federalist No. 39, at 245. [n.11]...
"In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself." The Federalist No. 51, at 323.
The State Legislature passed laws allowing for unified police departments.
The part people keep missing, including yourself, is how the Office of the Sheriff is created and how it gets its authority. State Constitutions are the documents that spell out how the government will work, including that of Sheriff.
PS JPZ and I are old friends on this board and get along fine and usually agree for the most part. He is an articulate and thorough researcher and debater. While I do not see where it could be construed I am on his coat tails no one myself included would have any shame using his coat tails from time to time as the need arises. I see no need to repeat what he articulates so well and am delighted when I can just refer to something he posted rather then take the time myself!
Originally posted by hawkiye
Perhaps you can point me to the where in the Utah constitution this occurs as I can't seem to find it?
Originally posted by hawkiye
Niether can I find where the legislature creates the office of sheriff for the counties in the Utah code. It defines what it deems certain duties of a sheriff but nowhere does it create the office. Most likely becuase it does not have the authority.
Originally posted by hawkiye
I did find that in order to create a new county it is left up to the people of the county as I said, albeit the legislature defines a few rules on how to go about it. So as I said it appears the people create their counties and the offices in it still just as they did historically.
le.utah.gov...
Originally posted by hawkiye
Of note is as I said before; Most of the counties were created before any constitutions were written or legislatures seated by the farmers that built this land. The people on the land in the distracts and counties were at the top of the pyramid and the state and federal governments answered to them. Of course it is the other way around today due to the abundance of ignorance.
Originally posted by hawkiye
Salt lake County was created in 1852 by the people. Utah did not become a state until 1896. So as I said the county and the sheriff existed before the state. However the counties in the colonies existed before the establishment of this nation the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution also.
www.slco.org...
www.media.utah.edu...
Originally posted by hawkiye
Please show me and everyone else where it says the Sheriff is done?
SALT LAKE COUNTY, Utah—
The details of a new metro police force for Salt Lake County, a feat that has taken several years to accomplish, have now been finalized. As of January 1, 2010, The Salt Lake County Sheriffs Office will be dissolved and will be replaced with a new metro police department. The new department will be run by mayors of participating cities.
"It's happened, today we are formalizing what has really been a several year initiative to create a consolidated police entity that is managed by municipal mayors," said Sheriff Winder of the Salt Lake County Sheriff's Office.
www.fox13now.com...
“It’s important that people recognize the agency, and they will no longer say ‘Sheriff’s Office.’ It’s anticipated they will say Unified Police Department…” Sheriff Winder told KCPW in August 2009.
(Source: kcpw.org...)
Originally posted by hawkiye
The State Legislature retains authority over how law enforcement works inside Utah - Always has, always will.
The supreme court disagrees with you! From the opinion of the SCOTUS in the landmark case brought by sheriffs Printz and Mack:
We adhere to that principle today, and conclude categorically, as we concluded categorically in New York: "The Federal Government may not compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program." Id., at 188. The mandatory obligation imposed on CLEOs to perform background checks on prospective handgun purchasers plainly runs afoul of that rule...
("the State has no legitimate interest in protecting nonresident[s]"). As Madison expressed it: "[T]he local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere." The Federalist No. 39, at 245. [n.11]...
"In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself." The Federalist No. 51, at 323.
www.law.cornell.edu...
Originally posted by hawkiye
The State Legislature passed laws allowing for unified police departments.
State legislatures do not pass laws they decree corporate policy statutes that are not law. But the people do not know the difference and contract with this rogue agencies and their policy enforcers (police).
Originally posted by hawkiye
PS JPZ and I are old friends on this board and get along fine and usually agree for the most part. He is an articulate and thorough researcher and debater. While I do not see where it could be construed I am on his coat tails no one myself included would have any shame using his coat tails from time to time as the need arises. I see no need to repeat what he articulates so well and am delighted when I can just refer to something he posted rather then take the time myself!
As far as JPZ we disagree and we agree on things, it just depnds what that is. When it comes to the constitution, he takes a revisonist view point. This is never more apparent than making a BS argument that the 3/5 clause does not refer to slave, when in fact it does. At the time the majority of slaves were Black, which again is something he tries to obfuscate by using big words.
It would be the part where it establishes the Executive, Judicial and Executive branches of Government and empowers the legislative to pass laws for the State.
Right and as I pointed out when I destroyed this load of BS above a few pages back.
What the Sheriff Mack issue was over dates back to 1997. What occured was the Federal Government placing a new system that required background checks on people who wanted to purchase a hand gun. While the Feds put it in place, they made it where the county Sheriff was the person who had to administer the program and all paperwork.
do you not understand?
"The local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, NO MORE SUBJECT , within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere." www.law.cornell.edu...
It did not create any new authority for the sheriff, but only affirmed the obvious.
his court case has absolutely no bearing on anything occuring in UTAH.
It very much does have the authority, and that is even more evident in the fact the State Legislature can create and dissolve Counties within Utah.
The people can vote all they want, but until the State Legislature approves it doesnt make it so. Utah State Law reserves the creation and dissolution of a county to the Legislature.
Whenever any number of the qualified electors of any portion of any county desire to have the territory within which they reside created into a new county they may file a petition for the creation of a new county with the county legislative body of the county in which they reside.
While I get what your saying about Sheriff, you are ignoring several key elements during that time and I would suggest that you actually understand how law enforcement worked then, compare it to now, and see the differences. Just because you dont agree with what goes on now, does not make the sheriff a God entitty that answers to no one.
The Office of the Sheriff is not dissolved, and nor is it going away.
Do you and the others really undestand just how rediculous and ignorant you look when you keep stating coroporation?
Your relationship with JPZ is irrelevant, nor does it make your argument or his any more wrong than they are now.
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by hawkiye
PS JPZ and I are old friends on this board and get along fine and usually agree for the most part. He is an articulate and thorough researcher and debater. While I do not see where it could be construed I am on his coat tails no one myself included would have any shame using his coat tails from time to time as the need arises. I see no need to repeat what he articulates so well and am delighted when I can just refer to something he posted rather then take the time myself!
It is highly unlikely the arrogant member who hurled that unacceptable insult at you would even consider retracting that remark, and offering up the apology you deserve. Allow me to apologize to you in his stead.
Your tireless efforts fighting for freedom on these boards are legendary. The sycophants of tyranny will use whatever means necessary to destroy such an effort, including childish and mean spirited insults. I proudly stand beside you as a peer...an equal, and I thank you heartily for your genuine and necessary effort in this fight for freedom.