Tennessee seeks to make federal law enforcement subordinate to the local sheriff

reply to post by Annee


Does that happen ever? I'm not being smartass, I'm legit trying to think of some examples though outside of a cop making an illegal arrest or using excessive force. I thought you were ignored by the feds unless the cops missed a chance to bust you on something.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Annee

 

Does that happen ever? I'm not being smartass, I'm legit trying to think of some examples though outside of a cop making an illegal arrest or using excessive force. I thought you were ignored by the feds unless the cops missed a chance to bust you on something.

Just presenting another side.

Kind of a - - - be careful what you wish for.

Power corrupts absolutely - - - no matter what level its at.

Checks and Balances.

im glad they are fighting each other.the crocs and the hippos fighting over a dried up mudhole.tennessee is the reason i buy my guns through back doors.i was put on probation and completed it but my ncic says i spent two years in prison.ive never been in prison in my life.sullivan county is where bristol is.i then beat three tickets in bristol va. and showed the cop and judge what the law was.two hours later they stalked my twin brother arrested him beat him up and held him for thirty .days on the tennessee side.bristol has rampant corruption.but the fbi does too.lest we forget ruby ridge and waco and fast and furious.let them eat each other.we shall feast on their bones

Originally posted by robomont
im glad they are fighting each other.the crocs and the hippos fighting over a dried up mudhole.tennessee is the reason i buy my guns through back doors.i was put on probation and completed it but my ncic says i spent two years in prison.ive never been in prison in my life.sullivan county is where bristol is.i then beat three tickets in bristol va. and showed the cop and judge what the law was.two hours later they stalked my twin brother arrested him beat him up and held him for thirty .days on the tennessee side.bristol has rampant corruption.but the fbi does too.lest we forget ruby ridge and waco and fast and furious.let them eat each other.we shall feast on their bones

Yep. You have to have checks and balances.

You just can't let local law enforcement do what they want.

I worry that if the states pursue this, then the federal law enforcement officers will end up being deputized in every state. If this happens, then we may be answering to federal law enforcement officers for minor infractions. This would give federal officers even more power. I think the federal government will just use this law to their advantage.

Originally posted by Annee


Yep. You have to have checks and balances.

The problem is, there are checks, but no balances.

The checks don't balance the books.

If you take money from the devil, you have to do what the devil says.

When the states stop taking handouts from the Federal Government, then they'll earn the right to govern themselves as before.

Originally posted by DRAZIW

Originally posted by Annee








If you take money from the devil, you have to do what the devil says.

When the states stop taking handouts from the Federal Government, then they'll earn the right to govern themselves as before.

you said it one whiff of no federal highway money and the feds will have their way.

reply to post by FortAnthem





Hey Tennessee (and Montana too) don't forget to send TSA packing while you're at it. May as well go for broke. Then at least you can have the satisfaction of smiling as the unmarked helicopters swoop down upon you with their ray guns.

Originally posted by Annee

Still local sheriffs have to be held accountable for ALL those in their district. Sheriff Joe is very heavy handed on his beliefs. His personal beliefs are not acceptable to all in his district.

It works for those who agree with him.

Where do those who do not agree with him go to get their justice?

They go to the voting booth in the next election to try to vote him out. In most every state, the county sheriff is an elected position. There's no better accountability than being voted out of office (and your job) by disgruntled voters. If the sheriff was really that bad or corrupt, it should not be hard to motivate a majority of the people to vote for someone else to take his place.

If that fails, or voter intimidation takes place, going to the state police or state district attorney with your issued should be the next course of action. Looking to the feds to solve all of your problems should always be the LAST option. Remember; the higher the level of law enforcement equals a lesser level of accountability for their actions.

If you think a corrupt county sheriff is bad, just imagine a corrupt federal law enforcement official coming into your town and co-opting the local police to do their bidding. Who are you going to go to when they become overly oppressive and start stomping on the local people's rights; NATO or the UN?

Corrupt and power tripping police will always be a problem but, they are much easier to hold accountable for their actions on a local level by voting out the people who cover for their actions and voting in someone who will hold them accountable for their crimes. If worse comes to worse, its easier to mount an armed insurrection against a corrupt sheriff than it is against the whole might of the federal government.

When their power comes from the federal level, there is virtually no way to hold them accountable for their actions when they abuse their authority, especially when they say they were acting on "classified information" in the "war against terrorism" or some such line of federal BS.

Originally posted by FortAnthem

Originally posted by Annee

Still local sheriffs have to be held accountable for ALL those in their district. Sheriff Joe is very heavy handed on his beliefs. His personal beliefs are not acceptable to all in his district.

It works for those who agree with him.

Where do those who do not agree with him go to get their justice?

They go to the voting booth in the next election to try to vote him out. In most every state, the county sheriff is an elected position. There's no better accountability than being voted out of office (and your job) by disgruntled voters. If the sheriff was really that bad or corrupt, it should not be hard to motivate a majority of the people to vote for someone else to take his place.

Interesting that you still believe in the voting process.

Voting - - corruption at its finest.

We love History here. The family's and the decendants who grew up here in TN have a storied history of being conservative as in the old time version. Even when there were a strong Democrat presence here, they too were conservative. Many did vote against Eqaul RIghts movement, to our shame, but they were keeping things the way they were (conservative) and since they were Democrats they get a pass in the press. We like it that people here are nice to each other and stay out of each others affairs. We do feel your freedom ends at the tip end of our noses.

The whole idea that some agency could come here and violate basic Constitutional rights as if it WERE a pile of Toilet Paper as Neo-Con Bush said it was, is nuts in our eyes. Especially after the unimaginable amount of blood the people of this state have shed for the betterment of mankind. These malfeasance's we have seen take place will simply not go unanswered. Begining with the battle of King's Mtn during the Revolution, we have steadily proved we would rather stand up and be counted even if it means leaving more of our blood or paying the ultimate sacrifice rather than allow tyranny or bullying by any over another. Not every last one of us but enough it shows. Many have served this country and some did give all.

The legislature here is full of people that are totally accountable to our extremely awake citizens who have seen enough to know we are in the very times our forefathers warned us would happen without our constent vigilance. That vigilance has always been a part of the spirit of the greenest state in the land of the free as the old Davy Crockett show would sing. There is more hope that the people are waking up and they are waking others up too. Unconstitutional gets us fired up and mad. We sure feel were seing a lot of it lately and someone has to be held accountable or the whole experiment of Freedom implodes on itself, just as the old rulers of Europe/nay the world planned. (damn I think I here Mr. Douglass' flute and fife in the background of the show "Green Acres")

reply to post by Annee


If people would pay attention to LOCAL elections for the officials most likely to actually have an impact on their everyday lives, for better or for worse, they would be able to take back this country one county at a time. The people's voices are most powerful at the local level where they are less diluted and a small block of voters can make a difference.

The problem is; we have all been fooled into thinking that the opposite is true. We have been fooled into thinking that the officials most distant from our everyday lives are the most important. We have been fooled into thinking that the people in Washington have the most impact on our daily lives and that the election of FEDERAL officials is all important.

This has caused us to ignore local politics, allowing local offices to be filled by cronies to local businessmen who willingly cede their authority to the federal government because they have bought into the lie as well. It would only take a few determined voters to take back government at the local level, if people could become interested in local politics instead of wasting their time with national elections.

At the national level, their voices are the most diluted and it is much easier to rig elections. Elected officials in Washington are almost totally inaccessible by the average voter unless they have millions to contribute or pay for lobbyists to represent them. Congressmen are only slightly more accountable to the people than the federal law officials this law is directed against.

IF we ever want to take back this country, we must realize that it has to be done from the bottom up by capturing local elections, getting people interested in what happens in their own home towns and demanding that higher levels of government butt out of local matters.

Laws like this one are a good first step in winning back local authority and making people realize that the local level is where their real power lies.

reply to post by FortAnthem


I believe there are counties inWyoming and Montana that have passed similar laws, ALL federal agents must surrender their arms and badges and the Sheriff will take care of the business.

WE the people need to make it known that WE are the power...feck the Constitution, God Givern rights declared by the Decleration of Independence, the Constituion IS A CORPORATE contract and NOTHING MORE, stop whiming about it. who cares, we are human beings, harm no one and damage no property and no crime, BE RESPONSIBLE and that is it!!!!!!!!!

My state impresses me more and more every day. First the Castle law, where you can kill in defense of your home or property and now this. Some days I am so happy I live in the Volunteer state

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by FortAnthem

Originally posted by Annee

Still local sheriffs have to be held accountable for ALL those in their district. Sheriff Joe is very heavy handed on his beliefs. His personal beliefs are not acceptable to all in his district.

It works for those who agree with him.

Where do those who do not agree with him go to get their justice?

They go to the voting booth in the next election to try to vote him out. In most every state, the county sheriff is an elected position. There's no better accountability than being voted out of office (and your job) by disgruntled voters. If the sheriff was really that bad or corrupt, it should not be hard to motivate a majority of the people to vote for someone else to take his place.

Interesting that you still believe in the voting process.

Voting - - corruption at its finest.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by FortAnthem

Originally posted by Annee

Still local sheriffs have to be held accountable for ALL those in their district. Sheriff Joe is very heavy handed on his beliefs. His personal beliefs are not acceptable to all in his district.

It works for those who agree with him.

Where do those who do not agree with him go to get their justice?

They go to the voting booth in the next election to try to vote him out. In most every state, the county sheriff is an elected position. There's no better accountability than being voted out of office (and your job) by disgruntled voters. If the sheriff was really that bad or corrupt, it should not be hard to motivate a majority of the people to vote for someone else to take his place.

Interesting that you still believe in the voting process.

Voting - - corruption at its finest.

In the case we're talking about here, I don't think it's corruption. I think it's a simple case of senior citizens outnumbering the amount of other people who don't want him in. I moved to Maricopa county in '87, and he is the only sheriff that county has had in thime I've lived there. I've listened to enough MSM in the area as well as reading the New Times articles about him to form that picture.

The real problem, I believe, is that the seniors keep voting him, and then when summer comes they migrate back up north. They stay down here just long enough to qualify for being residents so they can vote.

Originally posted by Taupin Desciple
I think it's a simple case of senior citizens outnumbering the amount of other people who don't want him in. I moved to Maricopa county in '87, and he is the only sheriff that county has had in thime I've lived there. I've listened to enough MSM in the area as well as reading the New Times articles about him to form that picture.

The real problem, I believe, is that the seniors keep voting him, and then when summer comes they migrate back up north. They stay down here just long enough to qualify for being residents so they can vote.

I am a senior citizen. Be careful who you stereotype.

But yes - - I understand that. I am not the white conservative Christian stuck in the past.

I am as WASP as you can get - - - but I do not like the white supremacy attitude of many Arizonians. Its very scary.

reply to post by Annee


Living in the Nashville and Memphis areas as a child I was sheltered from the real white supremecy stuff as a child. Back then it was not supremecy it was an actual fear that physical harm would come to you. Because the KKK in Mississipi and Alabama as well as areas in TN, were nasty people who hated everything, even whites. SOME of those people obviously exist, though not as a way right wing of the the TEA party as the media would have us think. Sherrif Joe is happening because one of the real reasons for having a centralized government at all, is to protect the citizens from foreign invasion. NOT Immigration but actual invasion. People all over America see that the hispanics or even a middle eastern terrorist organization's people can walk across the border and the Feds want to prosecute Border Patrol officer doing their sworn duty. We have a huge disconnect when the border of Afghan lands mean more than Arizona, TX, NM and CA. The drug cartel murders I see in Mexico say we have another problem brought on by the "drug war" that can only be won by taking the massive amounts of profit out of it for evil people who would sell their own mothers to the devil.

reply to post by redrose123


Standing up for your rights is one thing. I didn't say people can't do anything I said the constitutions supremacy clause states that no state law shall usurp federal law. So before you start throwing traitor and coward around, know what is being said and the context that is being used. It is up to the states to work with the Federal Government and vice versa. People should go to their local administrations, city and county boards. One reason things have gotten so out of whack is people started focusing on me and not paying attention to what was going on in politics, local, state or federal. yes, people need to be more involved. Use the law to your advantage, not writing laws that are going to get thrown out anyway. I stood up for Arizona's right to protect their borders if the federal government didn't do their job securing the border. Their law got struck down even though they used the same verbiage that the federal government has in their immigration policies. I don't know how that was struck down considering there was nothing in there prohibiting the Feds from doing their jobs,but held the government accountable. Until a Federal law is challenged and found unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court, than it is upheld and states cannot interfere with the federal governments ability to function.
Do I agree with the new state law? Hell yes I do, but do I also understand the supremacy clause that is laid out in the constitution? Yes I do.
So before you go ringing the freedom bells of Hannity to me and reciting other songs and battle cries, know what you are talking about before you go on the attack and try to belittle others for their opinions. Yes, jumping on someone and calling what they say something for cowards and traitors to say really shows ignorance. I have fought for the US in many battles and conflicts over the last 16 years. That may be off topic, but the last thing I am is a coward or a traitor. Funny how quick the name calling and bashing gets in some of these threads.

reply to post by Nucleardiver


Very well said nucleardiver, and you have given me something to look more into. The supremacy clause does hold significant weight, the weight of the commerce clause really completes the circle as well.

Star for you sir, because that was one of the best explanations I have seen on here in a very long time.

reply to post by DRAZIW


I tend to agree with you. The Fed government wields way too much power over the states with entitlement programs. But I garauntee that if a state were to go it alone, that Governor would be drug through the mud in the media and more than likely forced to leave office. If not by the Federal government, by the people. Welfare, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, all the entitlement programs ensure a state won't go it alone because the people will revolt. This is where I have to agree with redrose in that people need to stand up and fight. Entitlement programs seem to be a great place for the Feds to park money until they need it for something they deem more important.
I very highly doubt that the Federal Government would have officially declared Texas a no fly zone for the simple fact that their own laws would just about prohibit it. Texas wasn't declaring war on the Feds, they just didn't like forcing laws on them that could cripple that state. Or Rick Perry was fluffing his feathers to make his run as a conservative who didn't take any guff from the man.