Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The U.S. Supreme Court has Ruled

page: 3
88
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 06:39 AM
link   
Where in the hell are we gonna find all these "people friendly sheriff's"? In most case's of corruption it's the sheriff's dept that is the most corrupt, at least it is in my neck of the woods. What would stop the feds from investigating the sheriff for what ever? What would stop the feds from bringing up some silly ass charges against the sheriff or his minions ?

In one of the county's in my state N.C. we had a sheriff that had his own T.V. show about the criminals in his jail. And he drove a sheriff's car called" DDT" with a giant black widow painted across the doors. I beleive he and his deputies were charged with drug trafficing and dealing. Needless to say, he aint the sheriff any longer.

No matter what the elected office is. The main concern of anybody in elected office, Is to get re-elected to that office or position. If the sheriffs in this country want to show their power. Then start protecting the Occupy Protesters. After all all cities are located within a county, are they not? IMHO we simply need to tear it all down and start from scratch. keep what works, throw out what don't.

I think the sheriff,s name was " Hege" and it was in Davidson County Please see wikipedia attached.
Yea these are the guys I want to have all the power.

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 26-10-2011 by openyourmind1262 because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by CherubBaby
 


There is also another checks and balance that a lot of people do not know about, it has been implemented once....

If the federal government passes a law that is considered unfit, if all 50 governors of the states sign a veto, they can negate the law. in other words, if all the governors think something smells bad, they can turn it over.

Which article/amendment of the US Constitution is that?
It isn't any article or amendment. It is more wishful thinking invented bullstuff. Just like the original post.



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaDreamer

Originally posted by amatrine
So does this mean that Sheriff Joe Arpio can then uphold the law , dealing will illegals and the Feds can not get involved?

Makes no sense. How can the supreme court rule for this but against the sheriff in Arizona for trying keep illegals out? You can not have your cake and eat it too . So if this is true, it trumps them all.


it is simple really the constitution expressly gives the federal government the power to enforce our borders. they do a piss poor job of it, however it is their prevue by law not the states.



No, it gives the federal government the power to regulate immigration. That has nothing to do with enforcing local, state or federal law within the state. Local law enforcement enforces state and federal law all the time.



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 08:14 AM
link   
This thread is misleading, IMO.

The most glaring phrase is "...once and for all" regarding a Supreme Court decision. A Supreme Court ruling is always subject to change. Look at history.

One question...who "enforces" Supreme Court decisions? County Sheriffs? Why not? If they indeed are the "highest" form of law enforcement, wouldn't the Supreme Court use them for enforcement?



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 09:21 AM
link   
This article from Jan 2000 might shed some light.

Make sense?

Wyoming Sheriff Hoax Revealed



(Now, look at this. RECENT decsion, and yet the Case notes below say
"Closed: 29th April 1997". April 1997 is RFECENT in relation to January
2000? Next, let's look at "Sheriff" Dave Mattis. Again, let's see the case
notes say the party is "Case: Castaneda v. USA" not "Mattis v. USA" or even
"Castaneda et. al. v. USA". Now, the case number. Here the case number is
"No 2:96-cv-099-J" below in the case notes it is "Case No: 2:1996cv00099" no
J in sight and "96" becomes "1996". I'll forgo the hyphen problems, that'd
just be petty.)

.... it was
NOT a court decision but a "settlement". Here's a quote from one post: "His
case was settled with a settlement, he says, not a court decision." Now, I
know this is double hearsay, but then again all YOU havei is double hearsay,
so if yours is acceptable, so is mine. AND let's also note that any
Lexis-Nexis or Westlaw search will show NO such suit filed in ANY Wyoming
case. In fact the ONLY case with the Wyoming Sheriff's Association involved
retirement benefits, and was to mention that the petitioner was a member of
the group.)



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   
I.Can't.Believe.This.Misleading.Convoluted.Thread.Made.It.To.The.Front.Page.
ATS just lost a bunch of integrity in my book.

Keep flagging it though and just maybe it will become true.



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by RussianScientists
 


HOLY CRAP!!!
Could this be a return to how the US was designed in the first place????

I hope so.
Great find.




posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by RussianScientists
 


So what happens when theres one bad Sheriff who thinks he owns the county, who do you Call.



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 09:53 AM
link   
I hope President Obama is paying attention and that the wasteful spending by the Department of Justice is put to an end. The medical marijuana issue launched one of the great fights in my opinion -- that of State Law versus Federal Law -- and I am glad to see this decision go in the favor of the States.

I guess I will be paying more attention going forward to the candidates running for Sheriff.



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by RussianScientists
 


Sorry for not reading the rest of the thread, however this result is hardly suprising if true.

This all comes from the 1215 Magna Carta. Replace sheriffs with barons for english wording and it all fits into place.

Behold one of the foundations of modern law;

Magna Carta
The great charter of english liberty,
decreed by King John at Runnymede, June 15th, A.D. 1215



(60) "the barons, namely, may elect at their pleasure twenty five barons from the realm, who ought, with all their strength, to observe, maintain and cause to be observed, the peace and privileges which we have granted to them and confirmed by this our present charter. In such wise, namely, that if we, our justice, or our bailiffs, or any one of our servants shall have transgressed against any one in any respect, or shall have broken some one of the articles of peace or security, and our transgression shall have been shown to four barons of the aforesaid twenty five: those four barons shall come to us, or, if we are abroad, to our justice, showing to us our error; and they shall ask us to cause that error to be amended without delay. And if we do not amend that error, or, we being abroad, if our justice do not amend it within a term of forty days from the time when it was shown to us or, we being abroad, to our justice: the aforesaid four barons shall refer the matter to the remainder of the twenty five barons, and those twenty five barons, with the whole land in common, shall distrain and oppress us in every way in their power,--namely, by taking our castles, lands and possessions, and in every other way that they can, until amends shall have been made according to their judgment."


1215.org...

That is why the decision is so - U.S. law is derived from British law. The sheriffs are the great equalizers. If they fail, the whole 'land in common' aka the freemen of the land, can also rise up and correct governance where required. However further private study into law will show you that this is not really required in the day and age of 'paper warfare'. You are the power, the source and controller if you wish to be.
edit on 26/10/11 by GhostR1der because: edit to add URL



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by bone13
reply to post by RussianScientists
 


So what happens when theres one bad Sheriff who thinks he owns the county, who do you Call.


You can recall public officials. It isn't done very often, but has been done a few times in the last year or so -- I believe Wisconsin was one of the States that had a recall election.

People need to remember that our rights allow us to vote in a candidate and also vote to remove a candidate if what they deliver once elected is not what the people put him/her in office to do.

A special election is then held and if the current office holder loses the vote, an alternate candidate would be put in office to serve the remainder of the term.


A recall election (also called a recall referendum or representative recall) is a procedure by which voters can remove an elected official from office through a direct vote (plebiscite), before his or her term has ended. Recalls, which are initiated when sufficient voters sign a petition, have a history dating back to the ancient Athenian democracy[1] and is a feature of several contemporary constitutions.


Source:Recall Election



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 10:08 AM
link   
I am not seeing a US Supreme Court decision. I see a civil case docketed with the US District Court, that was settled without a ruling. How did this thread make it to the front page? A decision without a written order is in effect no order at all. Additionally, any US District Courts ruling does not constitute controlling authority.



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 10:09 AM
link   
OMGOMGOMG!!!!

The Supreme Court in the North Pole just ruled that the Fed cannot interfere with any labor industries and that Santa Claus is the Sheriff. He can now work the elves as hard as he wants to so all the little boys and girls get their toys this year. Even if elves begin dropping dead from exhaustion and unsafe working conditions, the Fed cannot intervene.

What? A source? Well, the Supreme Court's decision was based upon this incident:
www.dailykos.com...

Don't worry about reading it though.
Just believe what I'm telling you and keep chewing on your candycane.



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by RussianScientists
THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HAS RULED.
The “supremacy clause” is dealt with in Mack/Printz, in which the U.S. Supreme Court stated once and for all, that the only thing “supreme” is the Constitution itself. Where by the powers, the Sheriff reigns supreme above the president.

“the duly elected sheriff of a county is the highest law enforcement official within a county and has law enforcement powers EXCEEDING that of any other state OR federal official.”

Guess what else? The District Court ruled in favor of the sheriffs. In fact, they stated, Wyoming is a sovereign state and the duly elected sheriff of a county is the highest law enforcement official within a county and has law enforcement powers exceeding that of any other state or federal official.” Go back and re-read this quote.

politicalvelcraft.org...

Do any of you realize what this means?

If you the citizens elect into your county, any county in the USA, a person to become the sheriff of your county, that sheriff has the right to "NOT" allow the TSA, the FBI, the ATF or any other Federal Officials to do things within your county that you the citizens don't like. I think its time that you search out such officials and to start electing them the sheriff and regain your citizens rights.

For instance in any state USA, if the Sheriff doesn't like TSA agents and their BS illegal body searches, then they will have to stay out of the county.

For instance in California, the State of California has legalized the growing of pot, therefore if any Sheriff in California tells the feds to stay out of their county, they will have to stay out of their county.

(Case No. 2:96-cv-099-J (2006)) and announced that all federal officials are forbidden to enter his county without his prior approval ……
For more than two years, all federal agents entering Bighorn County, Wyo., have been required to check in with sheriff Dave Mattis and state their intentions.

Sheriffs Put Feds In Their Place.
ONE THAT JUST HAPPENED IN NEW MEXICO!
Obama’s Federal Stooges Beginning To Understand The Power Of Sheriffs: Sheriff Warns Federal Agents They Will Be Arrested If They Interfere!

What I'm trying to get to here, is simply this. America needs to be taken back by the citizens of the USA and here is a LEGAL WAY to take back America in a non confrontational manner. Simply elect a sheriff into your county that will get rid of federal officials that are not protecting the citizens of the USA in a manner that the citizens don't want to be protected.

The sheriff of your county is your friend, he has more rights than the feds have.

The Sheriff Has More Power In His County Than The President Of The United States: U.S. Constitution U.S. Supreme Court ~ Quashes Obama’s Claim To “Supremacy Clause”

A new bill has been introduced in the Montana State Legislature which require the County Sheriff be notified before any federal agents are allowed to enter the state with the intention of carrying out law enforcement actions. The bill provides not only for pre-notification, but the Sheriff must also give consent before federal agents may proceed.

If you want to take back America, take it back legally without destroying any of it, this can be done by putting the right person in "EACH SHERIFFS OFFICE" in "EACH COUNTY" in AMERICA. Let the elected Sheriff of each county take it back.

THROW THE FEDS OUT OF YOUR STATE NOW!
Date: Monday, 4 July 2005, 10:38 p.m.

THE COURTS HAVE SPOKEN! “Any legislation including the Patriot Acts which attempts to compel State Officers to execute Federal Law is unconstitutional. Further, any federal investigational liberties can be forbidden by the States’ highest law enforcement officer. Finally, any attempts by a federal agency to coerce compliance to such liberties can be grounds for arrest of any of their agents who do not comply with the directions of that officer.”

politicalvelcraft.org...
ed it on 25-10-2011 by RussianScientists because: (no reason given)



The FED's are not even government anyway. They should arrest them for what they've already done to America. The FED's are criminals of the worst kind.



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by RussianScientists
 


Wow a voice of reason in this inane government , obama and his draconian methods just hit a brick wall . I am willing to bet this is not the end of it just another step on the process of big government taking over every aspect of this country.



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Afterthought
OMGOMGOMG!!!!

The Supreme Court in the North Pole just ruled that the Fed cannot interfere with any labor industries and that Santa Claus is the Sheriff. He can now work the elves as hard as he wants to so all the little boys and girls get their toys this year. Even if elves begin dropping dead from exhaustion and unsafe working conditions, the Fed cannot intervene.

What? A source? Well, the Supreme Court's decision was based upon this incident:
www.dailykos.com...

Don't worry about reading it though.
Just believe what I'm telling you and keep chewing on your candycane.





Actually, that was a suppressed report.

The real deal was that NATO received a secret report from Mossad that Kadaffi was vacationing there.

They were obviously wrong.

Or were they ?



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Yes, not many people realize the severe impact and how the trickle down theory plays into this.
I mean, think of the children AND THE REINDEER!!!
I feel as though sometimes it's just me who understand why my small town decorated for Christmas last week.

Just star the post though, so everyone won't be so in the dark.




posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by xxxxxy
 


Nice vids.

Pretty sad that in the second one, the Sheriff had to "teach" the feds what the constitution is all about and what it stands for.

Need to somehow clone this dude or get him to open up a law enforcement school.



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   
To visualize this easily, a presidential election map, by county, might show the federal nanny-state in blue...

or it might be totally different...

edit on 26-10-2011 by TreadUpon because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-10-2011 by TreadUpon because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 10:57 AM
link   


Do any of you realize what this means?

If you the citizens elect into your county, any county in the USA, a person to become the sheriff of your county, that sheriff has the right to "NOT" allow the TSA, the FBI, the ATF or any other Federal Officials to do things within your county that you the citizens don't like. I think its time that you search out such officials and to start electing them the sheriff and regain your citizens rights.


You might want to read the page more carefully. Or, better yet, actually find reliable sources for the subject matter you're researching.
edit on 26-10-2011 by IamCorrect because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
88
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join