Western US Sheriffs gather to discuss their Constitutional authority.

reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli

Like it or not, Article VI of the US Constitution is still in force. It does not have an "except for county sheriffs" clause.

Like it or not Article VI of the Constitution for the United States of America, and presumably what you're referencing, reads:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

This means that any legislative act in Pursuance of this Constitution must conform to this Constitution, which like it or not, includes the Tenth Amendment.

I realize you are responding to a post that linked dubious case law where the actual case cannot be found on any official records, but this does not excuse blanket remarks like the one I just quoted of yours that grossly misrepresent federal power.

reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli


To my knowledge, it remained in effect as long as Mattis was the Sheriff. Of course he was ousted in the next (s)election. And yes, denials were made by the district judge after the fact, but as you'll notice, they never include the court transcript in their denials.


ETA: I believe the term is expunged. Bury the bodies and deny deny deny.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

I didn't grossly misrepresent anything. I only pointed out that the animating misunderstanding of this thread--the idea that sheriffs are the "supreme authority" in their county--is patently false. Within the Federal sphere, the supreme law in the US is US law, notwithstanding the laws of any state or any subdivision of a state.

What you seem to be saying is that there are laws that are unconstitutional, sheriffs can determine when a law is unconstitutional, therefore sheriffs can interfere with the Federal government's attempts to enforce those laws. (Or, in the imaginary outcome of Mattis, interfere with all Federal law enforcement.) If not you in particular, that seems to be the general belief here.

It doesn't work that way. US laws are presumed constitutional, until a US court decides otherwise. County sheriffs don't make that decision. To give county sheriffs the power of judicial review over Federal laws not only violates the tenets of federalism, but also separation of powers. In conflates state authority with Federal, and executive power with judicial. The people arguing for this super-supreme sheriff concept should just give up the pretense of legal authority and say what they mean--they want local officials to usurp Federal authority because they find Federal laws onerous.

reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli


It doesn't work that way. US laws are presumed constitutional, until a US court decides otherwise. County sheriffs don't make that decision. To give county sheriffs the power of judicial review over Federal laws not only violates the tenets of federalism, but also separation of powers. In conflates state authority with Federal, and executive power with judicial. The people arguing for this super-supreme sheriff concept should just give up the pretense of legal authority and say what they mean--they want local officials to usurp Federal authority because they find Federal laws onerous.

Where has anyone argued for a "super supreme sheriff" concept? And maybe you could explain why we even have state constitutions and governors and state legislators and sheriffs and such if they're all just window dressing and underlings of the federal government. I thought these State offices WERE part of the separation of powers.

Apparently you don't find federal laws onerous. Have you ever been to the law library and wandered the stacks? As James Madison said in the federalist papers: It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.

Voluminous = incoherent = onerous

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli

 

To my knowledge, it remained in effect as long as Mattis was the Sheriff.

What, exactly, remained in effect? Everyone admits that Mattis had a policy stating that Federal agencies would tell him what they were up to. The policy doesn't actually say Mattis can or will interfere with Federal operations in any way. (Source.) It simply says, "Federal officers will notify us of what they are doing, if they want our help we will ask them some questions, and we will ask them please not to do anything during quiet time."

As you can see, the sheriff's policy was toothless. To Federal agencies, it was even less than toothless. A county sheriff's policy does not govern Federal agencies (there's that Article VI again). For the story to work out as the believers think it did, there must be Federal policy requiring notice be given to Mattis. Given the multitude of Federal agencies that would have to promulgate and implement this supposed rule, it shouldn't be hard to find such an example. Have any been found? IRS? ATF? FBI? USMS? USPIS? USSS? DEA?

I'm sure at least one agency or office made it a local rule to keep the sheriff up to date on their goings-on. But that doesn't make it a generalizable rule for all agencies and all sheriffs everywhere. And it certainly doesn't mean the sheriff gets to kick the Federal government out of the county if they don't copy him on all their email.

reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli


I'm not talking about Mattis' "policy" or what anyone thinks of it, I'm wanting to see the original court transcript for this case. No one denies there was a court hearing ~ so where is the transcript?

reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli


You are grossly misrepresenting the issue and federal power and continue to do so. You are presenting an all too often lie put forth by plenty of politicos seeking the continued expansion of federal authority, whether it be lawful or not. Indeed, the current Vice President Joe Biden, when serving as Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee once put it this way: "We federalize everything that walks, talks, and moves". There is absolutely no Constitutional authority to support this assertion, and the only possible way the federal government can get away with this is through the ignorance of the people. You seem intent on perpetuating that ignorance.

Sheriff's are the Constitutionally mandated - with few exceptions - Law Enforcement Agents of any particular county within a state. They hold proper jurisdiction and when incidents such as Ruby Ridge, or the Waco incident takes place - and be rest assured these two tragedies played heavily into waking up the sleeping giants we call Sheriff's - the Sheriff is not obligated to surrender their authority to the feds, and as those two incidents illustrated, nor should the Sheriff's do so.

All LEO's are restricted by Constitutional restraints that are express, yet there are far too many people attempting to vaguely point to powers not expressly listed by Constitution in order to excuse federal overreach. You pointed to Article VI, but this Clause does not grant federal agents the power to demand the local Sheriff surrender his, or her, own authority.

You may not like that, but the Supreme Court has given precedent to this, and that precedent did not lie with the feds operating outside of the scope of their jurisdiction.

reply to post by frazzle

But this isn't about the majority.

So are you saying that it is about the majority of this minority.

reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli

It doesn't work that way. US laws are presumed constitutional, until a US court decides otherwise.

This is the precise kind of nonsense I am talking about. The U.S. courts do not go looking for cases to determine the Constitutionality of legislation. These legislative acts are brought to the courts by People! The Supreme Court did not pursue Citizen's United, Citizens United pursued the courts. The Supreme Court didn't just out of the blue decide to look at the District of Columbia's gun restrictions to determine its Constitutionality, Officer Heller brought the issue to the courts. Two years later, the Supreme Court didn't out of boredom decide to review Chicago's oppressive gun restrictions, Petitioner McDonald brought the issue to the court. These petitioners did not presume Constitutionality, they challenged it!

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by frazzle

 

But this isn't about the majority.

So are you saying that it is about the majority of this minority.

I'm not sure what you're asking, but certainly only a minority of sheriffs in this country are interested in exercising their authority to protect the people of their counties from outside interference by federal agencies like the one mentioned earlier by another poster in which farmers are prevented from using their own wells to water their crops. I take it you do like to eat ....

reply to post by frazzle


I do like to eat and I like drinking even more. Not sure why my appetite would be in question but I think I get where you're coming from.

Originally posted by randyvs


I wouldn't get my hopes up. Foriegn troops are in place

Do you have a link to a thread or anything about this? I'm not being a troll, I haven't heard about this before!

reply to post by BobM88


Plenty of stuff out there like this Bob.



Just a random pick.

Maybe you don't like the source.
Above top secret

Originally posted by michaelbrux
I don't see that Liberty is being scaled back by the Federal Government. the Federal government has a huge footprint in Chicago and this states last two Governors are in Federal Prison for corruption, but other than that the average person barely ever sees or hears about anything like what many of you alleged they are doing.

Considering Chicago is full of people dependent on the Federal Government for their paychecks, I wouldn't really consider that a place to use for an example. Then again, maybe it is, and the fact that so many people are content on the dole is reason for those of us not on the dole to be concerned. Apparently it's warped the ability of the citizenship to understand true freedom. Sure, you're free to head to the grocery store and spend your government check. Sure, you're free to spend your government check on some clothes. All is good...nobody notices.

Originally posted by michaelbrux
Of course the States are useful and the Counties and the Townships and the Cities and each should stay in its place. County Sheriffs belong in the Counties and they have no authority outside of them.

That's what they're trying to do, but the Feds keep infringing on THEIR authority. Get it?

Originally posted by michaelbrux
What more liberty? what is it that exactly that you aren't able to do because of the Federal Government that is worth challenging them about?

Lack of immigration enforcement and reluctance to protect the NATION'S borders. The Feds arresting people using a substance that THE PEOPLE of the State deemed LEGAL. Suing Stages and County Sheriff's for trying to uphold the law and protect the CITIZENS against illegal invaders. There are a couple...two of which are related.

Originally posted by michaelbrux
gay marriage is worth civil war, now? gun laws?

Infringements of a person's liberty is always worth fighting for. Imagine if the Confederates had won, and black were still slaves. Now, consider a State decided it wanted to free the slaves, yet the Federal Government said, "Nope, you can't do that." Would you still tell the County Sheriff to "stay in his place"?

reply to post by navy_vet_stg3


Most in Chicago are not being taken care of by the Federal Government and this city is full of people that work and work hard.

The issues you stated are certainly light and transient and no one has any good reason to make a major issue with their federal government.

Blacks fought on the side of the Confederacy and the only First Lady of the Confederacy would be categorized as a Black woman today.

As far as immigration, they should have kept the people that came here 150 years ago and after WWII out because they are the ones causing the most problems today.

you people don't stand a chance.

reply to post by michaelbrux


A photograph of the only First Family of the Confederate States of America:




look upon and despair people that don't have a clue to what they are talking about.

You guys should really not bring racial issues into these threads...I will shred your beliefs:

here is an image of Queen Charlotte, the wife of George III of Great Britain.




race of skin color has no place in scholarly discourse.

Originally posted by michaelbrux
Most in Chicago are not being taken care of by the Federal Government and this city is full of people that work and work hard.

Sure, the majority is employed, but the unemployment rate is much higher than the national average. Source

Originally posted by michaelbrux
The issues you stated are certainly light and transient and no one has any good reason to make a major issue with their federal government.

Sure, it's light...until you're killed by one of the illegal invaders. Source

Originally posted by michaelbrux
Blacks fought on the side of the Confederacy and the only First Lady of the Confederacy would be categorized as a Black woman today.

Only because they were told they'd have FREEDOM for doing so. That's some cool history on the First Lady though. Thanks for sharing.

Originally posted by michaelbrux
As far as immigration, they should have kept the people that came here 150 years ago and after WWII out because they are the ones causing the most problems today.

I have no idea what you're attempting to say here.

Originally posted by michaelbrux
you people don't stand a chance.

No, because you're hell bent on defending a Federal Government that runs as a dictatorship. If I could make a guess, I'd say you're employed in some Federal capacity. BTW, it's not "racial". Freedom isn't about race. Freedom is something ALL citizens should enjoy, regardless of race.

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

I didn't grossly misrepresent anything. I only pointed out that the animating misunderstanding of this thread--the idea that sheriffs are the "supreme authority" in their county--is patently false. Within the Federal sphere, the supreme law in the US is US law, notwithstanding the laws of any state or any subdivision of a state.

What you seem to be saying is that there are laws that are unconstitutional, sheriffs can determine when a law is unconstitutional, therefore sheriffs can interfere with the Federal government's attempts to enforce those laws. (Or, in the imaginary outcome of Mattis, interfere with all Federal law enforcement.) If not you in particular, that seems to be the general belief here.

It doesn't work that way. US laws are presumed constitutional, until a US court decides otherwise. County sheriffs don't make that decision. To give county sheriffs the power of judicial review over Federal laws not only violates the tenets of federalism, but also separation of powers. In conflates state authority with Federal, and executive power with judicial. The people arguing for this super-supreme sheriff concept should just give up the pretense of legal authority and say what they mean--they want local officials to usurp Federal authority because they find Federal laws onerous.

Wrong... They want to assert their authority as We the People, the TRULY supreme law of the land... (the consent of the governed) To be able to stand up and say we have had enough of your usurpation of your authority and we are standing up and asserting our authority as We the People, to tell you we do NOT give you our consent to usurp authority that you have not been granted by We the People.

We the People have granted the courts and the branches of government the authority that they are abusing and it is within out authority to stand up when usurpation of that authority and corruption of the systems that we have empowered through our prior consent has reached a level that is un-redeemable through the system that has become corrupted and usurped by those we have allowed authority over us.

We ALLOW them through our consent, we have the right to redeem that consent at ANY time. It should not be done for transient cause, but when the corruption prevents the remedy of those usurpations through the very system that has corruption, we DO have the right to stand up and say enough.

I could give you tons of quotes of the founders who have said as much... Not that we need them. We are the People of this nation and your desire to allow the government to usurp authority does not negate others unwillingness to do so and considering that we have ALL of the founding documents of said government on OUR side, you can pander to them all you want and it doesn't make a bit of difference.

Jaden

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli

 

To my knowledge, it remained in effect as long as Mattis was the Sheriff.

What, exactly, remained in effect? Everyone admits that Mattis had a policy stating that Federal agencies would tell him what they were up to. The policy doesn't actually say Mattis can or will interfere with Federal operations in any way. (Source.) It simply says, "Federal officers will notify us of what they are doing, if they want our help we will ask them some questions, and we will ask them please not to do anything during quiet time."

As you can see, the sheriff's policy was toothless. To Federal agencies, it was even less than toothless. A county sheriff's policy does not govern Federal agencies (there's that Article VI again). For the story to work out as the believers think it did, there must be Federal policy requiring notice be given to Mattis. Given the multitude of Federal agencies that would have to promulgate and implement this supposed rule, it shouldn't be hard to find such an example. Have any been found? IRS? ATF? FBI? USMS? USPIS? USSS? DEA?

I'm sure at least one agency or office made it a local rule to keep the sheriff up to date on their goings-on. But that doesn't make it a generalizable rule for all agencies and all sheriffs everywhere. And it certainly doesn't mean the sheriff gets to kick the Federal government out of the county if they don't copy him on all their email.

There is no authority for Federal Police agencies to even EXIST, let alone give them authority over that of local authority.

There's that pesky 10th amendment that so many federalists love to ignore.

Any power not granted to the Federal government is reserved for the states or for the people.

Just show me where there is any provision for a federal policing agency???

Jaden