Western US Sheriffs gather to discuss their Constitutional authority.

page: 14
69
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by michaelbrux
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


man...we live in different worlds.

i'm sure what you know is true in the one you live in, but its meaningless to me.

you just keep studying the law champ...maybe one day we'll meet...

...but even though we probably won't, just keep shooting for the stars.


Based on the past 13 pages and your refusal to even attempt any form of discussion I figured maybe one more poster could take a stab at it. Can't say I at least tried.

Do you agree or disagree that the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution recognizes the authority of the States and the People respectively to maintain the constitutional office of the sheriff?




posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


I find this sentence ambiguous and complicated. to bad the founders didn't have word processors with spell and grammer check, huh?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

nevertheless, my short answer would be of course I respect the idea that the people have powers.

not the Sheriff, nor any other elected official, necessarily, but the people.

I will say that part where powers are/were being 'delegated' to the United States implies that the Government itself, all levels of it, are the recipients of power that are not inherently its own. which means that ultimately, they have no real power other than what is gifted to them.

and that the source of the power, which is probably people, or a person, is not under any compunction to cede power to anyone. but its reasonable that they should hold it for themselves.

especially considering that people spend most of their day working out ways to acquire the power for themselves.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by michaelbrux
 


That's hysterical. People like you say the same thing about the 9th Amendment, that its "ambiguous". When clear and express language is declared "ambiguous" it isn't a problem with the writing, it is a comprehension problem of the reader.

The 10th Amendment is in regards to the state, making clear what power does not belong to the state belongs to the people. The 9th Amendment is in regards to the people. I understand that when these express Amendments come off as "ambiguous" it is difficult to understand that, but this is the simple meaning of these two Amendments.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


possibly it is. but ambiguous and poorly written, by modern standards, it is.

but that's besides the point i was trying to make...

what i'm trying to say is that the US Government was gifted, delegated, all of its powers from the people and if the people have those powers which they claim then it is not necessary that they should have to get them from the Government.

you are obviously trying to acquire something that is not yours. if you are saying the Government has taken powers from you, it would be fair for you to list them and explain how they got them.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by michaelbrux
reply to post by frazzle
 


its not a big deal. the whole world is concerned about the United States at present. It's probably horrifying to watch a Hyper Power become stronger.

but the fact is that the US, both externally and internally, manages itself quite well.

I suppose a mob can be assembled to take down this Giant, more like Titan if you ask me, but that would be little more than the senseless violence and abuse of power some people are claiming to be concerned about, wouldn't it?

so...I suppose everyone's gonna have to just come to terms with themselves and hopefully level heads prevail.

if you suffer from Envy, I don't think you'll make it.


No, the US is becoming weaker, economically, morally and spiritually and even physically. That's what's horrifying to watch. The only thing your leaders are managing to do well is blowing up buildings, killing huge numbers of sheep and goat herders, wedding parties and a few mothers nursing the next generation of "terrorists" for weak minded Americans to fear.

But a mob of sheriffs? A posse of over 3,000 county sheriffs plus their deputies plus the volunteers all working together to put the would-be Giants back in their rightful place? Whoa, that would be a sight to behold!!



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by michaelbrux
I find this sentence ambiguous and complicated. to bad the founders didn't have word processors with spell and grammer check, huh?


Which; mine or the 10th Amendment?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


nevertheless, my short answer would be of course I respect the idea that the people have powers.

not the Sheriff, nor any other elected official, necessarily, but the people.


We should start here then. If all political power is held inherently by Individuals and through free association become the People; then through such body form a government, that government only exists because the People so delegated their inherent political power to do so.

If than, through the course of such a political body, the People decide that they wish to have an elected officer of the Peace, they so delegated that authority.


I will say that part where powers are/were being 'delegated' to the United States implies that the Government itself, all levels of it, are the recipients of power that are not inherently its own. which means that ultimately, they have no real power other than what is gifted to them.


If you mean by "they" those who reside within the bodies of Government (State, Federal, Local, etc) than I agree. There power is limited by the powers so delegated. Governments have no inherent powers.


and that the source of the power, which is probably people, or a person, is not under any compunction to cede power to anyone. but its reasonable that they should hold it for themselves.

especially considering that people spend most of their day working out ways to acquire the power for themselves.


Probably, idea; your words give clear understanding that you do feel that all political power is born from Individuals.
edit on 14-6-2012 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 


that would be a sight to behold.

i'm going to sit by peacefully and watch...i have no desire for this type of animal behavior.

you guys knock yourselves out.

i do know they've done such things all over europe, africa, the middle east and asia in the past...i suppose its a behavioral characteristic that evolution has overlooked.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


not the whole sentence, just the part offset by the comma's. but i've been reading it over and over and it makes more sense to me now.

but yes...i believe all Governments are inanimate objects, like a wall or fence, which possess every power only as a gift from the people.

if additional powers not delegated to the Government, any Government, exist, i believe they abide with the people. not the sheriff.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by michaelbrux
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


possibly it is. but ambiguous and poorly written, by modern standards, it is.


Even so, Federalist Papers #45 (something previously linked by JP) explains it quite clearly -- if one bothered to even read it.

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.


That sums up the 10th Amendment in to the point "modern" language. The only thing to add is that which is not given to the State by its People is held (which was previously affirmed in the 9th Amendment).


what i'm trying to say is that the US Government was gifted, delegated, all of its powers from the people and if the people have those powers which they claim then it is not necessary that they should have to get them from the Government.

you are obviously trying to acquire something that is not yours. if you are saying the Government has taken powers from you, it would be fair for you to list them and explain how they got them.


Here you are weaving quite the web. Spinning haphazardly! The Government was delegated a very specific amount of enumerated powers (as are the State Governments in their Constitutions), but Men, being Man, have taken more than they have been delegated.
We are not trying to claim anything that isn't ours to begin with -- political power.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by michaelbrux
if additional powers not delegated to the Government, any Government, exist, i believe they abide with the people. not the sheriff.


And the People so delegated within their respective Constitutions such authority to a sheriff. This is why I am not understanding you here. You agree to one but seriously have a problem with the delegated powers -- which are no different than the delegated powers to create legislation in the Legislative; or to administer such legislation in the Executive; or to view with impartiality and prudence such legislation in the Judiciary -- yet you have this stumbling block with a sheriff.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


the difference between the State Government and Federal Government is quite small.

I don't see that preferring one over the other is useful at all. Actually, I'd prefer that the Feds go mad with power before the states, being that the latter is much closer to me.

ultimately, all i'm really concerned with is my ability to continue to manufacture and possess advanced weapons systems and space-time concepts and get paid for them.

you guys can argue about the other stuff all you want.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by michaelbrux
 


i do know they've done such things all over europe, africa, the middle east and asia in the past...

What, they all have county sheriffs, too, and constitutions and cool stuff like that?

Off the top of your head, who's your county sheriff? Does he do a good job at whatever he does? Do you know what he does?



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by michaelbrux
 





possibly it is. but ambiguous and poorly written, by modern standards, it is.


Would your sentence just quoted fairly represent "modern standards" and is this what you believe is well written sentence structure?




you are obviously trying to acquire something that is not yours.


I am defending the rule of law, of which you've made perfectly clear you have nothing but disdain for.




if you are saying the Government has taken powers from you, it would be fair for you to list them and explain how they got them.


I am saying the federal government has way overreached their scope of jurisdiction, and that what people used to know as a matter of course, due to the kind of indoctrination called education that you fairly represent, people no longer know that they have the authority and power to file a verified complaint against any unlawful actions made by people posing under color of law, which includes local, state, and federal. Filing this verified complaint - under penalty of perjury - forces a Sheriff to arrest the one accused of a crime. If it is a federal FBI agent who has overstepped their bounds and in doing so trampled upon an individual right, then this is a crime, punishable by imprisonment after conviction.

Few LEO's today even know this, and fewer still are the people who know this. If the DEA, or the EPA overstep their boundaries and trample over a persons rights, there is a course for redress of grievance and remedy available for that victim. It begins by filing a verified complaint signed under penalty of perjury that a crime, or crimes have been committed. It will be the Sheriff who arrests these criminals. No amount of posturing by the federal government can change this. No amount of poorly crafted rhetoric by some dude who claims to be in the know will change this.

If the goddamned president of the United States of America decided to use that office to pursue their own private beliefs that they are above the law and beyond reproach, all it takes is a simple verified complaint - signed under penalty of perjury - by the victim of that presidents criminality to bring justice in, to seek a redress of grievance, and to find a remedy. This means it would be a Sheriff arresting that goddamned president and all of this would be wholly and perfectly Constitutional...not that you would know since much of that Constitution is "ambiguous" to you and "poorly written" by "modern standards"

Maybe if the Constitution refused to begin sentences with a capital letter, maybe if the Constitution insisted on writing a plethora of fragment sentences, and perhaps if the Constitution were written in acronymistic ways, such as beginning the First Amendment with WTF?!?
Dude, Congress can't just willy nilly make laws that establish a religion or prevent the free exercise of religion, or prevent speech, or press...I mean Dude, lol, try that crap and the SWHTF! Maybe by that standard, you could better comprehend the Constitution.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


i do have a problem with it. to me it appears as if some of you have decided the Sheriff is a preferable lord and master.

i'm not giving the Sheriff any such authority. Obama is from Hawaii...my Sheriff lives a few miles from me.

what is better 1 dictator 1000 miles from here or 1 dictator 5 miles from me?



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by michaelbrux
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


i do have a problem with it. to me it appears as if some of you have decided the Sheriff is a preferable lord and master.

i'm not giving the Sheriff any such authority. Obama is from Hawaii...my Sheriff lives a few miles from me.

what is better 1 dictator 1000 miles from here or 1 dictator 5 miles from me?


And I haven't seen anyone here advocate that a sheriff has more authority than to be an officer of the peace. A conference of sheriffs discussing their Constitutional Authority isn't some secret society meeting in the back room on how they can overthrow the United States or the President. Their duties are spelled out in their respective states and chiefly it is to defend and uphold not only their States' Constitutions but that of the United States of America.

It is fine that you have not given such authority, but you are not the only person within your respective state. If you wish to revoke such authority, than petition the People and the Government to have it done. Until then, the authority is so granted.

But your statement that "Obama is from Hawaii" clearly shows your underlying issue at hand; and that is the sheriff challenging what President Obama has claimed. He has every authority to do so (however idiotic and futile; he is applying his Constitutional Authority to uphold the Law) it may seem and if the People that elected such a sheriff have issue with it, his election next time around will be indicative of his actions.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 


i had to look it up because i couldn't remember his name, but his name is Mark C. Curran Jr.

and no, I don't want him running Lake County, Illinois like his personal fiefdom.

and no, I don't have anything against the man or his office.

I've was born here, married here and lived here all my life, with the exception of brief periods during the wars.

but I don't look to him for leadership or comfort.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by michaelbrux
 





possibly it is. but ambiguous and poorly written, by modern standards, it is.


Would your sentence just quoted fairly represent "modern standards" and is this what you believe is well written sentence structure?




you are obviously trying to acquire something that is not yours.


I am defending the rule of law, of which you've made perfectly clear you have nothing but disdain for.




if you are saying the Government has taken powers from you, it would be fair for you to list them and explain how they got them.


I am saying the federal government has way overreached their scope of jurisdiction, and that what people used to know as a matter of course, due to the kind of indoctrination called education that you fairly represent, people no longer know that they have the authority and power to file a verified complaint against any unlawful actions made by people posing under color of law, which includes local, state, and federal. Filing this verified complaint - under penalty of perjury - forces a Sheriff to arrest the one accused of a crime. If it is a federal FBI agent who has overstepped their bounds and in doing so trampled upon an individual right, then this is a crime, punishable by imprisonment after conviction.

Few LEO's today even know this, and fewer still are the people who know this. If the DEA, or the EPA overstep their boundaries and trample over a persons rights, there is a course for redress of grievance and remedy available for that victim. It begins by filing a verified complaint signed under penalty of perjury that a crime, or crimes have been committed. It will be the Sheriff who arrests these criminals. No amount of posturing by the federal government can change this. No amount of poorly crafted rhetoric by some dude who claims to be in the know will change this.

If the goddamned president of the United States of America decided to use that office to pursue their own private beliefs that they are above the law and beyond reproach, all it takes is a simple verified complaint - signed under penalty of perjury - by the victim of that presidents criminality to bring justice in, to seek a redress of grievance, and to find a remedy. This means it would be a Sheriff arresting that goddamned president and all of this would be wholly and perfectly Constitutional...not that you would know since much of that Constitution is "ambiguous" to you and "poorly written" by "modern standards"

Maybe if the Constitution refused to begin sentences with a capital letter, maybe if the Constitution insisted on writing a plethora of fragment sentences, and perhaps if the Constitution were written in acronymistic ways, such as beginning the First Amendment with WTF?!?
Dude, Congress can't just willy nilly make laws that establish a religion or prevent the free exercise of religion, or prevent speech, or press...I mean Dude, lol, try that crap and the SWHTF! Maybe by that standard, you could better comprehend the Constitution.



so you think the Federal government has overreached its mandate and your answer is to prop up the Sheriffs as a counterbalance or perhaps a replacement?

why not give the Townships more power to govern and take armed men out of the equation entirely; that's the oldest form of Government in the US? probably because that would be just as unwieldy as turning to the cities, which employ a corporate force.

I see indoctrination on your side as well.

What I see is an effort to create something that is lawful and culturally acceptable but can be managed as a private army that can rule the people by intimidation and violence.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by michaelbrux
 


I don't need to "prop up Sheriff's" they have a Constitutional mandate of which you keep pretending they don't. It is way past clear by now that what you advocate is a rejection of the rule of law and favor some sort of chaos.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by michaelbrux
reply to post by frazzle
 


i had to look it up because i couldn't remember his name, but his name is Mark C. Curran Jr.

and no, I don't want him running Lake County, Illinois like his personal fiefdom.

and no, I don't have anything against the man or his office.

I've was born here, married here and lived here all my life, with the exception of brief periods during the wars.

but I don't look to him for leadership or comfort.



Good, he isn't there to provide leadership or comfort. He's there, as so many people have already told you, to keep the peace. Whether or not this Curran Jr. guy does that I wouldn't know and apparently neither do you.

But you seem confused. First you say sheriffs should stick to feeding people in their jails, like they're some kind of glorified housekeepers, and then you say they're running their counties like dictators. Man, you're all over the map so much you could have a dozen sheriffs and not know it.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 09:08 PM
link   
What I also think is that the reason no one speaks about Militias is because Militia cannot be efficiently or effectively controlled or contained by any lawful mechanism. Sheriffs can.

Militias are also a Constitutional Right of the People, almost without regard to any level of Government, but the idea of them is horrifying and no one is bringing that particular line item from the Bill of Rights into this discussion.

The Sheriff concept is one where America's enemies feel they can maintain some legal control over the populace.





new topics
 
69
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join