Western US Sheriffs gather to discuss their Constitutional authority.

reply to post by frazzle


Sheriffs are glorified housekeepers. I don't see any Sheriffs fighting in the War. They shuffle papers and pass out boxes of juice and milk to crackheads.

You would like for them to obtain dictatorial authority at the expense of the President, apparently.

That's what you wanted their 'gathering' to be about right?

anyway, the people are Supreme. The Feds and the States and Counties do what they are told to do and they have no problem with this.

reply to post by michaelbrux


Militias have nothing to do with this thread. Do you not understand how desperate you appear at this point? Your pathetic grasping at straws is tragically sad.

reply to post by michaelbrux

I don't see any Sheriffs fighting in the War.

You don't see express language clearly written on paper either. Maybe Sheriff's are too "ambiguous" for your eyesight. If myopia is your problem, fix the problem and learn to see the world as it is, not how you wish it to be.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


they have as much to do with this thread as the 10th Amendment people keep citing.

you don't want it to be a part of the thread because you want people to continually look to the state for protection and not themselves.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


i did see it.

perhaps you aren't reading very closely.

go back and try again.

Originally posted by michaelbrux
reply to post by frazzle

 

Sheriffs are glorified housekeepers. I don't see any Sheriffs fighting in the War. They shuffle papers and pass out boxes of juice and milk to crackheads.

You would like for them to obtain dictatorial authority at the expense of the President, apparently.

That's what you wanted their 'gathering' to be about right?

anyway, the people are Supreme. The Feds and the States and Counties do what they are told to do and they have no problem with this.

What I don't want to see them participating in are cocked up raids on any of those SUPREME peaceful people who have harmed NO one.

healthfreedoms.org...

Agencies taking part in the ongoing investigation include the U.S. Food and Drug Administration; the California Franchise Tax Board; the California Department of Food and Agriculture’s Milk and Dairy Food Safety Branch and the department’s Division of Measurement Standards; the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office; the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health; the Ventura County Sheriff’s Department , the Ventura County Department of Public Health; the Los Angeles Police Department and the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety.

reply to post by michaelbrux


No they do not have as much to do with this thread as the 10th Amendment does. The Sheriff is a duly elected position and cannot exist without express grant, the right to keep and bear arms and form well regulated militias, on the other hand, needs no express grant. This post I am replying to only undermines the next post you made below this one. Looking at words on a paper is reading, I suppose, but if you cannot comprehend those "ambiguous" words, it is a fragile sort of reading. Are you suggesting I "go back and read again" the Constitution so I can find the "ambiguity" you have found? Is that your deal? Have I been to clear and express in my understanding of the Constitution and now I need to "go back and read it again" so I can be less clear and unable to express its meaning?

You're a real piece of work, sport.

Perfect...
Then we can just arrest them all at once.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by michaelbrux

 

No they do not have as much to do with this thread as the 10th Amendment does. The Sheriff is a duly elected position and cannot exist without express grant, the right to keep and bear arms and form well regulated militias, on the other hand, needs no express grant. This post I am replying to only undermines the next post you made below this one. Looking at words on a paper is reading, I suppose, but if you cannot comprehend those "ambiguous" words, it is a fragile sort of reading. Are you suggesting I "go back and read again" the Constitution so I can find the "ambiguity" you have found? Is that your deal? Have I been to clear and express in my understanding of the Constitution and now I need to "go back and read it again" so I can be less clear and unable to express its meaning?

You're a real piece of work, sport.

yeah, and without the people and their right to bear arms the Sheriff doesn't exist, nor do the Feds and by extension the Law or your point.

reply to post by michaelbrux


If I understand what you're saying correctly...basically the Sheriff holds no power not given to him by the people, and its better to look to yourself for protection than to any Local, State, or Federal agents? I'm not here to argue with you, I am just trying to figure out if that's what you mean.

Originally posted by michaelbrux
yeah, and without the people and their right to bear arms the Sheriff doesn't exist, nor do the Feds and by extension the Law or your point.

The "Feds" are not the creators of Law. Law exists, just as our right to defend ourselves, regardless of any government body. By your reasoning (or lack thereof), if the Federal Government didn't exist, than we could not bear arms, or speak freely, or choose our religion, or be free Men....

Sheriffs only exists because they were created and such is only a construct of the Government.

Either you are intentionally becoming more obtuse as this thread goes on or willfully ignorant and unwilling to comprehend.

reply to post by michaelbrux

yeah, and without the people and their right to bear arms the Sheriff doesn't exist, nor do the Feds and by extension the Law or your point.

Again you profoundly and grossly misunderstand law. The right of the people to keep and bear arms does not exist so that Sheriff's and "Feds" may exist, the right to keep and bear arms exists because government agents like Sheriff's and "Feds" exist.

The Sheriff is not some mystical savior, merely an elected official tasked with law enforcement. As long as that Sheriff is doing their job, the need of the people to keep and bear arms is a dormant need. Long before the People take up arms against criminal government officials, there is a Constitutional process of redress of grievance and seeking remedy. Long before the People take up arms against corrupt "Feds", there are Sheriff's and State Attorney Generals and Judges in place to handle the problem first. If those Sheriff's, State Attorney Generals, and Judges fail the People, then and only then, will it be time for People to take up arms against corrupt government. We are no where near that point, and it is interesting you are so eager to encourage people in that direction while dismissing the notion of due process.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

The "Feds" are not the creators of Law. Law exists, just as our right to defend ourselves, regardless of any government body. [snip]

I don't quite follow this logic...don't get me wrong, I don't like big government. But, isn't the Constitution a "Fed" document? If not, what is it?

Originally posted by Juggernog
The socialists already seem to be a step ahead of them.

DEMOCRATS REVIVE BILL TO STRIP SHERIFFS OF POWER

Link

Democrats in Delaware have resuscitated a legislation plan that would declare sheriffs in the state have no power to make arrests after a GOP proposal on the dispute was abruptly withdrawn by sponsors. Unlike police chiefs, who are hired by government officials, sheriffs are elected by the people and historically have been recognized as a highest-ranking law enforcement officer in a county. In Delaware, the office of sheriff is a constitutionally created position similar to the secretary of state or attorney general and demands, “The sheriffs shall be conservators of the peace within the counties . . . in which they reside.” The initial legislation, HB 290, was proposed at the behest of Sussex County officials who took issue with their sheriff, Jeff Christopher, who is attempting to restore the office to its constitutional role. The bill stated “‘Police officer’ as used in this code shall not include sheriffs and sheriff deputies,”

Sheriffs are not police officers. They are officers of the law. Police officers are corporate "policy" enforcers of corporate statutes and actually do not have lawful powers of arrest. The bill will not strip Sheriffs of their authority. They will still be the highest authority in their county if they are not ignorant of their role. Unfortunately most are.

It is nice to see Sheriff Mack's message making some headway...

i'm not becoming more obtuse...you are searching for flaws in my ability to type responses.

when in a thread like this one, i always remember Jude 1:16...

i've been here for awhile now, but the OKC/Miami game is more interesting than this...i'll see ya, wouldn't want to be ya.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I agree...the point of the 2nd amendment wasn't so we could go hunting. Hunting was just a chore in those days like taking out the trash is now. If you didn't hunt, you didn't have meat...My understanding of the 2nd amendement is that it was to keep the populace armed to prevent a tyrannical government from forcing the people to do it's will.

reply to post by BobM88

I don't quite follow this logic...don't get me wrong, I don't like big government. But, isn't the Constitution a "Fed" document? If not, what is it?

What OBE is saying is that a piece of paper is not law nor can it grant anyone the authority to make law. Law exists with or without governments, and in terms of government legislating and enforcing law, that law is rooted in the unalienable rights of individuals. Legislation is not law, at best it is merely evidence of law, at worst it is unlawful.

Originally posted by BobM88

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

The "Feds" are not the creators of Law. Law exists, just as our right to defend ourselves, regardless of any government body. [snip]

I don't quite follow this logic...don't get me wrong, I don't like big government. But, isn't the Constitution a "Fed" document? If not, what is it?

Law preexists Government -- Federal or otherwise. Government can legislate, but it isn't Law. The right to defend oneself (or bear arms) doesn't need a Constitution or a Sheriff or some political to declare it so, it just is.

Just as a sheriff only exists because it was created so -- there are no sheriffs otherwise. Sheriffs only exist because they were delegated by the People to be created.

JPZ is more eloquent on the differences of Law and legislation though. I believe he has a few threads where he discusses this. **I tip my hat for clarifying it JP**

Jean Paul Zodeaux and ownbestenemy: That makes sense, thanks for taking the time to clarify that for me, I appreciate it!

I'm going to go out on a limb...and I'm probably taking this thread OT...but this is what is meant by inalienable rights in the Decleration I assume? They are just natural rights of life?

An interesting take on a sheriff's role from December of last year.

OREGON SHERIFF GIL GILBERTSON CONTINUES STAND AGAINST FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

politicalvelcraft.org...