Western US Sheriffs gather to discuss their Constitutional authority., page 16

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

---

Thank you, you have a knack for explaining something complex in easy to understand analogies. If you're not a teacher, you should've been!

reply to post by ownbestenemy

---

It doesn't "Empower" the States or the People but rather it limits the Federal government? Or, perhaps it says that the Fed does NOT have this authority, and since they do not, its left to the States and to the People?

By NOT saying this right belongs to the Feds, or to the State, the People can choose to do so themselves.

Less is more....call me naive..or just plain stupid, but its brilliantly constructed!

Originally posted by BobM88
reply to post by ownbestenemy

---

It doesn't "Empower" the States or the People but rather it limits the Federal government? Or, perhaps it says that the Fed does NOT have this authority, and since they do not, its left to the States and to the People?

Yes. The powers granted to the Federal Government are enumerated within Article I, Section 8. Restrictions are in Section 9 and in Article I, Section 10, limits to the States.

You have to remember, the Constitution isn't a granting document -- rather it is a limiting document. What has not been granted is recognized as belonging to the States and the People.

Of course, through interpretation of such powers granted such as "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes", they are expanded beyond their initial scope and are a point of contention among a lot of people.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

[snip]
You have to remember, the Constitution isn't a granting document -- rather it is a limiting document. What has not been granted is recognized as belonging to the States and the People.
[snip]

At the risk of opening a powderkeg, I do recall an article back in 2009 about the Obama administration bemoaning that the Constitution said more about what the Fed can't do than what it can...

"To that extent, as radical as I think the people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted it the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf."

Quote from American Thinker

Originally posted by michaelbrux
reply to post by Snake Plisskin

---

I'm probably younger and less experienced and knowledgeable than you.

Do you know what a Government is?

A Government is a Barrier, not much different than a wall or fence. just more advanced.

The only people that could possibly want it altered in strange ways are the ones that are outside and inhibited by the barrier so that they can destroy the ones that are protected by it or for who's benefit it was constructed.

Ok I see you point of view.

The way I look at it is its just people who want to see their unalienable rights protected. Religious people and patriotic people do not see government as the thing that actually grants them rights but that rights are merely listed down for your benefit and that god (whichever one you worship) is the one that created this world for his children to divide up and enjoy and this forms the common law where everyone is equal to each other, (as brothers and sisters) but all are under the authority of god. (the father) God-given Unalienable rights are rights you have at birth and can't be taken away or granted by government since you can't be granted something that you already have.

I don't think it is about trying to radically alter anything but to merely preserve the things they are very passionate about. Is discussing it really all that dangerous?

Whether there are enemies trying to change things are real or imagined is another topic. There could be real radicals out there hoping to bring anarchy and take advantage of weaknesses but honestly I don't think 'oath keepers' are the bad guys here imo.

It's more a case of "we want to be left alone in peace please. And don't want to be treated like criminals for exercising our rights" ...than... "lets bring in changes that destroy the system to weaken the nation".
Maybe this site has made us all too paranoid and fearful. lol

Remember that merely obeying law doesn't = justice. There are many laws made that can be unjust and that people will break them to show they do not accept that to break them is harming anyone. (The Prohibition era?) This is why discussion is important. People who break laws which are considered unjust by society; and which harm nobody, are not the same as hardcore criminals that are dangerous people. If no crime is committed and no harm is done to property or other people, then they can not be put into the dangerous basket. The media likes to twist the image of reality to make an interesting story in order to make something more shocking than it really is to get more money. An example would be emphasis of things like "gun crime" (calling it gun crime instead of just crime) when trying to push for gun control laws. But when laws are brought in to control it, the media no longer focuses on that (because they no longer need to hype it now) and moves to other issues almost as if the media is manipulated by political forces in their reporting to help serve an agenda, which is wrong. It should be unbiased reporting without givng opinion either way - only raw facts.

I don't know if anyone is paying much attention to this thread anymore or if anyone caught the link I posted a page or so back, but one sheriff has done a lot of research into the question of how the federal government has been able to override so much of the authority of the sheriff's depts and ...

Finding the answer is one of five tasks he set himself, which he lists as follows:

1. Identify true jurisdictional authority of the Federal Government
2. Examine and expose how the reserved powers of the States are usurped by federal agencies writing and enforcing their self-imposed codes and regulations
3. Examine how the health, safety, and welfare of the Citizens within the State are undermined
4. Provide a positive and equitable solution
5. Coordinate with like-minded Sheriffs to take a formal stance on these issues.

Here are a couple articles he's written on the matter.

1 - Unraveling Federal Jurisdiction within a State, Nov. 8, 2011
2 - Federal Jurisdiction Within a State: Posted by US-Observer, Oct. 8, 2011 (10 pages)

politicalvelcraft.org...

Its probably worth looking at.

Originally posted by LifeIsPeculiar
reply to post by SilentKillah

---

Better yet... re-introducing wolves to their former natural habitat after humans killed them off and ran them away?

Stupid idea of the millenium...
Those critters endanger people and decimate livestock. They were exterminated for good reasons. Our government has shown many signs of insanity.

Like I said... take an upper level ecology course.

Before the wolves were re-introduced, the elk population was ramped, which means that they over-consumed the land causing a high potential for erosion of the soil.

Additionally, cottonwood and willow tree growth was haulted due to the over-grazing.

The wolves manage elk population, thus keeping Yellowstone as beautiful as it is.

They have NOT been a threat to humans at all. Bears are more of a threat than wolves... are you serious?

What cattle exactly? I didn't realize farmers owned Federal land in Yellowstone...

I swear... people need education... it's why this world is going to crap!

Originally posted by frazzle

Originally posted by michaelbrux
reply to post by frazzle

---

"I've worked with the FBI, I've worked with the DEA, I've worked with ATF, NOT ONE of those agencies has stepped foot in Montrose County unless their first stop was my office," Montrose County sheriff Rick Dunlap said.

"The sheriff’s expressed that it is important that they work alongside federal agencies, one example being the fight against wildfires."

Exactly as I thought. The Sheriffs from their own mouths are telling you that the Feds respect the office of Sheriff.

Sheriffs respect the roles of the Feds.

There is no conflict, no matter how much you want there to be.

"Their first stop was in my office." Notice he doesn't say whether he asked to see if their paperwork was in order before they made the second step. No official will admit they did not in a crowd of people if they are hoping for re-election. And how quick he was to mention the fires which are the main concern of the people right now.

You're really reaching for conflict here. You want so badly for there to be more that you're now questioning the Sheriff doing his job correctly.

Quick to mention fires?.. this is simply a small synopsis that a reporter took notes on. Get mad at the reporter.

Was mad at the Feds and supporting the Sheriff... now he's against the Sheriff... Lol.

Originally posted by SilentKillah

Originally posted by frazzle

Originally posted by michaelbrux
reply to post by frazzle

---

"I've worked with the FBI, I've worked with the DEA, I've worked with ATF, NOT ONE of those agencies has stepped foot in Montrose County unless their first stop was my office," Montrose County sheriff Rick Dunlap said.

"The sheriff’s expressed that it is important that they work alongside federal agencies, one example being the fight against wildfires."

Exactly as I thought. The Sheriffs from their own mouths are telling you that the Feds respect the office of Sheriff.

Sheriffs respect the roles of the Feds.

There is no conflict, no matter how much you want there to be.

"Their first stop was in my office." Notice he doesn't say whether he asked to see if their paperwork was in order before they made the second step. No official will admit they did not in a crowd of people if they are hoping for re-election. And how quick he was to mention the fires which are the main concern of the people right now.

You're really reaching for conflict here. You want so badly for there to be more that you're now questioning the Sheriff doing his job correctly.

Quick to mention fires?.. this is simply a small synopsis that a reporter took notes on. Get mad at the reporter.

Was mad at the Feds and supporting the Sheriff... now he's against the Sheriff... Lol.

Note that I said this was how it was reported, not necessarily how it happened. I probably wasn't clear enough about my meaning on that. But yes, those fires are pretty terrible and that's just one of a sheriff's first duties.

Not looking for conflict, I'm in total support of any sheriff who works with the people of his county and like I said, lets wait for them to speak for themselves.

ETA: but it is true that any official who must rely on election to hold office are very careful about how they express themselves. Its just a plain old fact and has nothing to do with "seeking a conflict".

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.

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.

Just so you know... the DEA and Coast Guard purposely overstep their boundaries and hand the person a complaint form when they're done. I've worked with both.

Perfect example... both have the legal authority to enter a boat suspected of drug trafficking. They are then only supposed to look for drugs and persons in spaces large enough to fit a person. I don't know the exact dimensions, but it's fairly large. If they suspect drugs, they will not ask you and still will look in places like drawers etc. If they find small drugs or other items and suspect that you may be a large dealer or importer, they will tear your boat up searching. They don't care if they find anything or not. If they don't find anything, they will hand you a complaint form and let you go. If they do find something, they THEN go get a warrant allowing what they've done.

They do this purposely because they can track and look out for those that may actually be drug importers as they will not file the complaint. Those that do file the complaint, they know they made a mistake and will ignore them next time.

I just stated that for you since you mentioned the DEA... like I said... I've worked closely with them while in the Air Force doing drug interdiction.

Originally posted by frazzle
Note that I said this was how it was reported, not necessarily how it happened. I probably wasn't clear enough about my meaning on that. But yes, those fires are pretty terrible and that's just one of a sheriff's first duties.

Not looking for conflict, I'm in total support of any sheriff who works with the people of his county and like I said, lets wait for them to speak for themselves.

ETA: but it is true that any official who must rely on election to hold office are very careful about how they express themselves. Its just a plain old fact and has nothing to do with "seeking a conflict".

Alright... I can respect that response.

reply to post by SilentKillah

---

Just so you know... the DEA and Coast Guard purposely overstep their boundaries and hand the person a complaint form when they're done. I've worked with both.

Just so you know...a "complaint form" is not a verified complaint. The "complaint form" you are talking about is akin to a restaurant handing out "complaint forms" to their customers to ensure better customer service. A verified complaint is a criminal or civil complaint signed under penalty of perjury that the complaintant bringing the charges against the accused is telling the truth. Ignore the "complaint form" and if a DEA agent or a Coast Guard officer or serviceman has acted criminally, file a verified complaint of which you will be required to sign that complaint under penalty of perjury so make damn sure the accusations you bring forth are true.

Your post only underscores my post you replied to, and that is that so few people even know, let alone understand that there is such a thing as a verified complaint which should never be confused with any innocuous complaint form. The difference between the two - had you read the post you quoted in its entirety - is that a verified complaint bringing criminal charges against someone forces the Sheriff to arrest the accused. You don't seriously believe that DEA agents and the Coast Guard are handing out official verified complaint forms inviting people to have them arrested, do you?

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by SilentKillah

---

Just so you know... the DEA and Coast Guard purposely overstep their boundaries and hand the person a complaint form when they're done. I've worked with both.

Just so you know...a "complaint form" is not a verified complaint. The "complaint form" you are talking about is akin to a restaurant handing out "complaint forms" to their customers to ensure better customer service. A verified complaint is a criminal or civil complaint signed under penalty of perjury that the complaintant bringing the charges against the accused is telling the truth. Ignore the "complaint form" and if a DEA agent or a Coast Guard officer or serviceman has acted criminally, file a verified complaint of which you will be required to sign that complaint under penalty of perjury so make damn sure the accusations you bring forth are true.

Your post only underscores my post you replied to, and that is that so few people even know, let alone understand that there is such a thing as a verified complaint which should never be confused with any innocuous complaint form. The difference between the two - had you read the post you quoted in its entirety - is that a verified complaint bringing criminal charges against someone forces the Sheriff to arrest the accused. You don't seriously believe that DEA agents and the Coast Guard are handing out official verified complaint forms inviting people to have them arrested, do you?

You seriously think that you know all law. Why aren't you a lawyer or a judge?

I'm not saying that you have no clue what you're talking about... because you do for the most part, but I am saying that sometimes you should seriously listen to those who have first hand experience in matters. Instead you fight back at anyone that quotes you.

They do hand out verified complaint forms. The DEA agents/Coasties (n the instance of Coast Guard their leadership often appear as commanding officers) appear in front of a Federal judge to justify their offenses. Most cases are left as justified the judge directs that agency to repair the boat at the cost of the agency.

I've said my piece... of course you'll have another come back that I'm just going to ignore. Believe me... don't believe me... I was simply informing you of the process of these two agencies. I'm not saying it is what they do is legal, but it's something that happens multiple times every year.

reply to post by SilentKillah

---

I'm saying that you are clueless and they are not handing you a verified complaint and you are not signing anything under penalty of perjury. Further, when one files a verified complaint they go to their local Sheriff to do so and the matter then is a state matter not a federal one.

I've had enough of you people attempting to post subterfuge in an effort to dismiss the weight and force of an actual verified complaint. Your motives posting the crap you did are questionable and they were obviously not an effort to help people deal with corrupt government officials. It is best if you do ignore me, and you should have done that from the get go.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse! Deny Ignorance!

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by SilentKillah

---

I'm saying that you are clueless and they are not handing you a verified complaint and you are not signing anything under penalty of perjury. Further, when one files a verified complaint they go to their local Sheriff to do so and the matter then is a state matter not a federal one.

I've had enough of you people attempting to post subterfuge in an effort to dismiss the weight and force of an actual verified complaint. Your motives posting the crap you did are questionable and they were obviously not an effort to help people deal with corrupt government officials. It is best if you do ignore me, and you should have done that from the get go.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse! Deny Ignorance!

You do realize that this occurs in Federally owned water right? They wouldn't go to any county Sheriff.

Now I get that you're talking about procedures for state matters... I get it. If the DEA tears up your house without a warrant... that's a different matter. or if they raid your boat that's sitting in a lake. I'm sure it would go through a different process.

I'm pretty sure that I'm the only one discussing verified complaints.

I didn't know that if we know of a situation that is different from your knowledge of things that we shouldn't voice them.

reply to post by SilentKillah

---

If you get that, then what the hell was your point to begin with, other than to cast doubt on the very real and authoritative process of filing a verified complaint. The knowledge I am trying to share with people is not common knowledge at all, and when people come in and make irrelevant points that have the effect of dismissing this knowledge, this is suspect.

The best and surest way to get government back on its Constitutional purpose is by arresting and prosecuting those who have been acting under color of law. When the people start doing this on a regular basis, securing convictions of corrupt government officials, then and only then will the corruption begin to wane. What is the purposes of obfuscating this with irrelevant points?

Edit to Add:

Since I have been only discussing the matter of verified complaints in relation to this thread which is in regards to U.S. Sheriff's, again, I ask, what the hell was your point and how did the "knowledge" you provide help anyone other than corrupt government officials?

Ron Paul: My Revolution is Not Over: (Give \'em hell Ron!)
  Posted 16 days ago with 81 member flags

Paul Delegates Claim 5 State Plurality & Will Nominate Ron Paul From Floor
  Posted 14 days ago with 55 member flags

Lawyers for Ron Paul threaten to arrest Romney in tampa
  Posted 15 days ago with 44 member flags

Don\'t attack Iran, Russia starkly warns Israel and U.S.
  Posted 2 days ago with 43 member flags

Canada closes embassy in Iran, expels Iranian diplomats
  Posted 4 days ago with 38 member flags

TEXAS Billboard: \'SEALs Removed One Threat To America, Remove The Other In November\'
  Posted 17 days ago with 33 member flags

Israel is thinking of using EMP / nuclear weapons against Iran
  Posted 1 days ago with 28 member flags

DNC Proceeds With 2-Hour Islamic \'Jumah\' Prayers After Rejecting Cardinal\'s Blessing (And You Won\'t
  Posted 14 days ago with 24 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: