Western US Sheriffs gather to discuss their Constitutional authority.

page: 16
69
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by BobM88
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?


Yes, that is correct. The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness does not exist because Thomas Jefferson declared it so. Jefferson observed these laws and described them, just the same as gravity did not come into existence once Newton wrote down the mathematical equation, through Newton's observations he was able to effectively describe gravity.




posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 10:13 PM
link   
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!



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
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?



Now I understand this...you're not saying the Constitution says a word about County Sheriffs...you're saying the 10th amendment empowers the state and the people to choose to have one.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by BobM88

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
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?



Now I understand this...you're not saying the Constitution says a word about County Sheriffs...you're saying the 10th amendment empowers the state and the people to choose to have one.


Correct. The power to create the office of a sheriff isn't a federally enumerated power and thus is deferred to the States and the People respectively. Just as if the States want to have an office for Legislative Jester if they so want.

It was a question designed to show that there is Federally, a constitutional authority to create such an office in the means that it wasn't restricted; therefore, wholly Constitutional at all levels in respective states that have done so.

Furthermore, if a State does not have it in their Constitution that the People cannot create such an office; counties, towns and municipalities, as way of the 10th Amendment still, would be able to create the office if the People see so fit to do so (the later half of the 10th Amendment)

Post Script:
The only thing I would be careful of is your use of empower. The 10th Amendment empowers nothing. It recognizes that such power is held by the States and the People respectively.
edit on 14-6-2012 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 10:39 PM
link   
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!
edit on 14-6-2012 by BobM88 because: added text



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 10:46 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 10:53 PM
link   

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
edit on 14-6-2012 by BobM88 because: Yes, I was wrong...it was from a 2001 interview, not recently.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by BobM88
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...


Yeah that could open a powder keg of sorts and I will leave it this: Such thoughts are not limited to President Obama but for nearly all who are entrapped within the confines of limited Government. John Adams didn't like that people spoke freely -- albeit negatively about his administration -- and signed the Alien and Sedition Acts to name just one other and we can name many after that that.

For now we should aim to bring the train back on track regarding sheriffs and constitutional authority.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 07:41 AM
link   

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.
edit on 15-6-2012 by Snake Plisskin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   
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.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 11:07 AM
link   

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!
edit on 15-6-2012 by SilentKillah because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 11:07 AM
link   
Double post... deleted.
edit on 15-6-2012 by SilentKillah because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   

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.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 11:43 AM
link   

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".
edit on 15-6-2012 by frazzle because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 12:12 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.


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.
edit on 15-6-2012 by SilentKillah because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   
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?



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 02:02 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   
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!



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 02:24 PM
link   

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.

edit on 15-6-2012 by SilentKillah because: (no reason given)
edit on 15-6-2012 by SilentKillah because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   
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?



edit on 15-6-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
69
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join