Western US Sheriffs gather to discuss their Constitutional authority.

Originally posted by navy_vet_stg3
reply to post by michaelbrux

 

Liberty is not "bull crap". I'm all for the Federal Government stepping in and FREEING people from oppression, and adding MORE liberty to people, but when a state decides to add liberty, and the Federal Government becomes an oppressor, we have a problem.

Don't you think the people of any particular state should be able to decide how they want to live, so long as they aren't infringing on someone else's freedoms? Or, do you subscribe to the thought that we should just eliminate states, since they have no real meaning, and just let the Federal Government run everything?

yes, i'm sure he would.....no sarcasm.

If only they could do something about the city police. I have never had a problem with the county sheriffs, it's city and town police that often over step their bounds.

In my county in Indiana, city police have jurisdiction all over the county (and even state) and out number the county police 15 to 1. We are lucky enough to have an ex officer as the mayor.

Since then our police force has doubled and crime has gotten so than it has ever been.

But it's the police I fear more than anyone else.

It's a sad day when one fears the police more than they do the criminal.

Originally posted by muse7
The western slope conservative alliance? Big red flag right there.

I'd rather have the federal government have the final say on everything, instead of a group of sheriffs that are part of a conservative alliance.

The fact that this is a "conservative" labelled group is a concern. This should not be about political allegiance, this should be about restoring the democratic rights of the people to govern themselves WITHOUT a political party leading the charge.

What you'll have here is a group of Conservatives disagreeing with the Democrats, and using their positions as an excuse to flex their own muscles.

I've said it before in discussions about the coming revolutions - America is divided on too many fronts. You are racially divided, politically divided and economically divided. The political division is the most concerning and most volatile across the nation in my opinion. Until you learn to put aside the red and blue flags for the betterment of your entire nation you are destined to head into anarchy.

Even when both groups seem to agree on issues, you stubbornly cheer-lead for your own team, at the detriment of your country. I've seen Democrats and Republicans ignore their own moral opinions on an issue and prefer to call Republicans Nazis and Democrats Communists. It's ridiculously insane.

As an outsider, I'm thankful we don't have the same mindless party zealousness here. In the UK we do have those who are staunchly right or left, but they are an extreme minority. Most people choose who to support based on actual issues and their moral opinions rather than the chanting of a "team".

While I think this kind of proactive group is a good idea, it should not be run on party lines. This should be about the men and women doing that job and respecting the trust that is given to them. As it is now, this will fail to be anything more than another politically driven shambles led by chants of "do what we say, COMMIES!"

reply to post by ObservingTheWorld


Finally, some real (really important) men and women waking up....
Let's hope this trend spreads - The Constitution is our greatest ally - it's our superglue.

I hope this convention inspires a true sense of justice within all of them.

Originally posted by navy_vet_stg3
reply to post by michaelbrux

 

Liberty is not "bull crap". I'm all for the Federal Government stepping in and FREEING people from oppression, and adding MORE liberty to people, but when a state decides to add liberty, and the Federal Government becomes an oppressor, we have a problem.

Don't you think the people of any particular state should be able to decide how they want to live, so long as they aren't infringing on someone else's freedoms? Or, do you subscribe to the thought that we should just eliminate states, since they have no real meaning, and just let the Federal Government run everything?

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.

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.

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?

gay marriage is worth civil war, now? gun laws?

Originally posted by hoochymama
reply to post by michaelbrux

 

So, what do States rights mean to you. If the States dont agree with the Government what do States rights mean anyway.

If thats the case, why not become the US Union instead and get rid of all States Borders and not have any States at all. What is the Point??

edit on 13-6-2012 by hoochymama because: (no reason given)

lets say there are issues between the states and the feds...go to court like everyone else has to.

we need the states, they are more efficient the the feds at making identification cards and keeping public records like birth certificates and marriage licenses.

but there is no such thing as a US Sheriff, and once out of their own county jurisdiction they aren't even Sheriffs anymore.

i don't see any value in telling some random person that filled out a job application and had a good interview or won a popularity contest that he has authority under the Constitution of the United States to keep these people safe...that is madness.

Sheriffs only need to keep their jails clean and have three hot meals a day on the table for the prisoners.

Originally posted by michaelbrux

Originally posted by hoochymama
reply to post by michaelbrux

 

So, what do States rights mean to you. If the States dont agree with the Government what do States rights mean anyway.

If thats the case, why not become the US Union instead and get rid of all States Borders and not have any States at all. What is the Point??

edit on 13-6-2012 by hoochymama because: (no reason given)

lets say there are issues between the states and the feds...go to court like everyone else has to.

Sheriffs only need to keep their jails clean and have three hot meals a day on the table for the prisoners.

Go to court? Been there done that.

Knoxville Journal, pA1 and A6
August 7-13, 1997

SHERIFF BOOTS FEDS FROM HIS COUNTY
by Phil Hamby

www.criminalgovernment.com...

Sheriff Dave Mattis of Big Horn County, Wyoming, said this week that as a result of Case #96-CV099-J, U.S. District Court, District of Wyoming, he now has a written policy that forbids federal officials from entering his county and exercising authority over county residents unless he is notified first of their intentions.

After explaining their mission, Mattis said he grants them permission to proceed if he is convinced they are operating within the legal parameters and authority limitations set forth in the U.S. Constitution.

reply to post by frazzle


case from 1997...back then it was probably necessary for Sheriffs to take those measures against what was clearly an occupied Federal system.

this is no longer the case. perhaps, after that sheriff feels things are back to way they are intended, he'll let the feds come back...i can't imagine what they could want in Wyoming but maybe they'll get along one day.

as it is, the federal system is no longer occupied and its back to doing what it does best.

all the sheriff needs to do now is get a couple of non-violent offenders from the jail and go pick up the litter off the side of the highway.

reply to post by michaelbrux


Game. Precedent set. Match.

You said "go to court", that was done so now you want to change the perameters of what the court said? Or maybe you just want to rewrite the Constitution. Fail.

Details from the local newspaper in Grand Junction about this meeting...

Sheriffs to discuss working relationship with feds

Western Slope sheriffs are stressing their good working relationships with the federal government in advance of what is billed as a sheriff’s roundtable to discuss the “constitutional sheriffs movement” and “burdensome presence of the federal government” in the Western states.

Six county sheriffs, five from Colorado and one from Utah, are scheduled to participate in the roundtable sponsored by the Western Slope Conservative Alliance on Wednesday.

“What I want to talk about is what I think works right in my partnership with the federal government,” Mesa County Sheriff Stan Hilkey said Monday.

“There’s a big group that wants me to be a federal government hater,” Hilkey said, noting that he has had differences with federal agencies, state law enforcement and “the police department right next door,” but that they don’t inhibit him from working with those agencies.

Organizer Doug Thompson acknowledged that the conservative alliance runs the risk of being painted as “radical right-wingers” by sponsoring the roundtable.

“That’s not what this is,” Thompson said. “This is to educate people about exactly what the state constitution and the U.S. Constitution allow a sheriff to do.”

Organizers didn’t ask the sheriffs about their politics, Thompson said.

“It will be interesting to hear what they have to say,” Thompson said. “We wanted different opinions.”

Delta County Sheriff Fred McKee said he hopes to make a point of how well local law enforcement and federal agencies work together.

“We have a good relationship with our federal partners right now,” McKee said. “There’s a lot of mutual respect there and we need to work hard to maintain those relationships.”

Hilkey, who had disagreements with the U.S. Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement several years ago over jail inspections by them said he’s not a part of the constitutional sheriff movement and is largely pleased with the role of federal agencies in the region.

Federal law enforcement activity “has definitely made the community safer with respect to drug stuff,” Hilkey said. “We work with them on fire stuff, land issues” and other functions.

Other participants are Garfield County Sheriff Lou Vallario, Montrose County Sheriff Rick Dunlap, Routt County Sheriff Garrett Wiggins and Grand County, Utah, Sheriff Steve White.

Source

and as far as the Federal government involving itself in education and healthcare, as someone mentioned earlier...do you know why this happened?

because States, once upon a time, decided to deprive its own residents access to these necessities.

don't you watch PBS...?

the military had to be sent into different places because the states decided they could decide who gets education.

in this framework...it seems the states are angry because they can't control the destiny of residents.

a state government can be just as oppressive as the federal. moreso to be certain because it is closer to the people, and when they did these things it was documented. some of the people that participated in this behavior are still alive today.

reply to post by frazzle


its a case from 1997...he kicked the federal government out. and they have to call and ask his permission to enter his county.

then you understand that if he leaves his county he is no longer a sheriff; no Constitutional authority.

reply to post by ObservingTheWorld


There is coming a day, and it is fast approaching and will arrive in our generation, when every man, woman and child will be forced to make a choice on which side you stand. Do you stand for the people or do you stand for "Them"? The Industrial Corporations and bankers conquered the U.S. in 1864 and americans lost that year and we have suffered ever since.

I'm shocked that Arizona wasn't part of this.

reply to post by michaelbrux


He wasn't trying to go beyond his duties as Sheriff of Big Horn County. That's what he was hired to do ~ protect the people of his county, including from outside unconstitutional interference.

From the article I linked in case you haven't read it yet:

Sheriff Mattis contends that the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, clearly defines the geographic territories where the federal government has jurisdiction. Amendment X, he said, states that "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."

Therefore, Mattis thoroughly believes the Feds have very limited powers in any state unless the local high-sheriff allows them to exercise power beyond that which the Constitution provides.

"Put another way," Mattis said, "if the sheriff doesn't want the Feds in his county, he has the constitutional power and right to keep them out or ask them to leave."

The court found in his favor

And there isn't any land in this country that isn't part of a county, so it all depends on whether or not these sheriffs choose to follow in Big Dave's footprints.

reply to post by luccadeo


Joe is a stand alone. He's more into notoriety than group efforts.

jmo

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


i think the people will choose the Federal system, the Corporations and the Banks. as will the States, counties and townships and cities.

this is why:

people enjoy eating food that won't kill them and drink liquor that won't cause blindness and death.

people like their cars and their homes and they enjoy seeing their children play and be happy.

endless bloodshed and conflict is not attractive and the idea that "the People' are in a place right now where the choices they have are life and death is a pipe dream.

the vast majority of the people in this country, the whole world probably, without regard to their differences of opinion, know for a fact that there is nothing like unto the USA and it should stand forever.

all the feds have to do is send those sheriffs a couple of unmanned drones to play with and they'll come around.

reply to post by michaelbrux


all the feds have to do is send those sheriffs a couple of unmanned drones to play with and they'll come around.

Ahhhh, bring out the whips if the slaves won't bow down to the massa. And you would support that?

reply to post by michaelbrux

you guys can try and spin the idea of insurrection and civil war and call it something else

Actually, I wasn't calling for civil war. I was merely pointing out that the shireffs are already operating in a legal manner that does not constitute insurrection. You are advocating granting tyranny for yourself by abdicating your rights and the rights of your state. This appears to be a result of a successful indoctrination by leftist-extremest teachers in the government sponsored schools.

reply to post by frazzle


wow, you're right...the feds have to call up the Sheriffs and inform them...i figured they did this anyway, as a courtesy of course.

that case proves that the feds have no right to operate freely anywhere within the United States of America.

even though 48% of the land in Wyoming is owned by the Federal Government, the federal government has no authority which usually accompanies ownership and even though Wyoming was created by an act of Congress...the federal system possesses no equity in Wyoming...

lesson learned... don't ever do or give anything to anyone as its only a matter of time before they forget and start trying to boss you around.