It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Western US Sheriffs gather to discuss their Constitutional authority.

page: 6
69
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by LifeIsPeculiar
reply to post by randyvs
 


I wouldn't get my hopes up. Foriegn troops are in place...

They were when the first American Revolution took place as well.

If people would vote ONLY for those who will support Constitutional rule, there wouldn't be any issues with our government. Americans vote very stupidly and repetitively. Cure that, and there will be a peaceful return to normalcy.


Anyone who believes the solution is in voting is a travesty to the word freedom.




posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by michaelbrux
 


this is an impossible situation and could never arise under our system

To what do you refer in this instance? Self rule? Electing respresentative who actually represent? Your use of "this" is unreferenced.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by michaelbrux
 


No the Federal government via the education secretary shifted from teaching the individual to group behavioral indoctrination.They wanted to create more factory workers so the curriculum was modified to reflect that purpose.this began in the 60s when I went to school.I flunked the second grade and had to repeat.Now you never see that.Now the classes are one size fits all.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


Anyone who believes the solution is in voting is a travesty to the word freedom.

That is worthy of explaination. Take a shot at it.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by LifeIsPeculiar
 


so, you think that the head of the EPA should be elected? because they are not, then it is tyranny?

even if they were subject to an election process, why would you assume that the outcome would be different?

some of these people are still subject to a confirmation process, which is conducted by people who are elected.

there is nothing tyrannical about the American system. not even close.

make better choices for your senators.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by michaelbrux
reply to post by LifeIsPeculiar
 


your views advocate the usurping of additional powers by local law enforcement; possibly at the expense of the federal system. and you justify this based on sheriffs status as an elected official. sheriffs take no oaths with regard to the constitution and have no powers under the constitution,

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



The Office of the Sheriff has existed for over one thousand years and is the oldest law enforcement position in the United States. The word Sheriff is derived from the “Shire-Reeve” (who was the most powerful English law authority figure). Throughout history, the sheriff was recognized as the chief law enforcement officer in his shire or county, and was responsible for maintaining law and order and being an officer of the peace.

The County Sheriff is elected by, for, and of the People, and is our last line of defense against an oppressive and over-reaching government and tyranny. The Sheriffs are powerful executors of the law, and the Supreme law of the land is the Constitution.



Thomas Jefferson wrote in “The value of Constitutions”, that “there is no honorable law enforcement authority in Anglo-American law so ancient as that of the county sheriff whose role as a peace officer goes back at least to the time of Alfred the Great.”


tenthamendmentcenter.com...



Constitutional Oath of Office
Oath of Office-Sacred Duty
Candidate for sheriff, Miguel County, NM, 2010

My Oath of Office will be to the original Constitution, to We the People, not to the Federal Corporation identified as the “United States”.

My Oath of Office will consist of the following words:

“I, Ricardo “Rico” S. Giron, hereby do solemnly swear that I will support and defend this Constitution for the united States of America, against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help me God”.

I will take no other Oath of Office and certainly not to the corporation known as the “United States”.

My Oath of Office will be to the Citizens of San Miguel not to the corporation known as the “United States” described in “Moratorium on Mortgage Foreclosures”, platform # 1.

ricoforsheriff.com...

I doubt if he was elected, but you just can't help but like this guy.

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



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by LifeIsPeculiar
 


this....is in reference to tyrannical police state.

i've had enough contact with the police to feel confident that they operate well within the confines of the law. whether it be city cops, county sheriffs or CO's at the state correctional facilities.

I know some of them are jerks and think they know more than they do, but in general the full system is more than fair.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by michaelbrux
 


so, you think that the head of the EPA should be elected?

No, but I think his power should be limited by those who are elected. As it is now, the head of the EPA can do as he chooses even if it is counter to the will of ALL people. Is that your preference?

Do you prefer power to be vested in people from afar who were appointed by others that you did not vote for, or would you prefer the final authority to be vested in someone who lives in your own county who was elected by the people with whom you live?



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 


i understand that the position of Sheriff is held in high regard; especially in western culture.

however, from my understanding, they are law enforcement officers and not legislators or judges and are in no position to interpret the law, only enforce it.

that Oath...who administered it?

when the President of the U.S., an executive law enforcement position much like Sheriff, takes his oath it is administered by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court...

his statements suggest to me that he's under the impression that he is qualified to interpret the law in addition to enforce it. the Constitution he claim's to support separated these functions; while he has decided that they abide singularly within his person.

perhaps he should have run for the position of Judge instead of Sheriff.


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



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 11:09 AM
link   
If you want autonomy then you have to stop taking federal funds for anything. Any time the Fed Gov wants to give you money there are strings attached. they then tell you want you can do and what you will do. It is as simple as that.

STOP TAKING GOV'T FUNDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by michaelbrux
 


i've had enough contact with the police to feel confident that they operate well within the confines of the law. whether it be city cops, county sheriffs or CO's at the state correctional facilities.

Same with me. The Federals, on the other hand, are running amuck with power, and are making arbitrary rules that affect local people. Like, not allowing farmers to draw water from thier own wells or local rivers and canals. Would you prefer to have those trusty law enforcement people enforcing laws or rules established by folks far away that don't listen to you, or would you have them enforcing laws that were minted locally and with the will of The People?

Sheriffs, when the supreme law of the region, will enforce laws in accordance with the will of those who elected them. This all stems from the destruction of local farmers due to unrealistic inforcement of Unconstitutional laws by Federal agencies.

Do you wish to have no legal recourse to unconstitutional laws or rules?

May your chains bear lightly upon your wrists.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   
What ever happened to VAMPIRE KILLER 2000?



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by LifeIsPeculiar
 


they are also subject to congressional oversight.

isn't this suitable for accountability?

you want an overly complicated and inefficient system that would be impossible to implement in real life.

micro-managing the federal system, so you as an individual citizen can feel more powerful.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by michaelbrux
 


Funny. The Chief District Court Judge administers the oath to the Sheriff, as well as to all of the other members of the Sheriff's department.

Its all nice and legal.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by LifeIsPeculiar
 


i'd need more info on this farmer that cannot draw water from his own well to answer. sounds terrible.

but I think their are an equal number of people that prefer the Federal system to the State as prefer the State to the Federal.

therein...are the seeds of civil war.

and like all wars, the Law first and foremost will determine the winner...not the gun.

and i do remember at least one line from the documents of the founders:

men do not throw off governments for 'light and transient causes'

most of what I've read on this thread appear to me to be light and transient issues.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 


is that a Federal District Judge or State?

just for clarity.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 11:27 AM
link   
I have a few different opinions on this subject,but I'm not posting here to debate. Just wanted to post this video of the Sheriff's conference that took place earlier this year and a couple of extra links to go with it. I will say,people who want to truly keep their oaths to THE PEOPLE are in short supply. If these folks are the real deal,God bless them for trying!



Former Graham County Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack, addresses the sheriffs Monday morning and covers, among other things, his lawsuit against the Southern Poverty Law Center, how the 8th Amendment's forbidding excessive fines and cruel punishment was his big awakening, (He asks if we think the $7BILLION collected annually from radar gun tickets is excessive enough.), the oath of office, the Bill of Rights and its origin, EPA fines, federal over reach, SWAT team abuses, the 10th Amendment, Nullification, Federal Judge John Roll, and much much more. "We swear an oath, can't take our job unless we do. But, then we don't have to keep it. Really, that's what we're gonna decide... is if we do." Mack explains that he was fortunate to have support from a national organization to take and win his case before the Supreme Court but that "90% of the people in America cannot even touch that system. They don't have the time nor the money to reach, even think about reaching that system. And so you want to tell the citizens, for their rights to be secure, go to the courts. To a completely unreachable system." And when the people go to their sheriffs, they're told, "Go get a good lawyer. And there's your justice system America. Go get a lawyer and go ask the courts to take care of you. Do any of you really think that the founding fathers intended for our American system to be based on freedom, individual liberty decided by the US Supreme Court? And that's the only place you can get it? I hardly think so." NOTE: The post event feedback surveys clearly indicated that this kind of training on the Constitution was the number one component that sheriffs wanted more of.


oathkeepers.org... -2012/

www.countysheriffproject.org...

www.sheriffmack.com...


Video:
Richard Mack: The Untouchable Bill of Rights
www.youtube.com...
edit on 13-6-2012 by On the Edge because: video difficulties

edit on 13-6-2012 by On the Edge because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-6-2012 by On the Edge because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by michaelbrux
 


This Youtube shows the County Clerk administering the Oath to a number of County Officials in 2011; the Sheriff was among them.



That's because Sheriffs have no Federal Authority or responsibilities.
edit on 13-6-2012 by michaelbrux because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by michaelbrux
 


Who can administer oaths, I believe, varies from state to state. If you're interested in who administered the oath of your particular County Sheriff, I'm sure you can find it online. If you really care all that much. I'm not your gopher.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by michaelbrux
 



That's because Sheriffs have no Federal Authority or responsibilities.

Who the heck said they did? That's why they're called COUNTY Sheriffs and not federal sheriffs. But they ARE the ultimate authority within their counties if they so choose. Apparently the sheriffs attending this confab in Colorado so choose.



new topics

top topics



 
69
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join