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: 8
69
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by LifeIsPeculiar
 


muslim is a legal concept. i assure you that a piece of paper and a bunch of words will never overcome flesh and blood reality.

if it worked in europe, its because europeans apply great value to worthless endeavors.

most Americans, ultimately, give the thoughts of men very little, if any, value.

i think you will all find out sooner than later that the Constitution is something that exists in fact before it existed as a legal document. and it continues to exist in fact above and beyond the document that symbolizes it and always will.




posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


This Sherriffs meeting is most likely schill of designation presenting us a false sense of relief. You can look for something like this just before the hammer drops and smashes your fantasy.

Not saying there may not be an agent provocateur or two in the bunch, but I heard a guy who's working closely with this movement being interviewed on a radio show and he certainly convinced me that they're on the side of the people.

I'm also not saying they'll be successful in their goals. People are fickle and the media will convice them that these guys are all child molesters if they gain too much attention and support.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   
Thank you,


Originally posted by LifeIsPeculiar
That is the grounds for this entire discussion about the powers of the Shireff. They are the last line of defense with regard to encroachment of tyranny.


Instead of discussing the roles of Sheriffs, how about we discuss a group of individuals in authority who want to question the direction the federal government is taking in the lives of citizens? We can go over their specific duties and roles ad-nauseum, but I would rather talk about a group of people who are seeing what is happening at a higher level, and questioning if it right.

These Sheriffs will not stop the TSA, the drones or even wiretapping. But they are willing to stand up and question what is happening. Isn't that what we are looking for? Someone besides the 'average' citizen bringing these concerns to light? I personally don't care about the nuances of their jobs, but I do care that they are willing to go to a public forum to discuss these matters.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 




Not saying there may not be an agent provocateur or two in the bunch, but I heard a guy who's working closely with this movement being interviewed on a radio show and he certainly convinced me that they're on the side of the people.


Well at least I can say to that.
Good looking out on your part.

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



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 


Then the computers "had a glitch and went offline". When they came back up 15 or 20 minutes later, our guy was losing by a large margin. The guy who won turned out to be a major insider with some real sleezy friends.

You folks should have demanded a recount ...

edit on 6/13/2012 by LifeIsPeculiar because: Fix the quote terminator.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by michaelbrux
 


i think you will all find out sooner than later that the Constitution is something that exists in fact before it existed as a legal document. and it continues to exist in fact above and beyond the document that symbolizes it and always will.

That was beautiful! I hope Americans up up to that challenge. It seems many are not.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ObservingTheWorld
 

You entire post was spot on! We must start somewhere; and, the Sheriff issue is not a bad place. Yes, there is a lot of push-back that must be done, especially at high levels. Unlike some on this thread, I hope the ballot box can still be used, for the alternatives could be really ugly.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs

Originally posted by LifeIsPeculiar
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.


It's beyond me how anyone can't see that voting is just a grandiose lie in this day and age. Everyone should refuse to vote just to let the tyrants know we're on to thier game. When you vote they are confirmed in how stupid they think we are .

Hows that?



Need more ?


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


Right! They put in office who they want anyway, regardless of whether we vote or not. Then, when the politician f**ks everything up, they point the finger back at the voters and say, "Well, you voted him into office!"

NO, I DID NOT!

Just another way to blame the average American for whatever is wrong with the country.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by michaelbrux
 





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.


There's a reason for that, because it was built with CHRISTIAN ideals, but those are being replaced by something else that appears beneficial but will ultimately bring everything crashing down and it's already happening. The U.S. will not stand forever and that is a fact, it's being eaten away on the inside by corruption, greed, avarice, theft, lies and a host of other issues, just like Rome and we're following the same path and wil meet the same end.

There was a nation just like ours 2000 years ago, Ancient Rome and we're walking in it's shoes.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by LifeIsPeculiar
reply to post by frazzle
 


You folks should have demanded a recount ...

edit on 6/13/2012 by LifeIsPeculiar because: Fix the quote terminator.


By the same people who counted the first time? To be honest, I can't even remember if there was a demand for a recount but I think I would remember if there had been one.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 01:38 PM
link   
You will recall the feds working to assemble the "Clergy Response Teams", purportedly to castrate any dissenters during a time of civil activity. Wouldn't that have required the feds to go on a national tour to meet with pastors, identify the level of support and to discuss the specifics?

However, the feds find it easier to work with corrupt parties than to "play the role" of professional and legitimate representatives of the people. It would have been useful intel to know in advance who was or wasn't corrupt in each community. To know that, one could seek the opinions of other local parties already known to be corrupt.

My theory is that, local Sheriffs were visited by the feds after 9/11 and given a large sum of cash, somewhere between $50,000 and $100,000. The reason given would likely have been to encourage them to take "whatever means necessary" to defeat terrorism or for acting outside of the box in law enforcement efforts. DHS would likely have encouraged "unique" and unseemly methods and been very insistent that the cash be taken.

(NOTE: I'm not claiming all Sheriffs took the money. Some clearly would have bounced those @*#ckers.)

Calls would then have been made to these local Sheriffs by the same parties that were so kind as to give the earlier cash awards. Most Sheriffs would have by that time already either spent some or all of the money on themselves or come to know which way the wind was blowing. So, in either case they would have provided the information.

This form of indirect bribery by Federal officials would partly account for the increased reckless lawlessness exhibited by local cops and Sheriffs, and the allowance of increased federal involvement on the local level. On the outside, it would appear that the Sheriffs had capitulated to federal overreach, but would actually be caused by the understanding that local Sheriffs would have that they owed their benefactors for the free cash.

In summary, I think the local Sheriffs are vital assets in the fight against federal tyranny...the good ones that is. But, looking at the events of recent history and the profile of these Sheriffs leads me to believe their moral standing is a mixed bag from community to community.

My mom once had a boyfriend who I thought was a great guy and treated me very well. Very funny and not very authoritarian. As I got older, he decided to become a Sheriff for some reason. At that time, in California it was required in order to become a Sheriff that the first assignment be as a jail guard for 2 years. I sometimes ponder what being a jail guard for 2 years would do to a person. I do recall, after he started work as a jail guard him referring to inmates as "pukes" and how entertaining he found the transsexual inmates to be.

Just some perspective. Be seeing you.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 01:42 PM
link   
According to Pennsylvania Constitution:




The Office of Sheriff in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is authorized and established by the Constitution of 1784 and the current revisions under which our State Government now operates. This Constitution provides that a Sheriff shall be elected in each county for a four year term, and that her powers, duties and compensation be prescribed by law. The first election of a Sheriff in Montgomery County was held in 1789, and regular elections have been held every four years since that time.

The Sheriff is the chief law enforcement officer of the County under the Pennsylvania Constitution. While most police work is now done by local and state police, the Sheriff's broad powers authorize her and her deputies to enforce the law. The Sheriff is called upon during riots, prison breaches, strikes and other emergencies which are or may be a breach of the peace. In those instances, she is empowered to call upon all able-bodied adults.


So, in PA the sheriff IS the ultimate authority in the county.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by michaelbrux
 


Enough is enough. I had intended to read through the entire thread before commenting but you just keep plastering each page with so much ignorance and dismissal of the rule of law it is too much to take. Yes, the Constitution for the United States of America is the Supreme Law of the Land. That Constitution includes a Bill of Rights, and within that Bill of Rights comes the final Amendment, being the Tenth Amendment:


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.


To better understand this express command given to the federal government it is prudent to read what the Founders themselves had to say about the relationship between the federal government and the several states. James Madison, in Federalist #45 explains this dynamic rather succinctly:


The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.


Holding the same view, and ironically arguing against the inclusion of the Bill of Rights, Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 84:


I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?


In Commentaries on the Constitution , Joseph Story has this to say:


The constitution was, from its very origin, contemplated to be the frame of a national government, of special and enumerated powers, and not of general and unlimited powers.


In 1931 The Supreme Court held in United States v. Sprague:


The Tenth Amendment was intended to confirm the understanding of the people at the time the Constitution was adopted, that powers not granted to the United States were reserved to the states or to the people.


Your flippant dismissal of state Constitutions and their profound relationship to federalism is rife with inexplicably proud ignorance. One can only hope that PBS will get their act together and put on a program explaining all of this so you can believe its efficacy. Tragically, Hamilton's naivete regarding the unnecessary inclusion of a Bill of Rights presumed people like you would simply understand, not at all himself understanding that even with the inclusion of the Tenth Amendment, there are people like you who seem incapable of understanding law.

Ignorantia Juris Non Excusat!



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 


By the same people who counted the first time?

No. I believe a recount can be setup to be performed by different people.

When the votes are corrupted there should be extraordinary measures taken to set things right. That responsibility falls squarely onto the People. The People are now very lazy and complacent. There is never much outrage shown be the People of this Nation. That is a big part of the problem.

I can surely understand how you would become soured on elections when that happened to you. The Founders would have taken up arms. Americans are pushovers for tyranny.

Honestly, I don't know what I would have done in your situation. Maybe the first thing to do is to collectively figure out out to keep the elections honest. Both parties have no ethical standards.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by NightGypsy
 





Just another way to blame the average American for whatever is wrong with the country.


Life even sounds like a politician. Asking me for an explanation, then calling me an idiot for giving one in depth.
And blaming me for the whole scharade.


Classic.
edit on 13-6-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by LifeIsPeculiar
 



Well, like I said, I just don't remember what happened after that election, but there is a vague memory of the candidate accepting defeat and he did go on to make somewhat a name for himself nationally (Jack McLamb).

But I definitely agree that we accept defeat WAY too easily and yes, we're pushovers. I suppose that's because we know up front that no one will have our back if we get out there and risk everything.


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



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ObservingTheWorld
 



Western US Sheriffs gather to discuss their Constitutional authority

'constitutional authority'lol



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   
In case you don't quite understand my position just yet. Let this be a clue.




posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 


I suppose that's because we know up front that no one will have our back if we get out there and risk everything.

That is a very saddening observation. What is worse, I think we all suspect it is true. Few people today actually understand the value of their freedom; and, that is why they so easily give it away.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   
I thought this was talking about western 'US' sheriffs. Not western colorado sheriffs. C



new topics

top topics



 
69
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join