Effort to abolish local sheriffs a stealth federal power grab?

I am not sure if this is in the correct forum, if not MODs please move.

A news report has been quietly making its way around the alternative media, under the radar screen, concerning a Delaware legal decision to strip county sheriffs of their arrest powers in the state.

The mainstream media has not reported the story, but the son of Vice President Joe Biden, who serves as Attorney General for the state of Delaware, has issued a mandate to county commissioners informing them that sheriffs in the state's three counties no longer have arrest powers.

www.examiner.com...
I notice this is dated April 10, 2012 so is not breaking news but still worthy of notice and outrage.

This strikes me as blatantly unconstitutional, if not at the federal level then definitely at the individual states and county level. Most if not all county sheriffs are elected by the local people to enforce local laws.
But as this seems to step on some Federal toes there are some who would like to "nullify" the legal and constitutional will of the people.

Comments ATS?

Sounds like the people of "The New Divided States of America" needs a new government quickly otherwise states will loose their rights and laws under federal.

Originally posted by sylent6
Sounds like the people of "The New Divided States of America" needs a new government quickly otherwise states will loose their rights and laws under federal.

I am beginning to agree with you.
It is a sad end to a great nation.

I'm not saying I agree with abolishing sheriffs, but let's face it, sheriffs are elected officials who are not required to have any law enforcement background, nor knowledge of the law. Often times, this can be a recipe for disaster when ignorance of the laws and the power to arrest are bundled together in an individual who did nothing more than win popularity contest.

Originally posted by LeatherNLace
I'm not saying I agree with abolishing sheriffs, but let's face it, sheriffs are elected officials who are not required to have any law enforcement background, nor knowledge of the law. Often times, this can be a recipe for disaster when ignorance of the laws and the power to arrest are bundled together in an individual who did nothing more than win popularity contest.

edit on 25-1-2013 by LeatherNLace because: (no reason given)

You mean like the POTUS not having to meet the requirements for a security clearance to have access to national security information, or zero military training to be commander in chief of the most powerful military in the world.

This is a problem government wide.

A good many of our elected representatives would not qualify for the security clearances required for their positions if they were put to the same standards of conduct as normal government employees. The POTUS for sure would not - with unexplained foreign travel, associations with known terrorists (Whether Underground Bill Ayers), questionable background etc.

When a Sheriff wins an election they are sent to basic law enforcement training - at least here they are. Besides few if any are elected with no background in law enforcement at all. They also have access to advice and counsel from the Judges, Prosecutors etc, who all have law degrees.

Just a guess but maybe it has something to do with Delaware's state constitution or law? Why are the other two sheriffs not fighting it? That leads me to believe there is some legal basis....

And lastly, why do people put so much stock in the Examiner? So much of what they post is rumor or hyperbole and anyone can post pretty much any opinion piece they want and call it "news".

Originally posted by Golf66

Originally posted by LeatherNLace
I'm not saying I agree with abolishing sheriffs, but let's face it, sheriffs are elected officials who are not required to have any law enforcement background, nor knowledge of the law. Often times, this can be a recipe for disaster when ignorance of the laws and the power to arrest are bundled together in an individual who did nothing more than win popularity contest.

edit on 25-1-2013 by LeatherNLace because: (no reason given)

You mean like the POTUS not having to meet the requirements for a security clearance to have access to national security information, or zero military training to be commander in chief of the most powerful military in the world.

This is a problem government wide.

A good many of our elected representatives would not qualify for the security clearances required for their positions if they were put to the same standards of conduct as normal government employees. The POTUS for sure would not - with unexplained foreign travel, associations with known terrorists (Whether Underground Bill Ayers), questionable background etc.

When a Sheriff wins an election they are sent to basic law enforcement training - at least here they are. Besides few if any are elected with no background in law enforcement at all. They also have access to advice and counsel from the Judges, Prosecutors etc, who all have law degrees.

The potus delegates and then people whom know what to do take over.

Hell, what timing.

Sheriffs come out and tell Obama and his cartel where to stick their anti-constitutional rhetoric, and a few days later we hear this.

Well, since the government think it's fine to start stripping elected sheriffs of their powers, why should it be any different for the government elected officials.

reply to post by RedmoonMWC


LA-Homeland Security now embedded in local sheriff's offices.
www.ronpaulforums.com...

If its true, they're probably in all of them.

I just heard the big fed fighter, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, say on the radio the other day that he won't do anything to hinder federal officials in his county because "they have such a tough job".

Originally posted by Merinda
The potus delegates and then people whom know what to do take over.

One cannot delegate responsibility...

Only authority...

Fact is the POTUS is the Commander in Chief and solely responsible for decisions made regarding the US military.

No one ever "takes over" as Commander in Chief - he can ask for and consider or disregard the counsel of every Cabinet Member and General (or Admiral) as he sees fit with absolutely zero understanding of strategy, tactics and zero experience leading troops and there is absolutely no recourse other than to follow his orders.

Just like a Sheriff is elected might have zero LEO experience has access to people who do.

They don't; however, "take over".

It is a problem with our system that there are very few qualifications required for elected office other than age...citizenship and of course popularity. Sad really... I think military service should be added to the POTUS qualifications.

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by RedmoonMWC

 

LA-Homeland Security now embedded in local sheriff's offices.
www.ronpaulforums.com...

If its true, they're probably in all of them.

I just heard the big fed fighter, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, say on the radio the other day that he won't do anything to hinder federal officials in his county because "they have such a tough job".

Wow..has the Sheriff a family i wonder.

Is this what it comes down to now? I seriously hope not.

reply to post by Golf66


I agree that the POTUS should have served a term in the military, most certainly.

Even better, has seen front line active service.

At least then, they would have some concept of the horror they blithely send young men and women into before deciding there's no alternative.

reply to post by MysterX

Wow..has the Sheriff a family i wonder.

Don't quote me, but I think in this case its more that the sheriff is a big bag of wind.

reply to post by Golf66


People do not understand a paramilitary style organization. A Sheriff is an admin position in most part. There is really no need to know law other than what the State constitution and county charter says and doesn't say. It would be like saying a General needs to know how to drive a tank. All he needs to know is what it can and can't do and how many. Even the unschooled citizen knows what right, wrong and freedom is.

Just because there is law does not mean there is justice.
We have elected lawyers (congress and senate) in the feds that sware to "uphold and defend......." and yet they don't understand ".....shall not be infringed." So saying one needs to "know the laws to be a Sheriif is real silly.

Not even city cops know the laws. The county sheriff is the last bastion of hope and manliness for a free country and state (s)

What do you think Major?

reply to post by Merinda


It is the same with a Sheriff.

Originally posted by murphy22
reply to post by Golf66

 

People do not understand a paramilitary style organization. A Sheriff is an admin position in most part. There is really no need to know law other than what the State constitution and county charter says and doesn't say. It would be like saying a General needs to know how to drive a tank. All he needs to know is what it can and can't do and how many. Even the unschooled citizen knows what right, wrong and freedom is.

Indeed - good judgment and common sense are pretty much all that is required; however, I personally would not vote for a Sherriff who was not an LEO for some period prior.

I mean he doesn't have to be Dick Tracy or Elliot Ness but at least a basic understanding of law enforcement would make me feel better about his leadership and management of the organization. I mean it is mostly balancing books, budgets and planning like any leadership role but a little boots on the ground time just seems a logical requirement.

Just like the POTUS need not be a General Eisenhower to be a decent CinC - but a term of service would be neat...at least he would know what it’s like to serve something other than him/herself.

Originally posted by murphy22
Not even city cops know the laws. The county sheriff is the last bastion of hope and manliness for a free country and state (s)

What do you think Major?

I think you are correct - our County Sherriff is a decent guy. I have him out for a turkey hunt every fall (we have 160 acres of prime hunting). He is an Oathkeeper but getting up there in years I am afraid.

About time. Now if you'd only get rid of judicial elections too, you might be getting somewhere. Officers of the law should not be elected under any circumstances.

Should be interesting I suppose. Delaware State Constitution states the following about the duties of a sheriff:

...the Sheriffs shall be conservators of the peace within the counties respectively in which they reside.

Conservator of the peace is a common law definition and is expressed as thus: "a public official authorized to conserve and maintain the public peace."

Here is the thing though, it is the States' right and duty to define the overall scope of the Office of Sheriff. If is is broad, then the counties themselves have the right to define that scope. The above definition gives an implicit tell that a Sheriff in Delaware is authorized under the Constitution to perform basic law enforcement duties to be able to conserve the peace; which would include the authority to arrest or act as a police officer does.

Originally posted by ShadeWolf
About time. Now if you'd only get rid of judicial elections too, you might be getting somewhere. Officers of the law should not be elected under any circumstances.

Right so you want the whole judicial arm of State governments to be "appointed" or, more likely, non-appointed government bureaucrats? Accountability to the People is essential; you want it taken away?