Not Enough, But An Encouraging Start….

On Oct. 22, 2011, Sheriff Jon Lopey of Siskiyou County, CA hosted seven other sheriffs from CA and OR in a meeting for the purpose of stating their intentions to their constituents to make a united push against the federal government in matters mostly surrounding property rights, but inclusive in their declarations was the underlying meme that the federal government is, and has been for several years, infringing on the sovereign rights of their respective states. The following is the short speech Sheriff Lopey gave to open the meeting. The whole 1 hour and 8 minute meeting is linked in the description where all eight sheriffs can be heard from.

Now, the title of this post says this meeting is a good start, but not enough. The reason I say that is that these sheriffs need to stand up to the .fedgov concerning all the unconstitutional laws that they are “obligated” to enforce, such as federal gun control laws, the failure of Congress to limit the scope of the federal courts’ jurisdiction concerning abortion, when doing so would return the issue where it belongs, to the states to decide for themselves, the idiotic and utterly failed “war on drugs” and many other issues where the .fedgov intrudes and unconstitutionally usurps upon the states’ authority to direct their own destinies. I put “obligated” in quotes because it is my firm belief that no sheriff is obligated to enforce an unconstitutional law, nor is any citizen obligated to abide by it. When sheriffs band together on that premise, and hold meetings such as the one in the video to seek support of their county’s citizens in furtherance of it, then I will happily remove the quote marks when describing their obligations, as only then will they truly be living up to them.

That said, this is indeed a good start. I am going to email a link to the whole meeting video to my sheriff, and follow that up with sending him a DVD of it. I worked fairly closely with my sheriff during the tornado cleanup, and though I don’t know him well, my impression is that he will be receptive to the message these Patriots are trying to get out there by being so public about their organization. Receptive or not though, every county sheriff should be exposed to this video, as well as others like Pinal County, AZ Sheriff Paul Babeu:

I encourage anyone reading this who believes these people are attempting to assert rights and authorities that were intended to be reserved to them and their state legislatures for perpetuity under the Constitution, to forward a link to this video to your own sheriff. It is my belief that these people are doing everything they can to avert the chaos that will surely follow a more complete collapse of constitutional protections than the stage of decay we are suffering under at the moment.

CC

Comments are closed.

  1. richtaylor365

    The reason I say that is that these sheriffs need to stand up to the .fedgov concerning all the unconstitutional laws that they are “obligated” to enforce

    I’m not sure whether I agree with this statement or not. If by “stand up” you mean to avail themselves of the judicial process, working within the confines of legality by contacting their states attorneys general and pursuing a redress through the court system, then yes, I agree with you. But if you mean that that should stand up through refusing to do their jobs, cherry picking what laws they like and what one’s they don’t, and applying their own personal Constitutional litmus tests to all their duties, then no, I can’t abide by that.

    This goes towards the running argument that we have had before where I am totally simpatico with you wrt sentiment, but not application. The courts decide (with the final arbiter being SCOTUS) what is constitutional and what is not, individual citizens and even LEO’s do not have that authority, that is the system we have in place. I have not watched your attached video, don’t have time this morning, but will get to it this afternoon, but I seriously doubt any of these sheriffs you speak of are advocating a blanket unwillingness to enforce laws they find objectionable. More then likely they are working within the system, pursuing their grievances through the judicial process.

    Citizens do not have the authority to decide what in their mind is constitutional and what is not, then conform their behavior to those conclusions, that’s best way I know to end up in jail. You don’t get to say ,”Yeah, I see that cop behind me with his lights on but I know I did nothing wrong so him stopping me is a violation of my 4th Amendment rights, I think I will just not stop”. Similarly, LEO’s can’t decide what laws they think justified and enforceable, what laws are not. What do you think will happen to the cop who responds to a traffic accident and upon arrival one party states that the guy over there ran a red light, T-boned him in an intersection, sending his whole family to the hospital, and oh yeah, he is drunk off his ass. You contact him, determine that he is in fact intoxicated, but you always thought that the DUI laws in your state was a bit too draconian for your tastes, so you let the drunk go, then explain to the victim that you as a LEO have a right to only enforce laws that you agree with and will not enforce the others. I’m sure he will understand, right?

    A good example of exactly what we are talking about is Obamacare. Many states have already determined (in their mind) that Obamacare is unconstitutional, but instead of a blanket refusal to implement it, they are following the law, the individual state AG’s have filed challenges to the law for court rulings, those folks that actually get to make the call on what is what is not constitutional.

    There is no question that the Federal government has gotten decidedly “too big for its britches”, but this unsettling trend have been going on for a while now, not just under Obama. We can agree that our constitutional liberties are constantly under assault, this is not new, nor will the trend change. An ever vigilant and educated citizenry is the best bulwark against these infringements, but they must be addressed legally, within the court process, otherwise, we are no better then those crybabies of OWS.

    Thumb up 0

  2. balthazar

    Similarly, LEO’s can’t decide what laws they think justified and enforceable, what laws are not.

    Except that they do, every day. Ever been let go with a warning?

    An ever vigilant and educated citizenry is the best bulwark against these infringements,

    As long as they bend over and take it if they dont they get murdered by cops illegally entering their house right…

    Thumb up 0

  3. CzarChasm *

    Rich, please don’t be ridiculous, especially before you’ve even watched the video(s). Your example of refusing to pull over is ridiculous. Try something real, like for instance, the Chicago gun ban being kept in effect for all intents and purposes, even now that McDonald is nearly a year and half old, and Heller is more than 3 years old. The sheriff is the constitutional authority in that county. It is his sworn duty to defend his citizens from any other usurping government entity, whether state, local or federal. He absolutely does have the sworn duty to pick and choose, and in that case, he can only choose one path; to enforce SCOTUS’s ruling.

    If he fails at that, he is failing his oath, his duty and the law. It’s a tad bit more highfalutin a concept than some doped up hippie deciding not to pull over when he gets lit up, wouldn’t you say?

    I purposely found a story about an event that does not include citizens making the kinds of constitutional decisions on the spot like the idiotic one you conjured up. This is a post about county sheriffs, the only elected, constitutionally empowered law enforcement entity in the United States. No, I’m not saying city police agencies or the FBI or whatever are unconstitutional, but they are not empowered directly by the Constitution, whereas, the county sheriff is. At least by the oft-stated and unambiguous intent, if not by naming the sheriff specifically within the Constitution. Madison explained it succinctly in Federalist #39:

    But if the government be national with regard to the operation of its powers, it changes its aspect again when we contemplate it in relation to the extent of its powers. The idea of a national government involves in it, not only an authority over the individual citizens, but an indefinite supremacy over all persons and things, so far as they are objects of lawful government. Among a people consolidated into one nation, this supremacy is completely vested in the national legislature. Among communities united for particular purposes, it is vested partly in the general and partly in the municipal legislatures. In the former case, all local authorities are subordinate to the supreme; and may be controlled, directed, or abolished by it at pleasure. In the latter, the local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority, than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere. In this relation, then, the proposed government cannot be deemed a national one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects.

    I’m happy to have an adult conversation about what authorities county sheriffs have in this country, rich. But leave the sophomoric, oh, CC-is-just-rabble-rousing-again BS at the door please.

    If the Cook County Sheriff could be counted upon to uphold and enforce the Constitution and the SCOTUS ruling in the McDonald case that flowed from it, would he be legally justified in refusing to enforce Chicago’s gun ban? That’s the only kind of “pick and choose” decision that is raised in this post, rich. How about we at least start there before getting off into the tall grass? I tried to avoid any kind of “running argument” with you or anyone else in this post. Kindly try to respond with that in mind from here on out. Thanks.

    CC

    Thumb up 3

  4. CzarChasm *

    In searching for the Madison quote that I cited above, I ran across a blog page of Sheriff Richard Mack. I have been aware of him for a long time, as he is a fellow Oath Keeper. I have never purchased any of his books, however, nor have I heard him speak live, and don’t recall ever landing on any YouTube videos of him speaking. I didn’t realize it before hitting his blog, but we have him, in part, to thank for the overturning of the Brady Bill.

    The blog that’s linked here consists of only one “mission statement” type of post by Sheriff Mack. It was posted in ’08, and upon reading it, I felt all the way through it that I could’ve written most of it myself, and in fact, more than 3 years ago, Mack was espousing the exact same principles, concepts and duties I have mentioned several times since coming here, including in this thread right here. He definitely says it better than I though, so I encourage y’all to go read it.

    CC

    Thumb up 3

  5. richtaylor365

    I’m happy to have an adult conversation about what authorities county sheriffs have in this country, rich. But leave the sophomoric, oh, CC-is-just-rabble-rousing-again BS at the door please.

    I’m sorry that you misinterpreted my comment, to avoid this problem in the future, just assume that having an “adult conversation” is always my ultimate goal, that is why I try to avoid things like “ridiculous” “Sophomoric” “Idiotic” “try something real” types of responses and leave them “at the door”, it’s not conducive to adult conversations.

    The example I put forth was not only a valid one, but it has precedent. About 15 years ago I worked in a rural county (a lot like Siskiyou County) where there existed a group of individuals who called them “Constitutionalists”, they pretty much kept to themselves but they did drive. Their philosophy was simple, because they were citizens and protected under the Constitution, they were not bound by any state authority, they did not carry any identification with them, no driver’s license, only a card that listed their declared immunity of state authority and the phone number of their attorney. When stopped (many of them would not stop, using the fourth Amendment as their shield) they would show the card. Naturally they would be arrested. I never ran into one myself, but there were briefing items disseminated from the state AG’s office, reporting their presence, their history with law enforcement and the proper procedure when in contact with one.

    Interestingly, you declared my example as “not real” yet isn’t this exactly what you have professed in other posts? Haven’t you said several times that it is the duty of any citizen to not comply with any authoritarian requests when those requests are deemed unconstitutional by the citizen? Am I wrong?

    I know this post was not about individual citizens applying their constitutional litmus test to their behavior, but it was the next step up, LEO’s doing the same thing. I know you did not like my first example, what about the second? The one where the cop lets the drunk go after he plowed into a family at an intersection? Are you not advocating this course of action, where each cop runs every duty he has through his own constitutional tea sifter and he only enforces those laws that filter through?

    , the only elected, constitutionally empowered law enforcement entity in the United States.

    Are you saying that the Constitution specifically mentions sheriffs and defines their duties?

    According to this:

    In United States constitutional law, police power is the capacity of the states to regulate behavior and enforce order within their territory for the betterment of the general welfare, morals, health, and safety of their inhabitants.[1] Under the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution, the powers prohibited from or not delegated to the Federal Government are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. This implies that the states do not possess all possible powers, since some of these are reserved to the people.

    State attorney generals are also elected law enforcement officials, aren’t they the chief LEO of the state then by definition the boss of all those county sheriffs?

    would he be legally justified in refusing to enforce Chicago’s gun ban?

    He would be legally justified in seeking clarification through proper judicial processes. e.g. getting with the states AG office and hashing it out with them.

    As I stated before, I did not watch the video yet, I will, but for the sake of the post so far, which of the two actions are these sheriffs advocating:
    1) Addressing their concerns of unconstitutional laws through proper channels, the court process, or
    2) Declaring unilaterally that they have the power and authority and make their own determination what is unconstitutional and will now by ruled by their conscience, and not enforce those laws that do not meet that test.

    I tried to avoid any kind of “running argument” with you or anyone else in this post

    .

    I truly did not mean anything pugilistic by that comment, only that we have discussed the same issues in other posts, that’s all, sorry you got offended.

    Thumb up 0

  6. richtaylor365

    Obviously you don’t know the legal definition of “Enforce the law”, you are confusing fines and punishments with enforcement, not the same thing.

    Thumb up 0

  7. richtaylor365

    OK, just got through that video of yours (I think I missed a birthday somewhere doing it). I am very familiar with the counties where these Sheriffs reside. I am not a big hunter or fisherman but have hiked and camped in all those counties. It should be noted that this is some of the finest, most pristine land, it’s beauty and grandeur only a small part. These are “red” counties, populated by simple patriotic folks who are galaxies away from the SF/Berkeley types. They are also hurting really bad, not only by a recession (terrible unemployment rates and massive home foreclosures) but by a federal government that is chocking the very life of them. The Travel Management Plan (you should have talked about that more in your post), messing with peoples livelihoods (telling fisherman when they can and can’t fish, extorting farmers with the threat of water shortages, telling people what they can and can not do on their own property, regulating the timber industry-the very life blood of most areas- right out of existence), yes it is very precarious in the mountain counties.

    But having said all that, if you think all these great Sheriffs are ready to go rogue, to declare themselves all the final arbiter of what is and what is not constitutional, then unitarily act on those judgments, deciding for themselves what laws they will and will not enforce, then you misinterpreted the entire video.

    They all talked about the oath they took to uphold the Constitution, but where you and I differ (And I guarantee you, the Sheriffs are on my side) is the actions to be taken once that oath is perceived to be at odds with their duties. They all talked about the massive overreaches of the federal government (and they are so right about that) but they used phrases like “Hold you politicians accountable”, they mention their treks back and forth to Sacramento (What are they doing there? Working within the system with the state AG’s office to challenge these grievous laws , to move them through the court system), they talk about coordinating their efforts with other agencies (BLM, Fish and Game), and local agencies to fight these laws, but they are fighting them not by stamping their feet and saying ,”No, we will not abide”, they are coordinating the legal fight, as our system dictates.

    The only time I ever heard anyone even remotely approach your position of militancy was when one sheriff said ,”I’ll be damned if I’m going to criminalize law abiding citizens for doing nothing more then accessing public lands”. You can interpret this as a statement that he will not enforce that law, I interpreted more as working the crowd and emphasizing his displeasure with certain federal laws.

    They all talked about the need to collaborate and come together, but why? If what they are doing is answering to their own individual consciences and determining for themselves what laws they will and will not enforce, why the need to collaborate since a conscience only requires a voice of one?

    When they are saying ,”Take up the fight”, and ,”Take a stand”, it is in the context of fighting and standing up through the legal process, which is what I am all for.

    And why did you include that second video, which talked about speed/red light cameras, that had nothing to do with egregious federal laws. If you want to write a post about the pros and cons of speed cams, we can have an adult conversation about that.

    Thumb up 0

  8. balthazar

    Is it or is it not against the law to speed? And at a certain point can you or can you not go to JAIL for it?

    Dude your fucking too stupid to even realize your blatantly wrong on this. How many times did you have to use a throw-down piece eh?

    Thumb up 2

  9. CzarChasm *

    Interestingly, you declared my example as “not real” yet isn’t this exactly what you have professed in other posts? Haven’t you said several times that it is the duty of any citizen to not comply with any authoritarian requests when those requests are deemed unconstitutional by the citizen? Am I wrong?

    Yes, you are wrong. I “profess” little, and instead document as much of what I say as possible. It is true that I have documented the law concerning the premise to which you allude several times. Perhaps your confusion is similar in nature to your inability to distinguish between an inference and an implication, only here you fall short of acknowledging something having been documented rather than “professed.” To wit:

    16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:

    The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

    The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it’s enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

    Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it…..

    A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.

    No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

    Hell, even the first foray into tyranny that SCOTUS embarked upon, Marbury v. Madison, echoed the same premise:

    “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.”
    U.S. Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)

    Next.

    I know you did not like my first example, what about the second?

    Even more ridiculous. I have never come close to intimating that driving drunk or injuring another person or any of the other blather contained in that example of legal double-speak would or should be seen as constitutionally protected, either on behalf of the citizen or the LEO. It’s utter idiocy, and has no relationship whatsoever to any premise I have either implied or articulated. Sorry if certain words in the preceding bother you, but I do get a little frustrated with your umm…sophomoric “examples” of adult conversation.

    Are you saying that the Constitution specifically mentions sheriffs and defines their duties?

    Good Lord, do you even skim over what you’re supposedly replying to? I said:

    No, I’m not saying city police agencies or the FBI or whatever are unconstitutional, but they are not empowered directly by the Constitution, whereas, the county sheriff is. At least by the oft-stated and unambiguous intent, if not by naming the sheriff specifically within the Constitution. Madison explained it succinctly in Federalist #39:

    Did you also ignore the excerpt of Federalist #39?

    According to this:

    What is it with you people and Wiki? I’m supposed to consider some anonymous editor (or gaggle of editors as the case may be) over the Federalist Papers and/or Madison, Jefferson and Adams? Or SCOTUS in the Marbury decision? Or the law I cited (in several posts) earlier regarding the premise that an unconstitutional law is neither enforceable nor controlling of a citizens’ actions? And you wonder why I call this conversation sophomoric. Wikipedia is the last source I will ever consider. I will never understand how Wiki is so universally accepted as a reliable source. It’s only a slight step above taking what you or I say as “documentation” for a given premise. Is this what you call “getting real?” Roll-Eyes Smiley

    State attorney generals are also elected law enforcement officials, aren’t they the chief LEO of the state then by definition the boss of all those county sheriffs?

    You’re really having trouble following this “adult” conversation, aren’t you? We’re talking about the authorities of state and local officials compared to those of federal officials. In a perfect relationship, an AG and all local sheriffs within his state are solid partners in protecting their citizens’ rights. To the extent that that relationship falls short of such perfection in a given state, that is for the people of that state to address as they see fit, but there’s not a federal constitutional issue at play at all in that scenario. Lord, grant me the serenity…..

    Finally, you actually address something I actually said, and this is the crux of the problem:

    would he be legally justified in refusing to enforce Chicago’s gun ban?

    He would be legally justified in seeking clarification through proper judicial processes. e.g. getting with the states AG office and hashing it out with them.

    So in the end, even SCOTUS rulings are not the final word, eh? A City Council or County Commission can continue to enforce laws that have already been adjudicated and deemed unconstitutional, and the only recourse that anyone, even a constitutional official such as a sheriff, has is to go back to court when the government ignores said ruling(s)? It’s worse than I thought, rich. Under this scenario, there is no end to constitutional usurpations by government, no resolution that restores citizens’ rights when they’ve been violated, or protects them from being violated in the first place. Just endless trips back and forth to court to continue fighting a “law” that 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256 states unequivocally is no law at all.

    All that only to get to this:

    As I stated before, I did not watch the video yet, I will, but for the sake of the post so far, which of the two actions are these sheriffs advocating:

    Unreal. I post a video. You ignore it and go off on every obfuscatory tangent you can conjure up, and then have the gall to give me two choices of what the participants in the video are discussing, neither of which has any relationship whatsoever to what they’re talking about, and expect me to answer that question as though we’re just two adults having an adult conversation? Either watch the freakin’ video and address it, or STFU already. This had the potential to be an interesting topic of discussion, even between you and me. That ship has apparently sailed though. What a waste of time it is trying to converse with you.

    CC

    Thumb up 2

  10. richtaylor365

    Yes, you are wrong. I “profess” little, and instead document as much of what I say as possible. It is true that I have documented the law concerning the premise to which you allude several times

    Ah, so I am right, about your premise, thought so,it is still wrong though.

    To wit:

    You should provide links to stuff that you cut and paste, Weren’t you ragging on CM the other day for doing the same thing…..really.

    And all that stuff you pasted was great, except you still don’t get the obvious, to wit:

    It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail.

    And who decides what is and what is not constitutional? No, not the citizen, not the LEO, it is that body that is tasked with that job, the judiciary, all the way up to SCOTUS.

    I have never come close to intimating that driving drunk or injuring another person or any of the other blather contained in that example of legal double-speak would or should be seen as constitutionally protected, either on behalf of the citizen or the LEO.

    No, but you have said that an LEO does not have to enforce laws he thinks are unconstitutional (even an an obligation to ignore them) so what if an officer thinks that the DUI laws are unconstitutional? It does not matter a twit that you do not like my example, the simple fact is that you gave LEO’s permission to ignore laws (any laws) that his individual conscience declares unconstitutional, very dangerous, don’t you think?

    Good Lord, do you even skim over what you’re supposedly replying to? I said:

    Good Lord, can you at least answer my question. Even by your yardstick of “oft-stated and unambiguous intent” I did not see where a sheriff was referred to and asked for clarification.

    We’re talking about the authorities of state and local officials compared to those of federal officials

    Yes, and you posited that since (in your mind) sheriffs were mentioned in the Constitution that they somehow were the preeminent LE body of the state. I was simply pointing out that you are in error, the state AG is also elected and trumps any authority a county sheriff might wield.

    So in the end, even SCOTUS rulings are not the final word, eh?

    Yes, they are

    A City Council or County Commission can continue to enforce laws that have already been adjudicated and deemed unconstitutional, and the only recourse that anyone, even a constitutional official such as a sheriff, has is to go back to court when the government ignores said ruling(s)?

    In this particular case, if what you say is so, then the sheriff or the Chicago police chief is not bound by any city ordinance to usurp that which the SCOTUS has already ruled on. Maybe you can provide some links I can read that can better describe what you say goes on in Chicago. Before this post Iwas not aware of any ambiguity wrt Chicago gun laws. I found this:

    Mayor Daley says the city will rewrite its gun ordinance to comply with Second Amendment rights, but he offered no explanation of how that might be achieved.

    Have they not done this?

    Unreal. I post a video. You ignore it

    I told you I was going to get to it, right?

    and then have the gall to give me two choices of what the participants in the video are discussing, neither of which has any relationship whatsoever to what they’re talking about,

    And I was dead on, wasn’t I? Naturally choosing #1 as what the sheriffs were talking about, prescient.

    What a waste of time it is trying to converse with you.

    You do get unhinged rather easily, don’t you? I still think we are capable of having an adult discussion, I know I am.

    Thumb up 0

  11. CzarChasm *

    Rich, I’ve got to start by asking, what does the word “unitarily” mean? Did you mean to infer another word perhaps? Or are you professing to know what no other man in the world who speaks English doesn’t know, that being, what the word “unitarily” means?

    Ah, so I am right, about your premise, thought so,it is still wrong though.

    Not “my” premise nimrod, but the law, something of which you claim to know much, but rarely appear to recognize as such even when the Volume (16), name of publication (American Jurisprudence), edition (2nd Edition), Section (177), later edition (late 2d.) and latest Section (256) are spoon fed to you. I don’t have the book right in front of me or I’d scan the page with the quotation on it for you, but really, citing the location of the passage and quoting the text seems adequate to me for you to determine whether or not it is a valid citation without further leading-by-the-nose from me. Apparently not though. :shrug: or :dunno:

    I’m rather surprised that you seem oblivious to that citation, rich. I’ve been hearing and seeing it cited for many years, starting with Reagan during his second campaign. It’s one of the more popular citations to quote on Patriot sites and gun forums that I’ve seen. I’ve cited it many times and never had it dismissed or questioned in as knee-jerk a fashion as you seem to be engaging in. The strange thing is that it is not the only valid citation available that says the exact same thing, at least three instances of which come from SCOTUS rulings. You should be not only aware of such rulings, but highly supportive of them as well, as you claim to be concerned with rights every bit as much as I or anyone else is. Anyway, since you can’t be bothered to look it up for yourself, here are the cases of which I speak:

    “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection, it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” Norton vs. Shelby County, 118 US 425 p. 442

    Here’s one you should be very familiar with:

    “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491.

    And one that I already quoted, but which you have so far seen fit to also ignore:

    “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” Chief Justice Marshall, Marbury vs Madison, 5, U.S. (2 Cranch) 137, 174,176, (1803).

    Now, you have hammered me about case law since the first exchanges we engaged in rich. I have provided you with case law here. Please provide something more thoughtful and scholarly than just, “You’re wrong” to refute it. Otherwise, be prepared for words like idiocy and ridiculous to rebut whatever blather you do waste my time with. Shocked

    …It does not matter a twit that you do not like my example, the simple fact is that you gave LEO’s permission to ignore laws (any laws) that his individual conscience declares unconstitutional, very dangerous, don’t you think?

    Actually, if you were still a cop, I would think that you are very dangerous. As it is though, you’re simply a tool writing in support of dangerous usurpers. While it’s nothing to fear per se, it is an attitude for which contempt, disgust, and distrust are appropriate responses. That might explain the words which you seem to flinch at coming from me. Ya think?

    I was simply pointing out that you are in error, the state AG is also elected and trumps any authority a county sheriff might wield.

    Umm…citation please. I find such a blanket statement to be utter sophistry. You referred to state AGs as being county sheriffs’ “boss” in an earlier post. More ridiculousness. An AG has law enforcement authority over a sheriff who breaks the law, but that’s it. An AG is not an overseer of the day-to-day running of a sheriffs office, and the AGs authority to wield law enforcement powers is exactly equal to a county sheriff’s; it’s the Constitution in both cases, and a sheriff can investigate and set into motion a prosecution of an AG who breaks the law in his or her county with just as much authority as an AG can do the same against a sheriff. There is a partnership of authority, not a superior/inferior relationship. Yes, AGs proffer legal opinions, but that’s all they are is opinions. We had an AG about four years ago who offered the opinion that the carry law in Alabama was worded such that open carrying would not be a violation, and that no concealed weapons permit was necessary if/when a person was open carrying. About half the sheriffs in the state disagreed and went after open carriers. The AG offered his opinion, which still stands as an official legal opinion from the state AG’s office BTW, even though a new(er) AG is in office now, but no sheriff has been shut down, prosecuted, or even harassed as far as I’ve ever heard, because of not enforcing that opinion as law. I find your blanket statement wholly incredible in light of watching very closely such a tug-of-war over authorities take place over the last few years.

    You do get unhinged rather easily, don’t you?

    Unhinged? HAHAHA! How so? Is it the resorting to actually citing SCOTUS rulings that makes me unhinged? Nah, I guess I can’t make an unequivocal statement of fact here about this, but I honestly believe that it’s your cop mentality to project your becoming unhinged on me for my questioning your supposed superior knowledge about law and constitutionality, and you still can’t stand when a citizen questions you. I’ve cited three Supreme Court cases that unequivocally contradict your baseless assertion that neither citizens nor LEOs ever have the authority to defy laws that are unconstitutional.

    Let’s try this. If you had been either a National Guard troop or LEO in New Orleans in the hours/days after Katrina blew through, would you have obeyed the orders of your Mayor, Chief of Police or Company Commander to go door-to-door disarming citizens? If not, why not? If so, under what constitutional authority would you have been acting?

    You seem to identify with the group in the OP video, and claim to be able to “guarantee” that they’d be on “your side” in this. You easily dismiss one blatant expression to the contrary though, where Sheriff Hagwood states unequivocally that he would not enforce BLM dictates of road closures in his county, as nothing more than, “…working the crowd and emphasizing his displeasure with certain federal laws.” Bullshit. Sheriff Hagwood was delivering a message to both the federal government and the citizens he is sworn to protect and defend the rights of. His message was clear; this is a line I will not cross because that line crosses the Constitution! Every single one of those Patriots could’ve been counted upon to refuse to disarm the citizens of New Orleans. Unless you can honestly say the same, you are nothing like them, and you are neither on their side, nor they on yours.

    CC

    Thumb up 3

  12. richtaylor365

    I knew when I first started reading your post that I should just leave it alone. Our fundamental differences in approaching and fighting an out of control meddling fed. government revealed itself early on and I knew this was going to be a continuation of that dispute. I, like the Tea Party recognize a problem but want to work within the system, affording myself of the mechanisms for redress and control. You, like the OWS crowd, are after something much more militant, much more radical, and to tell you the truth, much more delusional. But it became apparent early on (even without watching the video which, really, did you expect everyone to sit through something over an hour in length? but since I was going to comment, I did watch it, all of it) that you were going somewhere that I knew was ridiculous, that dedicated LE professionals were going to go rogue, were going to decide for themselves what is and what is not Constitutional, then run their counties based on that litmus test and not the laws of the land. And by god if I was not right.

    It is interesting that you could watch that whole video then conclude that these guys were going to adopt the very philosophy that you profess, that is not what they said at all. It is also interesting to think that I know nothing about them and you do. I worked in counties just like these,I live here, I worked with guys just like these for decades, talked with them, socialized with them, drank beer, shared celebrations and commiserated over tragedies with them, but yeah, I don’t know them at all.

    The simple fact is this, you are dead wrong about what they are advocating. They will work within the system, collaborating with fellow sheriffs and fellow agencies to bring pressure to bear on those folks (the AG’s office and the state’s legal council) to address their complaints legally, and yes their complaints are valid. But what they are not doing is forming some cabal where by they decide what laws to enforce and what laws to just ignore, then run their counties by their sovereignty alone.

    Tell me, no doubt there are LEO’s in that little fraternity of yours (do you guys wear funny hats at meetings and have a secret handshake?) some are probably high up in authority, why haven’t we read about any of your fellow brothers chucking their responsibilities and duties, and going the route of the patriot? Surely they are just as committed to the cause as you, maybe your arguments are just not that persuasive on them, keep trying.

    You asked earlier to have an “adult conversation”, yet everything you write spells out just the opposite. This 14 year old mentality of throwing insults at every turn, denigrating your opponent’s profession and his service (which I am quite proud of btw) without knowing one thing about him, revealing your thin skin at taking great offense at the most innocuous of comments, an adult conversation was the last thing you wanted.

    You are not going to convince me that your way is better, nor will I convince you of mine, I should have realized that when I posted my first comment, But I really was trying to have an adult conversation, you would have none of that.

    This is your post so I’ll give you the last word, but believe it or not, I really tried to keep it civil, courteous and adult in tone.

    Thumb up 0

  13. CzarChasm *

    I didn’t get the following when I first read it. I’m kind of slow when I’ve been working extra hours and still making the classes I started taking a month ago or so. But anyway, it hit me as I was driving home a little bit ago what you were referring to with this rich:

    You should provide links to stuff that you cut and paste, Weren’t you ragging on CM the other day for doing the same thing…..

    This is amazing, rich. I “ragged” on CM for failing to credit the owner of the intellectual property that he cut and pasted in here. It’s called “plagiarism” and it’s a freakin’ crime! I’ll concede that it wasn’t intentional, but great googly moogly! It was horrible form and nothing like the same thing as failing to link to the site where you got the intellectual property from, as long as you attribute it to the correct author.

    Posting unattributed intellectual property is especially bad form these days with Righthaven running lose. You have heard of the Righthaven case(es), haven’t you? Good grief, now that I think about it, you probably haven’t, since you couldn’t even be bothered enough to know what the full implications of the Miranda case were all about, even though you read the instructions that your masters taught you to repeat by rote to every poor schmuck you ever arrested! Now settle down from the unhinging I’m sure that little shot across your bow caused you before you read on. This is kind of important.

    The fact of the matter is, that a forum or blog that got caught up in a Righthaven case over the last eight months or so didn’t even depend on lack of attribution for it to be brought. Righthaven was suing every forum and blog that even linked to a client-site that they represented. They ignored established Fair Use laws and precedents, and forced hundreds of websites to limit or completely prohibit hot-linking to a slew of their client-sites, and all these wonderful courts that you are so inexplicably enamored with allowed the cases to be brought.

    You can do more research into it if you’re interested, but the point is, CM’s bad form had the potential to bring heat on this blog. Was it likely? Hell, I don’t know, but I know without a doubt that similar lapses in judgment brought A LOT of heat on another forum that I frequent, and I watched as the owner of that site literally had to beg the participants for donations to defend his rights of Fair Use quotes and citations. I called CM on it because he put this site at risk, period. It had absolutely nothing to do with “ragging” on him for forgetting to post a link, and everything to do with trying to keep JimK from suffering the same kind of harassment from an opportunistic, leftist litigation-whore of an organization that nearly succeeded in closing a great site of which I am a part.

    Now, as of just a week ago, Righthaven is all but out of business. Finally, a court is attempting to right the wrongs, in the form of completely frivolous lawsuits, that its brother-courts have allowed to proliferate over the last several months. But you saying that me failing to link to the site where I got the citation, even though I posted it in a quote-box and identified what publication, volume, section and edition it came from, is the same as freakin’ plagiarism is just you doubling-down on whatever idiocy you have spewed in this thread already, and man, that spewage was already overflowing.

    …..really.

    Yes, really.

    CC

    Thumb up 3

  14. CzarChasm *

    Un-freakin-real. I seriously doubt you’ll let me have the last word, because with this refusal to answer the question about how you would’ve reacted to unconstitutional orders to disarm the citizens of New Orleans during a disaster that personified the very reason the 2nd Amendment is so necessary, that last word is “coward.”

    When you respond, please explain to what “fraternity” you refer above. I guess you’re trying to be clever about some militia you fantasize that I belong to or something of that nature. I really have no idea where you could possibly rationalize anything I’ve said anywhere on this blog that would point to me being a radical revolutionary or whatever I’m supposed to infer from that twaddle.

    And let’s see hot-shot….How exactly have YOU helped and/or participated with the Tea Party? What through-the-system activism have YOU engaged in? Because I’ve got a damn long resume of peaceful, legal and through-the-system activism that will likely dwarf yours. Even though CM, Kimpost and Xetrov are certainly no fans of mine, if they’re honest, they can confirm that I am, and remain, an original Tea Party activist. And yeah, I got pictures galore to prove it, from the first Tea Party here in Huntsville 4/15/09, to the 2nd one on 7/4/10, with a trip in-between to D.C. with tens of thousands of my closest Tea Party comPATRIOTS March 20-22, 2010, making our voices heard legally against ObamaCare, to 16 days digging debris and fucking bodies out of Biloxi, MS after Katrina to twice that number of days digging my own neighbors out of tornado swarm damage in April and May of this year. I’ve been an activist volunteer for the FairTax for just shy of 10 years, and have attended nearly every major rally they’ve organized from Columbia, SC to Ames, IA to Phoenix, AZ to Atlanta, GA. I’m as civic-minded, law-abiding, humanitarian, peaceful, and willing to contribute time, money and labor for any worthy cause as anyone in this country you arrogant know-nothing twit. I just don’t make a habit of taking shit from has-been tyrants like you. Eat shit and oink at the moon.

    CC

    Thumb up 2

  15. CM

    Even though CM, Kimpost and Xetrov are certainly no fans of mine, if they’re honest, they can confirm that I am, and remain, an original Tea Party activist.

    I can confirm this, he was there at the start.

    Thumb up 2