Wednesday, January 30, 2008

The County Sheriff:The Ultimate Check & Balance

When the United States of America was founded the framers spent arduous hours devising a Constitution that would protect future generations from tyranny and government criminality. A system of checks and balances was established to keep all government, especially at the federal level, from becoming too powerful and abusive.


The Bill of Rights was promulgated to augment the limitations previously placed against the government, to further insure that government would stay in its proper domain.


So, what happens when government does not obey its own constitution? What punishment is meted out to politicians who vote for and pass unconstitutional laws? What happens if they appoint unlawful bureaucracies or allow their agents to violate the rights of the American citizen? The answer to these questions is both astounding and lamentable; NOTHING!


Now the question becomes even greater; who will stop criminal and out-of-control government from killing, abusing, violating, robbing, and destroying its own people? Yes, believe it or not, there is an answer to this one. The duty to stop such criminality lies with the county sheriff. The question needs to be posed to each and every sheriff of these United States; will you stand against tyranny?


The office of sheriff has a long and noble history. It dates back over a thousand years and originated in England. The sheriff is the only elected law enforcement official in America. He is the last line of defense for his citizens. He is the people's protector. He is the keeper of the peace, he is the guardian of liberty and the protector of rights. A vast majority of sheriffs will agree with all of this until they are asked to apply these principles of protection to federal criminals. Their backpeddling and excuses will be more plentiful than radar tickets and louder than sirens at doughnut time. Most of the unbelievers, who themselves have taken a solemn oath to "uphold and defend" the U S Constitution, will passionately and even apologetically exclaim that they have no authority or jurisdiction to tell federal agents to do anything, let alone stop them from victimizing local citizens. The truth and stark reality is that it's just the opposite; the sheriff has ultimate authority and law enforcement power within his jurisdiction. He is to protect and defend his citizens from all enemies, both "foreign and domestic."


Of course, there are those who will maintain that the feds have not and will not commit crimes against law-abiding citizens in this country, the IRS notwithstanding. For the sake of argument, let's just pretend that the government did nothing wrong at the Branch Davidian church in Waco or at Ruby Ridge, Idaho when citizens were killed. Those incidents have been debated and will be forever. However, the immutable truth about both tragedies remains that if the local sheriff had remained in charge of both incidents, not one person would have died, including federal agents, and the law would

still have been enforced.


Despite the frequency or the severity of government abuses, if they were to happen in your county, would your sheriff intervene? Well, don't look now, but they are already occurring and some sheriffs have indeed taken very courageous stands against the feds coming in to their counties to "enforce" their laws. Cattle, lands, homes, bank accounts, cash, and even children have been seized and prisons filled all in the name of federal enforcement of EPA rules, The Endangered Species Act, IRS rules, (of which there are over 10 million pages) Forest Service and Dept. of the Interior technicalities and the list goes on and on. The sheriff of NYE County, Nevada stopped federal agents from seizing a rancher's cattle and even threatened to arrest the feds if they proceeded against his orders. Sheriffs in Wyoming have told the agents of all federal bureaus to check with them before serving any papers, making any arrests, or confiscating any property. Why? because they are doing their jobs that's why! It's just another way to provide checks and balances that ultimately protect and help citizens.


Criminality within the IRS has been well documented. Hearings about such crimes were held before congress in 1998. IRS employees testified of hundreds of crimes being committed against law-abiding citizens. Congress did nothing about it. They were too busy checking Monica Lewinsky's dress. The point remains, if any abuse occurs in your county by federal officials; does your sheriff have the guts and the authority to protect and defend you? Does that question not sound redundant? Is he not bound by oath to do just that?


Yes, he has the right and the duty to do so. In Mack/Printz v USA, the U S Supreme Court declared that the states or their political subdivisions, "are not subject to federal direction." The issue of federal authority is defined even further in this most powerful Tenth Amendment decision. The two sheriffs who brought the suit objected to being forced into federal service without compensation pursuant to some misguided provisions of the Brady Bill. The sheriffs sued the USA (Clinton adm.) and won a major landmark case in favor of States' Rights and local autonomy. In this ruling by the Supreme Court, some amazing principles were exposed regarding the lack of power and authority the federal government actually has. In fact, this is exactly the issue addressed by the court when Justice Scalia opined for the majority stating, "...the Constitution's conferral upon Congress of not all governmental powers, but only discreet, enumerated ones."


Scalia then quotes the basis of the sheriffs' suit in quoting the Tenth Amendment which affirms the limited powers doctrine, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution...are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." To clarify this point, we need to understand that the powers and jurisdiction granted to the federal government are few, precise, and expressly defined. The feds have their assignments within constitutional boundaries and the states have theirs, as well. Scalia also mentions this, "It is incontestable that the Constitution established a system of dual sovereignty" and that the states retained "a residuary and inviolable sovereignty." Scalia even goes so far as to detail who is responsible to keep the federal government in their proper place, if or when they

decide to go beyond their allotted authority. In doing so he quotes James Madison, considered to be the father of our Constitution, "The local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority [federal government] than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere." (The Federalist # 39) Thus, the federal government has no more authority to compel the states or the counties to do anything, no more so than the Prime Minister of Canada has.


But what happens when the inevitable occurs; when the feds get too abusive and attempt to control every facet of our lives? The Mack/Printz decision answers this also. "This separation of the two spheres is one of the constitution's structural protections of liberty. Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the federal government serve to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front." To quote Madison again Scalia writes, "Hence, a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself." (The Federalist # 51) So the state governments are actually and literally charged with controlling the federal government. To do so is "one of the Constitution's structural protections of liberty." (Emphasis added)


Yes, it is regrettable that a sheriff would be put in this position. The governor and the state legislature should be preventing federal invasions into the states and counties way before the sheriff, but if it comes to the sheriff, then he must take a firm stand. James Madison also said, "We can safely rely on the disposition of state legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority." So when the state legislatures go along to get along and are bought off by political cronyism or the disbursement of federal funds, then the sheriff becomes the ultimate check and balance.


It is time for the sworn protectors of liberty, the sheriffs of these United States of America, to walk tall and defend us from all enemies; foreign and domestic. When sheriffs are put in the quandary of choosing between enforcing statutes from vapid politicians or keeping their oaths of office, the path and choice is clear, "I solemnly swear or affirm, that I will protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

20 comments:

Rob said...

Thank you, Sheriff Mack, for restoring at least a little of my respect for law enforcement. Frankly, I have been coming to the conclusion, lately, that all "police officers" have become little more than armed goons, with no respect for Liberty and Justice. Although I strongly suspect that is largely the case in the big cities, I am relieved to know that it is not universal.

What can private citizens do to help?

rbstern said...

Wonderfully written.

Please keep educating Americans on this and related topics. It's the only way we'll be able to stop government tyranny from growing.

Thank you!

Jack said...

I am glad to see this. Thank you, Sheriff Mack! What about a Sheriff and Deputies who violate the State and Fed Bill of Rights? What then?
Just curious.

A. said...

Wow! I never thought I'd see the day I'd read such truth about the feds and law coming from a sheriff, as sad as that is to say. I am really impressed.

Sir, you are a true American for speaking truth and pointing these things out when all around us are so many hundreds of thousands of uninformed, federal-boot-licking officers.

What a breath of fresh air. You are to be highly commended, sheriff! I am behind your organization for sure.

Republicae said...

I appreciate your words and your efforts to restore the proper role of the Constitution to this country. I have recommended your blog to my readers and to others.

Please feel free to go to my blog at:

http://1776solution.blogspot.com

I am also going to place your blog on my bloglist.

PrairieMae said...

Is there any progress in your Association? Do you have a website now?

TRIAD FREEDOM. Take a stand. said...

Well said, people should join you in this fight.

VinBea said...

Yes, I agree we were founded as a Constitutional Republic - voting and supporting Chuck Baldwin this past election - and have added you to my favorites with plans to frequent your two sites (to include this blog) - having just first hearing about you via listening to the Alex Jones radio show via the infowars site over the internet.
God's rich blessings on you and on yours' as I can tell already you are one of those fighting the good fight of faith from your own little niche in the world.
God bless you; and God richly bless our Constitutional Republic regardless of what the Obamas and Bushes of our nation says!

VinBea said...

Dear Sheriff Mack,

Listening to you for the first time now via internet alternate media - Alex Jones' infowars site - and thought to send this note, to say: Hello.

I back Chuck Baldwin and the Constitution Party this past elections (for what it is worth - thinking in my saying this tells you my views about our Constitutional Republic than anything else I can say right now...) - and appreciate your standing up for God ordained godly principles that made America great; with the US Constitution meaning what it says and saying what it means that's the laws that are to govern over our Constitutional Republic - not this communistic/democracy/BS going on out of WDC regardless of party affiliation if GW Bush and McCain are any indication.

God's continued rich blessings on you and yours' - as I've added your blog and site to my favorite and will frequent from now until our Lord comes...

izzysykopth said...

Dont expect any L.A. County Sherriff to do their duty. They are worse than the feds. LA is already a police state. Great effort though.

Fred said...

Rule of Law vs Parliamentary Sovereignty

This country was built under the Rule of Law to prevent the tyranny that the colonies suffered under British Parliamentary sovereignty from happening again.
The Rule of Law was formulated with the US Constitution as the highest law in the land with no body above the law. The US Constitution defined and limited the powers of the US Congress expressly to prevent Parliamentary sovereignty.
Throughout history, the US Congress has been stretching the limits of the Interstate Commerce and General Welfare clauses, culminating with the passage of Health Care where the last Constitutional restraint on Congress' power has been shaken off. Without Constitutional restraint, there is no law to limit the power of Congress, making this country subject to Parliamentary sovereignty - exactly what the founders attempted to prevent! We have become what we've rebelled against!
John Locke in The Second Treatise of Civil Government states: "Where-ever law ends, tyranny begins", and when the highest law, it is the highest tyranny.
Whereas the US Supreme Court has abdicated it's responsibility to defend the US Constitution, it falls on each State to defend their rights, and join together in restoring the US Constitution.

Jon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
scarlet reynolds said...

Hello, I came across your blog site while browsing the internet for websites related to Police jobs. On the other hand, in all truth, there is only one reason why the police force in any area exists and that is to serve the public. Not only is the police force entirely funded by the taxpayers pocket but police officers are all civilians themselves and they must play an active role in the community. A recent government initiative has, to this effect, been realised by many police forces which have employed the police pledge.

Guy said...

Has any thought been given to doing a feasibility study regarding the founding of a constitutional law enforcement university?
Signed: Guy Felton, Reno, Nevada
guyfelton@gmail.com
www.9-11Review.Net
www.AttentionWashoeCops.Com
www.DumpGammick.Com
www.GuyFelton.Com

BonnieGadsden said...

Let's get back to a Constitutional Republic. III Percent Patriots

IIIPercent.blogspot.com

BonnieGadsden
III

Dr. Ron Polland said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dr. Ron Polland said...

Gather together all county sheriffs who swore their alliegance to this country and not to Obama, convene grand juries, and charge Obama, Holder, Clinton, and Panetta with high treason. Send the guilty verdicts to the Governors of their respective states along with arrest warrants. Have the governors sign dispatch their state National Guards to accompany the sheriff's officers when they deliver the warrants to the White House and cc Congress.

Jerry Richardson said...

Thank God there is still some sanity alive in this country. To all patriots, it is time to support the legal forces sworn to defend our constitution. Tyranny is not an option!

John Eastborough said...

Over 200 Sheriffs have spoken out against unconstitutional gun grabs. Awesome.

But there are over 3100 counties in the US. 200 out of 3100 is a dismally small percentage.

This is why the "Last Line Of Defense" project was started. Check out the link, find your county on the map to see its status, then read the rest of the post to see how you can make a difference.

impliedinference.wordpress.com/2013/01/25/last-line-of-defense-sheriffs-chiefs-of-police/

Gary Hardee said...

This article should be sent to every voter you know via whatever method you have at your disposal.
Maybe even your local Sheriff.