Someone in law enforcement that lets their prejudices influence their actions…why I never would have guessed…
“Many constitutional sheriffs believe they can pass a local law and forbid federal authorities from coming into a county,”
Loses Civil War…says “nuh uh, do-over” to reset everything and try again…
The Oregon judicial terrorists were trying to get into federal court, for a shot at having the whole BLM declared unconstitutional. It’s not clear whether the whackadoo sheriffs association were the instigators, or just hitched their wagons.
Yep, I’m the law here abouts just so you know I am also above the law…you know I have extrajudicial powers. Powers that are valid only in my imagination but they are POWERS?!/)*
They’re pretty strongly intertwined. The Bundy Bunch are only one head on that beast. There’s Ken Ivory’s group - an Americans for Prosperity-backed land grab bunch in Utah. There are individual landowners of the ‘donor class’ persuasion attempting to purchase judgeships in Montana, and the list goes on.
The Hammonds lit fires on federal land in 2001 and 2006 to protect their property from wildfires and invasive plants.
This is complete and utter bullshit… known as the AP just mouthing what the Hammonds said to cover-up illegal hunting. From the Oregon District US Attorney:
The jury heard evidence that once back at the ranch, Dwight and Steven told him to “keep his mouth shut,” and that “nobody needed to know about the fire.” The fires destroyed evidence of the deer slaughter and took 139 acres of public land out of public use for two years.
The rest of this “Constitutional Sheriff’s” movement sounds an awful lot like early Protestants rebelling against The Church that came to be know as Catholics, wanting to have a direct relationship with God that they get to interpret from the words of the Bible without priestly intervention. Unfortunately for them, this isn’t religion, this is the law as agreed by We The People and if you have an issue, then damn well take it up with our duly appointed arbiters, also known as judges.
This seems to be a western tea bagger thing, and the shit they believe is pretty extreme (including all federal authorities should be required to notify the sheriff when they are in the county and should be required to get written permission from the sheriff prior to talking to any citizen of the county). And at election time you hear all the candidates promising the voters (I live in tea bag central for Montana) they will not enforce any laws they consider unconstitutional.
But on a lighter note asshole Larry Klayman was thwarted in his effort to represent the bundy bunch.
ARTICLE III
Section. 1.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish…
Section. 2.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;
Hmmm… I can’t seem to find the Article or Section of the Constitution which grants sheriffs the power to to individually decide Constitutional “questions.” I wonder if one of these folks who has “spent years” studying the Constitution can refer to me the section about the powers vested in sheriffs?
“Constitutional Sheriffs” are not too unusual in the western states. With luck, counties have good candidate choices that are merely conservative. If no sane person wants to run for this relatively thankless job, you’ll only get “constitutionalist” candidates. Mesa County, CO (which includes the largest city between Denver and Salt Lake City) narrowly dodged that issue 2 years ago - the local law enforcement community stepped in to find someone to run against the nut-jobs. And thankfully, a majority of voters were level-headed enough to make a sane choice.
http://westernslopewatchdog.com/2014/04/mcso-deputy-becomes-fourth-mesa-co-sheriff-candidate/
…it wasn’t one of these,
“Fringey?” Try unlawful, ignorant, and dangerous crackpots.
It’s amazing to think these people 1) think the Constitution says something it doesn’t, 2) think that, by virtue of being voted in by the people of their county, have the right to override laws written and passed by people voted into office by larger bodies of citizens, and 3) are too arrogant and ignorant to read the Constitution to see what it really says.
Crazy
Sort of
People
On
Acid…?
The CSPOA is unequivocal about gun rights. It supports the right of criminals and the mentally ill to carry firearms and opposes gun registration or background checks.
So, basically, they are an offshoot of the NRA.
Tina Kunishige, one of the candidates, said sheriffs need to decide which laws are constitutional.
She means the local sheriffs should be judge, jury and executioner. Got it.
That’s easy to find. It is the “We the people of the United States,…” clause. Anyone knows that that clause means your county sheriff, as one of the people, has absolute jurisdiction over every law that might even possibly affect people in his county. All of us Google trained lawyers know this.
I don’t know if he’s an ‘honorable’ man or not…what I DO know is in THIS country we follow the LAW or change it…
These guys are lightweights. The real men in this movement spit on the Constitution. The sovereign citizens believe that every legal arrangement since the Norman Conquest is an illegitimate imposition, and that the only true law and govt we have is the common law and the county sheriff. Now, how you get either the common law or sheriffs without the actual other institutions of govt we have had since the Norman Conquest, is one of those mysteries they never explain. They’re a branch of the libertarians in that respect of assuming that which they would disprove.
They see sheriffs as the ultimate law enforcement authority in their dispute with the federal government over control of federal lands unless the sheriff does not agree with their batshit crazy stance on federal power in which case that particular sheriff is part of the problem and must be replaced.
Fixed for clarity and completeness.
“I’ve studied the Constitution for a number of years.”
Translation: she’s never actually bothered to read it.
But she has heard of it.