Posted On: Thursday - July 30th 2020 8:22AM MST
In Topics: US Police State Liberty/Libertarianism Anarcho-tyranny Legal Stupidity
While reading Michelle Malkin's first-hand account of being on the bad end of Anarcho-Tyranny in Denver a week-end ago, as Peak Stupidity wrote about in the previous post, I noted a comment by a cop in the thread. The guy somewhat defended the cops, really only in the sense of, to paraphrase, "no, we don't all just want to obey the chief, whatever he says, and collect our pensions. We don't make that much."
Well, it may be true that in some locales the job is not as lucrative as in NY City and such places, but it is a pretty good deal. There are the perks of not going through any hassle to carry a gun in self-defense, driving and parking in whatever manner one likes, and retiring early with some pension*, large or small, at a young age. These are pretty big incentives to lay low, and "just do things the way they pay us to do them." (That's a line I've heard a WHOLE LOT lately in my job.)
In American large and medium sized cities, the cops are not at all beholden to the local population, i.e. we are not their "customers". The mayor picks a chief, both of these jobs being very political, and then the cops answer to the chief. They are not men, women, or what-have-you of the people. They may even really try to "protect and serve", but after a few years in, they will understand that they can't last long like that. Gotta "serve" out those 20 years. So, that "protect and serve" crap on the side of the cars (not really the idea anyway) is about protecting serving the years and protecting the jobs.
To the contrary, the local Sheriffs of at least the rural counties of America are a different story. If you go back to the body of law that was passed on to America from our British Founders, you will first of all realize that, hey, there were no police officers back then. There was no police. The establishment of a police force would have disgusted the Founders of our country, as, from their very recent experience, they abhorred the idea of a "standing army". However, the Sheriff was a local elected official of the people. We all have heard of the evil Sheriff of Nottingham from Robin Hood, and whatever you want to make of that story, there were Sheriffs going way back into British history.
(Sanders County, not one of the very biggest ones out west, has ~ 11,000 residents on 2,800 mi2. That's the way to run a country.)
Now readers, our law/Constitution-minded commenter Adam Smith may need to chime in in the comments, as Peak Stupidity does not claim to be a team of legal eagles. I will say that per my reading of the Constitutionalists types on the web over the years, the Sheriff of the county, whether it IS in a big city even, is the highest authority, higher than the State and the Feds. Well in the cities, there is the Police. No matter what is Constitutional, you won't hear of the Sheriff of Bronx county overruling the Police Chief and Mayor De Blasio.
Out in the rural counties, it's a different story. When you have a population of as little as 450 (this was in a county in central Montana about 1/2 the size of Massachusetts) the people are going to know the Sheriff and be able to tell HIM what to do. That's the low-end in population, of course, but even with 15,000 people in the county, a significant number (vote-wise) can be in personal touch with the guy. Instead of the Feds saying "jump!", and law enforcement saying "how high?", oftentimes, the local Sheriff can (at least try to) tell the Feds where to go.
The local Sheriff is the guy that Americans of the old days relied on as "the law", and he was elected by them. That's the key, but it only works with relatively small populations, as otherwise the more global politics are overwhelming. That's the case today with the cops in the cities, such as in the case with the Anarcho-Tyranny Michelle Malkin personally witnessed in Denver, Colorado. The attitude of the cops could come down the chain of command from a George Soros hand-picked official.
It's too bad the United State is not mostly rural, as it was the first century and a half. We might not have the Anarcho-Tyranny we see today if that were the case.
* Oh, about those pensions, yeah, if you men in blue were to read a little Peak Stupidity on the Global Financial Stupidity going on, you might know this: Even if your pension plans somehow remain officially solvent during this era of (12 years already) basement-dwelling interest rates, then then you might indeed get your $6,500 a month (wow!) in 2032 based on your last salary with the O/T, but ... how to break it to you ...
Uh, that condo in Sarasota that you plan to buy? It may have been hyperinflated to $4.5 Million by then, and you'll be lucky to living off of happy meals and and an occasional Dunkin Donut, for old time's sake, with your retired LEO discount (of course!) at $27 and $8.99 respectively. You could probably get a good deal from a buddy on an old cop cruiser... to sleep in. "Got a cop motor, cop shocks, cop tranny ... sharing the back seat of your dwelling - she's a man, baby!" Good luck with all that!
** There's a story behind this picture, as, per Idahoans for Liberty Sheriff ABC was involved in the events out in Malheur County, Oregon 4 years ago. Says the post: "Sadly, he [Sheriff Rummel] stops short of ordering the feds to say out of his county entirely."
Comments:
Cowboy
Tuesday - August 4th 2020 8:07AM MST
PS Excellent. Thanks for posting and all the great comments
Adam Smith
Friday - July 31st 2020 10:35PM MST
PS: Good late evening/early morning to you Mr. Moderator...
1994 was so far away and so long ago...
once upon a time... and in a land so seemingly far away...
We are getting overwhelmed... and it's overwhelming...
and a little exhausting...
"arcane" matters like sovereignty...
'cause who cares about silly things like sovereignty or freedom anyway... It's not like we're weirdo's or somethin'...
Unfortunately, even patriotic Americans do not care about the important details of liberty...
Sometimes I feel like I just wasn't made for these times...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NR7_TbMIVnA
☮
1994 was so far away and so long ago...
once upon a time... and in a land so seemingly far away...
We are getting overwhelmed... and it's overwhelming...
and a little exhausting...
"arcane" matters like sovereignty...
'cause who cares about silly things like sovereignty or freedom anyway... It's not like we're weirdo's or somethin'...
Unfortunately, even patriotic Americans do not care about the important details of liberty...
Sometimes I feel like I just wasn't made for these times...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NR7_TbMIVnA
☮
Moderator
Friday - July 31st 2020 3:47PM MST
PS: Sorry for the very late replies, especially for Mr. Blanc. I had a post of mine from a while back that I was going to paste the link in for, but I forgot what it was from last night. It was not in disagreement of anything you wrote here but just related.
If we play by the rules for too long though, the new bosses will change the rules, and then we may not have a choice of whether to obey the new rules.
Mr. Smith, thanks for the old stories. They are old stories now, and from a time when we Constitutionalists still had a chance. There are those many 2nd-Amendment Sanctuary Sheriff all over Virginia, but will they eventually fight both the Feds and State law. The problem is we are getting overwhelmed. See, those stories of yours (I LUV the Wyoming one) were from the 1990s and even the end of the '90s seems so far from today politically.
I really think that it's this aspect of the immigration invasion that the elites like more than anything else. We are getting overwhelmed by masses of people, who, even if they are not at all against us, just plain don't give a shit about "arcane" matters like sovereignty, That's what my 2nd-to-next post will be about, not really the immigration aspect so much, but the history of even patriotic Americans not caring about the important details of liberty that you brought up.
If we play by the rules for too long though, the new bosses will change the rules, and then we may not have a choice of whether to obey the new rules.
Mr. Smith, thanks for the old stories. They are old stories now, and from a time when we Constitutionalists still had a chance. There are those many 2nd-Amendment Sanctuary Sheriff all over Virginia, but will they eventually fight both the Feds and State law. The problem is we are getting overwhelmed. See, those stories of yours (I LUV the Wyoming one) were from the 1990s and even the end of the '90s seems so far from today politically.
I really think that it's this aspect of the immigration invasion that the elites like more than anything else. We are getting overwhelmed by masses of people, who, even if they are not at all against us, just plain don't give a shit about "arcane" matters like sovereignty, That's what my 2nd-to-next post will be about, not really the immigration aspect so much, but the history of even patriotic Americans not caring about the important details of liberty that you brought up.
Adam Smith
Friday - July 31st 2020 11:23AM MST
PS: Good afternoon Mr. Mblanc...
I hope this message finds you well and I agree with your comment emphatically.
I hope you have a wonderful day/afternoon/evening.
☮
I hope this message finds you well and I agree with your comment emphatically.
I hope you have a wonderful day/afternoon/evening.
☮
Adam Smith
Friday - July 31st 2020 11:21AM MST
PS: Good afternoon Mr. Moderator...
I too am of the opinion that the sheriff is the highest lawful authority in the county and has law enforcement powers exceeding that of any other state or federal official. The local sheriff can be our best protection against the federal government if he chooses to exercise his power. (Of the 3,084 sheriffs in the United States, only 42 are women, says Fred Wilson, director of operations for the National Sheriffs' Association.) (Alaska does not have counties, Sheriff's Offices or Deputies. The Alaska State Troopers provide complete law enforcement services for areas outside of the traditional “city limits” of most Alaskan cities.)
The county sheriff can tell the federal government “No, you can not operate in my county”, though I doubt many have the fortitude to do this. (Hell, I'm pretty sure most sheriffs do not even know they can do this as most have been to “government” skool where they learned about the gloriousness of the supremacy clause and many have watched tv/movie cop shows where the fed's come in and take over a crime scene to the acquiescence and/or chagrin of the local “authorities”. The matter has also been complicated by the 2nd clause of 18th amendment, the history of the Volstead Act and the alphabet agencies it spawned and the tendency for people to obey those in perceived positions of authority ala Stanley Milgram.)
I'd imagine that most sheriffs with the knowledge and courage to evict federal agents from their territory preside over rural counties and most are probably out west.
It's not uncommon for federal agents to operate beyond their lawful authority. FDA agents raid raw milk farmers at gunpoint; DEA agents kidnap and cage drug dealers; ATF agents steal guns and sell them to cartels across the border; IRS agents bust in SWAT style and take down “tax evaders”. All of these usurpations originate from the prohibition era when the 18th Amendment was ratified and the Volstead Act was signed into law. It became more problematic with Nixon's “war on drugs” and the creation of the DEA.
Due to the Constitution’s structure of “dual sovereignty”, federal agents have no authority to enforce state laws, though federal agents may be deputized by the local sheriff to do so. Furthermore, states cannot be compelled to enforce federal laws.
In 1994, the Tenth Amendment was reaffirmed by the Supremes when Sheriffs Mack and Printz sued the Clinton regime. The opinion in Mack and Printz v. United States stated, “The Framers rejected the concept of a central government that would act upon and through the States, and instead designed a system in which the State and Federal Governments would exercise concurrent authority over the people. The Federal Government’s power would be augmented immeasurably and impermissibly if it were able to impress into its service–and at no cost to itself–the police officers of the 50 States…Federal control of state officers would also have an effect upon the separation and equilibration of powers between the three branches of the Federal Government itself.”
As Richard Mack noted in The County Sheriff: America's Last Hope...
“There are already several examples of sheriffs and local governments standing against federal intrusiveness. The sheriff of Nye County, Nevada, in 1997 informed federal agents who came in to confiscate cattle from a local rancher that if they tried to take the cows he would arrest them. The cattle stayed right where they were. Then the sheriffs of Wyoming made a policy that all federal agents would have to check with them before they could make arrests, serve papers, or confiscate property within their respective jurisdictions of Wyoming. This should be the law throughout the land and is a tremendous check and balance for all involved.”
As you can imagine there are some in this world who do not care for the constitutional sheriff. The creatures at the southern poverty hate center bemoaned “A radical and growing organization of ‘constitutional sheriffs’ is promoting defiance of federal laws it doesn’t like.” Robert L. Tsai, Professor of Law at American University, also thinks it's a “strange idea” “that a sheriff is the highest law enforcement officer within a county’s borders”. Unfortunately the SPHC has a large megaphone and wields inordinate power while Mr. Tsai poisons the impressionable minds of American University's law students with his vile ideas.
Fortunately for those of us who believe in the constitution and the constitutional sheriff we still have the Supremes on our side... for now...
Thank you Mr. Moderator for another thoughtful blog post.
I hope you have a wonderful day/afternoon/evening.
☮
I too am of the opinion that the sheriff is the highest lawful authority in the county and has law enforcement powers exceeding that of any other state or federal official. The local sheriff can be our best protection against the federal government if he chooses to exercise his power. (Of the 3,084 sheriffs in the United States, only 42 are women, says Fred Wilson, director of operations for the National Sheriffs' Association.) (Alaska does not have counties, Sheriff's Offices or Deputies. The Alaska State Troopers provide complete law enforcement services for areas outside of the traditional “city limits” of most Alaskan cities.)
The county sheriff can tell the federal government “No, you can not operate in my county”, though I doubt many have the fortitude to do this. (Hell, I'm pretty sure most sheriffs do not even know they can do this as most have been to “government” skool where they learned about the gloriousness of the supremacy clause and many have watched tv/movie cop shows where the fed's come in and take over a crime scene to the acquiescence and/or chagrin of the local “authorities”. The matter has also been complicated by the 2nd clause of 18th amendment, the history of the Volstead Act and the alphabet agencies it spawned and the tendency for people to obey those in perceived positions of authority ala Stanley Milgram.)
I'd imagine that most sheriffs with the knowledge and courage to evict federal agents from their territory preside over rural counties and most are probably out west.
It's not uncommon for federal agents to operate beyond their lawful authority. FDA agents raid raw milk farmers at gunpoint; DEA agents kidnap and cage drug dealers; ATF agents steal guns and sell them to cartels across the border; IRS agents bust in SWAT style and take down “tax evaders”. All of these usurpations originate from the prohibition era when the 18th Amendment was ratified and the Volstead Act was signed into law. It became more problematic with Nixon's “war on drugs” and the creation of the DEA.
Due to the Constitution’s structure of “dual sovereignty”, federal agents have no authority to enforce state laws, though federal agents may be deputized by the local sheriff to do so. Furthermore, states cannot be compelled to enforce federal laws.
In 1994, the Tenth Amendment was reaffirmed by the Supremes when Sheriffs Mack and Printz sued the Clinton regime. The opinion in Mack and Printz v. United States stated, “The Framers rejected the concept of a central government that would act upon and through the States, and instead designed a system in which the State and Federal Governments would exercise concurrent authority over the people. The Federal Government’s power would be augmented immeasurably and impermissibly if it were able to impress into its service–and at no cost to itself–the police officers of the 50 States…Federal control of state officers would also have an effect upon the separation and equilibration of powers between the three branches of the Federal Government itself.”
As Richard Mack noted in The County Sheriff: America's Last Hope...
“There are already several examples of sheriffs and local governments standing against federal intrusiveness. The sheriff of Nye County, Nevada, in 1997 informed federal agents who came in to confiscate cattle from a local rancher that if they tried to take the cows he would arrest them. The cattle stayed right where they were. Then the sheriffs of Wyoming made a policy that all federal agents would have to check with them before they could make arrests, serve papers, or confiscate property within their respective jurisdictions of Wyoming. This should be the law throughout the land and is a tremendous check and balance for all involved.”
As you can imagine there are some in this world who do not care for the constitutional sheriff. The creatures at the southern poverty hate center bemoaned “A radical and growing organization of ‘constitutional sheriffs’ is promoting defiance of federal laws it doesn’t like.” Robert L. Tsai, Professor of Law at American University, also thinks it's a “strange idea” “that a sheriff is the highest law enforcement officer within a county’s borders”. Unfortunately the SPHC has a large megaphone and wields inordinate power while Mr. Tsai poisons the impressionable minds of American University's law students with his vile ideas.
Fortunately for those of us who believe in the constitution and the constitutional sheriff we still have the Supremes on our side... for now...
Thank you Mr. Moderator for another thoughtful blog post.
I hope you have a wonderful day/afternoon/evening.
☮
MBanc46
Thursday - July 30th 2020 11:22AM MST
PS Cops are the enforcers of the ruling class. While I imagine that, personally, more cops—at least white cops—tend to the Right than to the Left, their job is to lean on whomever the rulers want leaned on. They’re going to do what their bosses tell them to do. We can’t count on them to stick up for us. We can’t even count on them to treat us “fairly” according to the law. If their bosses tell them to break our heads, they will break our heads. Theoretically, we need to stand strongly for rule of law. We should make it clear that rule of law requires enforcers of law. But that doesn’t imply that the current enforcers of the current laws are our friends.