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."
No comments:
Post a Comment