The Sheriff is the Ultimate Authority Within His County

The thread title pretty much states the argument. Is the sheriff the ultimate authority within his county? Another point of contention, or at least a subject that has been brought up in relation to the recent Oregon standoff a few times. I have a passing familiarity with the argument, not really too familiar with the philosophy of it. I'm honestly not sure what the positions of the law are pertaining to this argument, so that tells me there are plenty of other people who aren't as well.

I've done very little research into the topic so far. We have the CSPOA, or Constitutional Sheriff's and Peace Officer's Association. Their website is:
cspoa.org...

Nothing on the front page stating that exactly either way really. There seem to be some other organizations with similar ideologies, and I'm pretty sure the CSPOA is in alignment with many of the Oathkeepers' views. Here's this topic on this question. I'm going to refrain from offerring too much opinion for now or even to try and explain the ideology or reasoning behind such a point of view, because frankly I'm still pretty ignorant as to the particulars. Included below are links to the constitution, as I presume it will become relevant in the conversation. Discuss.
en.wikisource.org...
en.wikisource.org...
www.law.cornell.edu...

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

I'm going to refrain from offerring too much opinion for now or even to try and explain the ideology or reasoning behind such a point of view, because frankly I'm still pretty ignorant as to the particulars.

Perhaps you could research a bit more then, before creating a thread.

No. A sheriff is not the ultimate authority in his county. He is trumped at many levels. For good reason. Unless you think little kingdoms are a good idea.



Why not spend some time replying on your other, so very similar, threads instead of using a shotgun approach?

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
The thread title pretty much states the argument. Is the sheriff the ultimate authority within his county? Another point of contention, or at least a subject that has been brought up in relation to the recent Oregon standoff a few times. I have a passing familiarity with the argument, not really too familiar with the philosophy of it. I'm honestly not sure what the positions of the law are pertaining to this argument, so that tells me there are plenty of other people who aren't as well.

I've done very little research into the topic so far. We have the CSPOA, or Constitutional Sheriff's and Peace Officer's Association. Their website is:
cspoa.org...

Nothing on the front page stating that exactly either way really. There seem to be some other organizations with similar ideologies, and I'm pretty sure the CSPOA is in alignment with many of the Oathkeepers' views. Here's this topic on this question. I'm going to refrain from offerring too much opinion for now or even to try and explain the ideology or reasoning behind such a point of view, because frankly I'm still pretty ignorant as to the particulars. Included below are links to the constitution, as I presume it will become relevant in the conversation. Discuss.
en.wikisource.org...
en.wikisource.org...
www.law.cornell.edu...

To learn more about the powers of the Sherriff go to Anna Von Rietz's site. I think from memory she has quite a bot of stuff on this.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

This happened back in 2011 when a family who sold raw milk was being harrased by the FDA. Local Sheriff Rogers stepped in when the family asked for help.

Rogers said he became involved in the case in 2011 when the farmer complained to him.

“Specifically, the FDA was inspecting his farm without a warrant as much as every two weeks,” Rogers wrote. “Typical inspections occur annually. The Department of Justice (DOJ) had subpoenaed him for a grand jury in Michigan in which he was to bring his production documents. The Feds wanted to make this farmer an example.Text

The sheriff then emailed a lawyer at the Department of Justice, writing:

“I understand that you have made recent requests to (the farmer) for documents and to appear before a grand jury, and he has had a number of inspections and attempted inspections on his farm within Elkhart County. This is notice that any further attempts to inspect this farm without a warrant signed by a judge, based on probable cause, will result in federal inspectors’ removal or arrest for trespassing by my officers or I. In addition, if any further action is taken by the federal government on (the farmer), while he is in Elkhart County, I will expect that you or federal authorities contact my office prior to such action. I will expect you to forward this information to your federal associates, including the FDA.”
link
Shortly after the email was sent, the farmer received a certified letter from the DOJ that said his grand jury subpoena had been cancelled. No federal inspectors have visited the farm since 2011.

“Specifically, the FDA was inspecting his farm without a warrant as much as every two weeks,” Rogers wrote. “Typical inspections occur annually. The Department of Justice (DOJ) had subpoenaed him for a grand jury in Michigan in which he was to bring his production documents. The Feds wanted to make this farmer an example.

link

Seems to me the local sheriff caries some wait with the gov when he actually does his job.

a reply to: Phage

Why not spend some time replying on your other, so very similar, threads instead of using a shotgun approach?

Because those threads are about other subjects. The question of a sheriff's authority is ultimately a bigger one than just the recent event that brought the discussion about. Furthermore, I think it represents one of the underlying points of contention between the two factions that were in conflict there. Kind of like the other specific topics I've recently posted.

Where I choose to reply and to what topic and when is something I will have to decide for myself. If you don't wish to discuss it, you may excuse yourself, if you like. I wouldn't mind your input too much though, as long as it's topical. I don't often agree with you, but at least your arguments are usually intelligent and well written.

The rest of us wanna talk about it. This topic was really more of a side topic to those other topics anyway. It really has little to do with whether a Nevada assemblyman thinks a man was murdered, or whether the Constitution authorizes or prohibits the ownership of vast tracts of land, in its purest sense.

a reply to: liveandlearn

Thanks liveandlearn that's a good one. It's nice to see local officials being able to step in and slow the big machine down a little bit. Let's hope this type of local intervention can help make a positive difference in the way this whole big government trip has been turning out so far.

a reply to: Azureblue

It's interesting stuff, but I'm somewhat skeptical of the validity of that line of legal reasoning. You should be too. I've had mixed results with people who come around touting that philosophy, to put it as simply as possible. Looks great on paper, never seen it work out in real life. Be cautious. It's interesting, though.

No, the Sheriff of a state is not the overriding power as the SovCit movement likes to claim.

Kris Anne Hall's nonsense (and that of her nutty followers) debunked by an ACTUAL Professor of Law:

Ms. Hall briefly suggests that the United States Supreme Court’s interpretations of the United States Constitution are not authoritative and that state interpretations should be preferred. That suggestion is outright error. The United States Constitution is federal law and interpretation of federal law is done authoritatively by the United States Supreme Court. State courts only authoritatively interpret state law and when state law conflicts with federal law, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution provides that federal law trumps state law

Link

So, if a state has laws which don't contradict the federal laws, they can be interpreted by that state's courts as they deem fit, but when those laws conflict with federal law the federal law ALWAYS trumps state law.

originally posted by: Rocker2013
No, the Sheriff of a state is not the overriding power as the SovCit movement likes to claim.

Kris Anne Hall's nonsense (and that of her nutty followers) debunked by an ACTUAL Professor of Law:

Ms. Hall briefly suggests that the United States Supreme Court’s interpretations of the United States Constitution are not authoritative and that state interpretations should be preferred. That suggestion is outright error. The United States Constitution is federal law and interpretation of federal law is done authoritatively by the United States Supreme Court. State courts only authoritatively interpret state law and when state law conflicts with federal law, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution provides that federal law trumps state law

Link

So, if a state has laws which don't contradict the federal laws, they can be interpreted by that state's courts as they deem fit, but when those laws conflict with federal law the federal law ALWAYS trumps state law.

For subject matter expert you seem to be very uninformed.

A sheriff is over a county or parish, not a state.

And they can and do override all authority at all times if it attempts to subvert the law.

Because unlike a FBI agent US marshal etc, they are elected by the people, not appointed by corrupt buerocrats.

If any legal action of any type is to take place in a county , it is a sheriffs right to intervene against overreaching federal or state level authorities.

It is one of many road blocks to stop tyranny, constantly checking power at every turn, to try to keep the system under control of the people, lest it control the people.

When I have a need to, I contact the county sheriff's office rather than use 911 or a State Police post. I've heard that the county boys can be "problem", but I've heard that about the state police as well. Personally I've never had an issue using the county police when needed. City or village police should be used when necessary, but in most situations around my area I call the county directly.

There's several ways to approach the question, historical, legal, philosophical, humorously ...

(As to the latter, in several Southern States, the Coroner can arrest the Sheriff.)

Let's do this. In most US jurisdictions, the Sheriff is elected, thus the ultimate and just authority is the body of the People itself.

In terms of jurisdiction (which is really the core issue at hand) the matter of precedence is clear: Federal--->State---->local (County/City).

Because a) the Supremacy Clause (COTUS Article VI, Section 2), b) a given State provides the charters (or Acts) for the stablishment of Counties, and c) cities almost uniformly exist by Act of the several States in which they are founded.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

The Sheriff Of Nottingham thought he had ultimate authority in The County Of Nottinghamshire.

Robin Hood had other ideas

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

The Sheriff Of Nottingham thought he had ultimate authority in The County Of Nottinghamshire.

Robin Hood had other ideas

As did King Richard I, called The Lion-Heart.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

The Sheriff Of Nottingham thought he had ultimate authority in The County Of Nottinghamshire.

Robin Hood had other ideas

As did King Richard I, called The Lion-Heart.

The think King Dickie The Lionheart had more of a spat with his Brother King John rather than the Sheriff Of Notts

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

The Sheriff Of Nottingham thought he had ultimate authority in The County Of Nottinghamshire.

Robin Hood had other ideas

As did King Richard I, called The Lion-Heart.

The think King Dickie The Lionheart had more of a spat with his Brother King John rather than the Sheriff Of Notts

John Lackland was Regent, not King, at the time in question.

a reply to: Phage

Once again, Phage, you are being rude and wrong at the same time. The Constitutional Sherrif IS in fact law of his/her county until giving authorization for the alphabet agencies assistance.

You do understand that, while wronfully certain you are correct without fail, the US government incorporated in 1871, and the only law enforcement that represent the true Constitution are the US Marshalls and National Guard. All the alphabet agiencies are private subcorp of the for profit corp. That is the UNITED STATES, INC. or THE UNITED STATE OF AMERICA, INC. both of which hijacked our gold, our rights, and made us all slaves to them.

But you will come back that I am wrong and blah, blah, blah, which will only fall on deft ears. I will delete your response and go about my day.

Knowing I risk action by ATS staffers who let you get away with personal attacks and blatantly rude posts...it must be said: you don't know everything and you don't need to treat everyone who doesn't worship and idolize you like they are beneath you.

You are a bully and that, sir, IS a fact.

Yes, I violated t&cs and accept my fate.

Could someone point out the citation in the US Constitution that refers to the establishment of the office of "Sheriff"?

As would be required by the phrase "CONSTITUTIONAL Sheriff"?

Thank you kindly.

a reply to: Gryphon66

We had to research for the info, no shortcuts for you!

a reply to: NewzNose

...by ATS staffers who let you get away with personal attacks and blatantly rude posts...it must be said: you don't know everything and you don't need to treat everyone who doesn't worship and idolize you like they are beneath you.

You are a bully and that, sir, IS a fact.

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: Gryphon66

We had to research for the info, no shortcuts for you!

I don't need a shortcut. What you are saying is ludicrous.

Prove it. Cite the CONSTITUTIONAL basis of the office of SHERIFF.

You cannot because there is not one.

Please prove me wrong.