U.S. Sheriffs Rise Up Against Federal Government: Sheriff Threatens Feds With SWAT Team

reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli

U.S. Supreme Court

Syllabus

PRINTZ, SHERIFF/CORONER, RAVALLI COUNTY, MONTANA v. UNITED STATES

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit

No. 95-1478.

Argued December 3, 1996

Decided June 27, 1997

“The petitioners here object to being pressed into federal service, and contend that congressional action compelling state officers to execute federal laws is unconstitutional…”

“We have held, however, that state leglislatures are not subject to federal direction. New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992). 5 “

“Although the States surrendered many of their powers to the new Federal Government, they retained “a residuary and inviolable sovereignty,” The Federalist No. 39, at 245 (J. Madison). This is reflected throughout the Constitution’s text, Lane County v. Oregon, 7 Wall. 71, 76 (1869); Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700, 725 (1869)… Residual state sovereignty was also implicit, of course, in the Constitution’s conferral upon Congress of not all governmental powers,but only discrete, enumerated ones, Art. I, §8, which implication was rendered express by the Tenth Amendment’s assertion that ‘[T]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.’ “

“The Framers’ experience under the Articles of Confederation had persuaded them that using the States as the instruments of federal governance was both ineffectual and provocative of federal state conflict. See The Federalist No. 15.”

“Our citizens would have two political capacities, one state and one federal, each protected from incursion by the other…The Constitution thus contemplates that a State’s government will represent and remain accountable to its own citizens. See New York, supra, at 168-169; United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 576 -577 (1995) (Kennedy, J., concurring). Cf. Edgar v. MITE Corp., 457 U.S. 624, 644 (1982) (‘the State has no legitimate interest in protecting nonresident[s]’). “

“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.” Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 457 (1991)…”

“The dissent perceives a simple answer in that portion of Article VI which requires that ‘all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution,’ arguing that by virtue of the Supremacy Clause this makes ‘not only the Constitution, but every law enacted by Congress as well,’ binding on state officers, including laws requiring state officer enforcement…The Supremacy Clause, however, makes ‘Law of the Land’ only ‘Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance [of the Constitution’; so the Supremacy Clause merely brings us back to the question discussed earlier, whether laws conscripting state officers violate state sovereignty and are thus not in accord with the Constitution…”

"The Federal Government," we held, "may not compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 188 (1992)… We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the State's officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed.

It is so ordered. ”

Link to full Syllabus:
caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...

What I want to know is when members of our military are going to man up and tell TPTB that they did not sign up to be a mercenary military, and actually start defending the Constitution as the oath they took compels them to do. There is no treason in defending the Constitution. There is no treason in defying a dictatorship like we have now.

So come on military, where are your balls and your loyalty?

reply to post by haarvik


While I do not disagree with you I feel as if I must point out something. While the military is charged to defend the Constitution and we will do so as the oaths we took dictate that we will. However, the citizens must take the horns as well, the Constitution also states that it is also the duty of the citizens to defend the Constitution by the directives within that document.

This is an instance where the citizens must also step up to the plate as well. This is a different kind of battle with different rules of engagement. From my point of view the military people sort of have their hands tied. Sure they are allowed to practice their rights to protest as well, but Constitutionally they cannot do anything until things get to a point where things are going over the top and people are getting hurt from other government entities. Once it is evident that law enforcement or otherwise start maliciously attacking citizens without remorse then you will start seeing the military personnel getting involved. Until then, the citizens will have to take their licks and take one for the team, this is the price of freedom whether we like it or not. Things are bad, but not that bad that warrants the military coming in. The citizens must do their part as well, the military can only do so much. Because if we have to have the military come in, then things will really get ugly.

reply to post by this_is_who_we_are

You posted a wall of text with no personal input, analysis, or original content. Can you explain exactly what you think your wall of text means? We've already addressed Printz on this thread and the other thread, but I'm willing to look at a new interpretation if you can come up with one.

reply to post by Skewed


Very good response.
Most people are under the false assumption that if a revolution against the current government were to take place the military would follow their orders like dogs to a piece of meat. I like to think otherwise. When I was in, we actually had discussions about this very thing. The vast majority of my peers were of the same mindset. We will defend the constitution and fight those who violate it. If the citizens are in the right, then we fight for them. I would hope that is still the case.

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli
reply to post by this_is_who_we_are

 

You posted a wall of text with no personal input, analysis, or original content. Can you explain exactly what you think your wall of text means? We've already addressed Printz on this thread and the other thread, but I'm willing to look at a new interpretation if you can come up with one.

My last post is my definitive answer on the subject. Have fun steering the conversation to your liking. Good day, sir.

reply to post by haarvik


Must be careful about what we ask for. Our military personnel are not necessarily trained in political conflict resolution, they are trained to fight and that is what they will do. Until we get to the point where it is time to fight tooth and nail and blood is being spilled, the military needs to remain on stand by.

Originally posted by Skewed
reply to post by haarvik

 

Our military personnel are not necessarily trained in political conflict resolution, they are trained to fight and that is what they will do.

And our politicians are? Seriously who do you think sends the troops off to war.

It is time for everyone to start thinking on their own instead of following orders blindly.

reply to post by this_is_who_we_are

Your last post did not support your argument at all. It was just a wall of text from a Supreme Court case that has already been discussed in this thread. So let's go over your the evidence for your "tidbit:"

1. 96-CV-099, officially debunked by the judge that supposedly made the ruling. I see you have silently dropped this line of argument; good. I don't expect an apology or gratitude for the correction I offered you several times. The fact that you are no longer trying to deceive people with this falsehood is good enough for me.

2. Printz, doesn't say what you apparently think it means. Two people have already explained to you what Printz was about, but you have refused to argue for your own interpretation. You don't even seem to have an interpretation. In fact, I doubt you've read it at all. If your "definitive statement" is to make no statement at all, I can only conclude you do not, in fact, have an argument based on Printz.

And that's it. Two lines of reasoning, both of them completely wrong, both of them blown out of the water. And with it, one hopes, the entire ridiculous super-sheriff myth. Good day, sirrah.

Just another move towards a police state. They will side with the protestors while they put them down in the name of security to the nation.

Backing it up seems logical though doesn't it? The OWS movement needs anyone and everyone including those who would trample on their rights.

Awesome
I hope the gaurd dogs of the federal government start realizing that they are about to get WHOOPED on.
Tuck tail and run!

reply to post by RisenAngel77

Good luck to Sheriff Greg Hagwood on not getting suicided or "caught with child porn" by January. Dying in a plane crash won't really be an option unless he flies anywhere.

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli

And that's it. Two lines of reasoning, both of them completely wrong, both of them blown out of the water. And with it, one hopes, the entire ridiculous super-sheriff myth. Good day, sirrah.

There is no need to sound so thrilled at this. Almost makes me think you don't WANT the Sheriffs to be able to stop the Federal Govt. from doing whatever they please, in fact it almost seems like you WANT to live in tyranny.

Originally posted by Kryties

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli

And that's it. Two lines of reasoning, both of them completely wrong, both of them blown out of the water. And with it, one hopes, the entire ridiculous super-sheriff myth. Good day, sirrah.

There is no need to sound so thrilled at this. Almost makes me think you don't WANT the Sheriffs to be able to stop the Federal Govt. from doing whatever they please, in fact it almost seems like you WANT to live in tyranny.

While crying about justice and hoping for their 'fair share' whatever that is, OWS will employ and accept anyone while those they accept subversively look for ways to control and put the group down.
This group is lost without a leader and will fall hard.

These cops are more organized and can easily usurp the leadership of this movement, this in itself is an oxy moron seein as the people are standing against the government, yet accepting public servant support for more voices within the movement.

The movement is doomed to failure, no one is thinking for it all anyone is doing is yelling about crap they dont like while it gets populated with more subversives.

There has long been a dedicated effort to inform law officers. Folks can even order a newsletter for their local law enforcement or get some copies and hand them out.

Jack McLamb - Police & Military Against the New World Order
Taking our oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution" seriously.

www.jackmclamb.us...

reply to post by copy


Sorry kiddies but you are being misled here, there has always been a struggle between local and federal law enforcement - always.

That the internet can bring you every morsel of it and an increasingly number of power trip cops can start ego wars isn't positive.

Several years ago the DEA swooped in on one of my neighbors seized a reported 44 kilos and 1 million in cash and never informed local law enforcement, I only found out from our night manager who used to be a BP agent. Because they had to tell him.

And on that case they were probably right. It was in connection to a much larger bust of a drug lord living in Norco who had no job but paid 4 million in cash for his mansion. How the hell didn't Norco PD do it's job there I dunno. Probably the same way as my local cops which take 4 hours to show up for a buglary but can be 10-12 deep at a traffic stop for drunk kids.

There reasoning is that local law enforcement would have jeopardized it but it was simply a power trip.

reply to post by EspyderMan


How has the fact that the Sheriffs are standing up to the Fed Govt. got anything to do with the OWS protests?

Please, enlighten me....

reply to post by Kryties


It does not.

But it could if played correctly.

reply to post by RisenAngel77


This reminds me of that movie Open Range. In the movie there are these four guys with free graze cattle and they send one to a town to get supplies, well when he doesn't return after a couple days they go investigate and find out he is in jail for fighting.

Anyways to cut to the chase, this cattle king, (who also controls the local Marshall), pretty much threatens them and conveys his discontent for free grazers. So the Marshall ends up killing one of the men and beating another into a coma, so the remaining 2 go back to the town to take care of business.

There is a huge rainstorm so most of this small town ends up in this diner with the Marshall and a couple of his men and the 2 free grazer guys confront them. They basically call the Marshall and his men out in front of the people and explain what happened and why they can't let it slide. It was this way they handled the situation that reminds me of the OP's post.

It escalates and a bunch of people die, but it really drove the point home; tyranny and corruption are not to be tolerated, no matter who is doing it.

I think we need to see EVERY state follow suit, exercise the power of the people, and fight for what little rights we have left.

Sorry, but no matter how right the motives may be, sheriffs threatening to raid the Federal gov't with SWAT teams sound like a fascist coup!

What if they really do this... what then? What will happen when ultra-violent cops take over the government? This will be a JUNTA.