Arizona Republicans Want Feds To Get Permission From Sheriffs To Enforce Law

[DonViejo]

Source: TPM

TOM KLUDT – FEBRUARY 13, 2014, 7:40 AM EST

Before federal agents enforce laws in Arizona, they may have to clear it with county sheriffs first.

A state Senate committee in Arizona agreed Wednesday to take up a Republican-sponsored bill that would make it a crime for the feds to operate inside the state without first getting the green light from a county sheriff.

Richard Mack, a former sheriff in Graham County, Ariz., pushed the panel on the measure, arguing that sheriffs are the only law enforcement officers who are elected by voters.

“And then we allow bureaucrats from Washington, D.C., to come in and supersede his authority, and to do whatever they want in his county, and they (the sheriffs) can say nothing about it?” Mack said, as quoted by Capitol Media Services.

Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/arizona-sheriffs-federal-agents

[Demeter]

1. Um, yes....if it's a federal issue, the local sherrif has no say

and that covers immigration, terrorism, any federal law.

Who is this asshole, and why do they let him speak?

[Faux pas]

2. Why don't they just

secede already? Let 'em try to survive without ANY federal support.

[L0oniX]

3. Morans!

[sked14]

4. Feds don't need state permission to enforce Fed. law,

states can refuse to provide any state resources to help the Feds, but they can't in no way interfere with the enforcement of Fed. laws.

[Swede Atlanta]

5. The law, if passed

the federal government will sue claiming federal pre-emption and obtain a temporary injunction preventing the law from taking effect pending the outcome of the federal lawsuit.

The federal agencies will go about their business totally ignoring the sheriffs. If the sheriffs want to get cocky I guess we can re-direct a few of our drones to take our sheriff cars and sheriff offices just to make the point that the state is no match for the power of the federal government. I do not advocate that I'm just saying they are fooling themselves if they think they are a match for the power of the U.S. government.

[OregonBlue]

6. Good luck with that. LOL

[bkanderson76]

7. two words....Ari-Zona....

[Distant Quasar]

8. And these are the same idiots who are always blathering about the Constitution

“And then we allow bureaucrats from Washington, D.C., to come in and supersede his authority, and to do whatever they want in his county, and they (the sheriffs) can say nothing about it?”

Yes, exactly. And thank the gods it's so.

[struggle4progress]

9. Arizona, meet 18 USC 111

(a) In General.— Whoever— (1) forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with any person designated in section 1114 of this title while engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties; or
(2) forcibly assaults or intimidates any person who formerly served as a person designated in section 1114 on account of the performance of official duties during such person’s term of service,
shall, where the acts in violation of this section constitute only simple assault, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both, and where such acts involve physical contact with the victim of that assault or the intent to commit another felony, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.
(b) Enhanced Penalty.— Whoever, in the commission of any acts described in subsection (a), uses a deadly or dangerous weapon (including a weapon intended to cause death or danger but that fails to do so by reason of a defective component) or inflicts bodily injury, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. 18 USC 111

18 USC 1114 refers to ... any officer or employee of the United States or of any agency in any branch of the United States Government (including any member of the uniformed services) .. engaged in .. official duties, or any person assisting such an officer or employee in the performance of such duties ...

For the benefit of Arizona's yahoo population, let's summarize:

assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, interferes with, or threaten a Federal officer: 1 year

touch a Federal officer in the course of the course of the assault: 8 years

use a gun in doing this: 20 years

No doubt a creative US Attorney might find other charges to meet particular circumstances, as well, such as kidnapping (18 USC 1201) or insurrection (18 USC 2383)

And, of course, should Arizona adopt the view that it may limit Federal jurisdiction, there are additional Presidential authorities, such as 10 USC 332 and
50 USC 205

[EC]

10. If it were me making the decisions for the Feds

I'd declare Arizona hostile territory to the Feds and withdraw any help to the state and leave them to their own devices. I think they'd rethink their behavior after a while.

[Dawson Leery]

11. The states rights cult strikes again.

Federal lawn supersedes all laws below.

[okaawhatever]

12. Don't you love it when the right wingers in Arizona talk like they have a whole bunch of water and

can defend their borders by themselves? I say we let the have some of that self-sufficiency they crave so badly.

Oh, and this Sheriff is probably a surrogate for Sheriff Joe Arpaio who has been under the supervision of the DOJ since he lost a ton of lawsuits denying people their Constitutional rights. He doesn't want to be watched over by people who have actually read the Constitution. While this is clearly a publicity stunt, it's probably one Joe talked him into doing.


Seriously, can we get the Border Patrol to call in sick one day and let Arizona handle the traffic themselves?

[SCantiGOP]

13. what idiots

I think I first heard of the Supremacy Clause (that federal law overrides state law which overrides local law) when I took Civics in the 9th grade. If not, the Confederacy could have just gone to court and gotten an injunction to make all those pesky Union troops go back home.

[Orsino]

14. Nullificating nabobs.

Dumbasses wasting everyone's time and money.