'Constitutional sheriffs' movement promotes defiance of federal laws
August 03, 2016
... These men and women are being told by extremist leaders that they have the right to decide what laws they want to enforce and can keep federal law enforcement agents out of their counties. That is utterly untrue, the very opposite of constitutional, and it in fact encourages sheriffs and their deputies to defy the law of the land.
The Intelligence Report interviewed dozens of sheriffs who appeared on a list, compiled by the CSPOA, of almost 500 sheriffs who purportedly had vowed to uphold and defend the Constitution against Obamas unconstitutional gun measures. Overall, it appears the movement is successfully exploiting concerns about gun, environmental and land-use regulations to bring law enforcement officers into the fold ...
https://www.splcenter.org/news/2016/08/03/intelligence-report-constitutional-sheriffs-movement-spreads-promotes-defiance-federal-laws
struggle4progress
(118,320 posts)Mark Potok and Ryan Lenz
June 13, 2016
In the minutes before he was killed as he apparently tried to draw a 9mm pistol on law enforcement officials attempting to arrest him at an Oregon roadblock early this year, antigovernment militant Robert LaVoy Finicum repeatedly shouted out to officers that he was on his way to meet with the sheriff.
And, indeed, Grant County Sheriff Glenn Palmer was in John Day, Ore., waiting for a town hall meeting 90 minutes later featuring principals of the then 24-day-old occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, including Finicum and occupation leader Ammon Bundy. Both Palmer and Bundy were expected to speak at the gathering that had been organized by occupation sympathizers.
But Palmer, whose county adjoins Harney County, where the occupation took place, had been told nothing of the Jan. 26 roadblock for very good reasons.
He had already met twice with leaders of the occupation, and witnesses described how he had them autograph his pocket copy of the Constitution. He had referred to the occupiers as patriots and endorsed their demands for the release of two ranchers imprisoned for arson on public lands and the departure of the FBI. He boasted about his refusal to enforce laws that he believed were unconstitutional, and he was known for picking fights with land use officials. Unlike the sheriffs of the four other adjoining counties, he had sent no deputies to help out in Harney County. Glenn Palmer was not trusted in law enforcement circles ...
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2016/line-sand
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Here's the best link I could find on the issue.
http://volokh.com/2013/05/07/a-constitutional-law-lesson-for-steve-benen/
struggle4progress
(118,320 posts)that does not extend in any way to an authority of local officials to obstruct federal officials in their official acts
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)A state agent cannot interfere with federal agents enforcing federal law.
SCantiGOP
(13,871 posts)Federal law overrules state law, and state law overrules local law. Very simple and every Sheriff knows that.
That is why the Governor of Alabama could stand in the doorway of a school and try to block black children from coming in - as Alabama State law required - but as soon as the federal troops showed up Gov Wallace moved out of the way.
Nitram
(22,845 posts)Nitram
(22,845 posts)Conservatives should just go ahead and publish their version of the constitution and start claiming that it is the original. It will leave out "well-trained militia" in the 2nd amendment and dispose of the 13th, 15th, 16th, 19th and 24th Amendments. It will revise the 1st Amendment to establish Christianity as a state religion.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)For example, sanctuary cities are based on the same concepts -- federal authorities cannot force state/city agents to enforce federal immigration laws. I'm pretty sure that the notion that the feds cannot require states to enforce federal law has been around for a long time.
Nitram
(22,845 posts)TeddyR
(2,493 posts)But a state agent isn't "defying" federal law by refusing to enforce it. So the Feds can no more force a state to run backgrounds checks than it can force a state to enforce immigration laws. If a sheriff tried to prevent the Feds from enforcing federal law that would be wrong.
Nitram
(22,845 posts)I'm afraid the Constitution doesn't agree.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)In fact, I think we are largely in agreement. I should clarify that I don't support the idea that states can "nullify" federal laws in the sense that they are no longer the law, I just think it is clear that state agents don't have to enforce federal laws. And the idea that a sheriff can ban federal law enforcement from a county or from enforcing federal law is a right-wing (probably far right-wing) pipe dream that is at odds with the Constitution.
On edit, so that it is clear, I was only making the point from the beginning that a state agent doesn't have to enforce certain federal laws (I confess to being unclear if they can decide not to enforce any federal law). I wasn't agreeing with any of the other nonsense that was being proposed.
SwankyXomb
(2,030 posts)Except with badges.
Nitram
(22,845 posts)set of manacles."