|
|
The
views expressed
on this page are soley those of the author and do not
necessarily
represent the views of County News Online
|
Mail
Magazine 24
County Sheriff:
Power To Protect
by Chuck Baldwin
The local FOX affiliate in Salt Lake City, Utah, has reported that the
Utah Sheriff’s Association has written a strongly worded letter to
President Barack Obama regarding any potential federal laws that would
restrict the citizens of the State of Utah from practicing their Second
Amendment rights. The letter was signed by every sheriff in the State
of Utah except one. The letter reads in part:
“With the number of mass shootings America has endured, it is easy to
demonize firearms; it is also foolish and prejudiced. Firearms are
nothing more than instruments, valuable and potentially dangerous, but
instruments nonetheless. Malevolent souls, like the criminals who
commit mass murders, will always exploit valuable instruments in the
pursuit of evil. As professional peace officers, if we understand
nothing else, we understand this: lawful violence must sometimes be
employed to deter and stop criminal violence. Consequently, the
citizenry must continue its ability to keep and bear arms, including
arms that adequately protect them from all types of illegality.”
The letter also states: “We respect the Office of the President of the
United States of America. But, make no mistake, as the duly-elected
sheriffs of our respective counties, we will enforce the rights
guaranteed to our citizens by the Constitution. No federal official
will be permitted to descend upon our constituents and take from them
what the Bill of Rights–in particular Amendment II–has given them. We,
like you, swore a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of
the United States, and we are prepared to trade our lives for the
preservation of its traditional interpretation.”
In addition, Utah Representative Brian Greene, R-Pleasant Grove, has
introduced legislation that asserts State power over federal power
regarding gun control. Rep. Greene’s bill “would go so far as to allow
local police the authority to arrest federal agents should they try to
seize any firearms.”
The report added: “‘Acting upon those will be a third-degree felony in
this state, punishable by up to one year in jail and a $5,000 fine,’
Greene said.”
Please click here for the report.
Tim Mueller, the sheriff of Linn County, Oregon, has also written the
White House a similar letter. Mueller’s letter said in part, “Any
federal regulation enacted by Congress or by executive order of the
president offending the constitutional rights of my citizens shall not
be enforced by me or by my deputies,” adding, “Nor will I permit the
enforcement of any unconstitutional regulations or orders by federal
officers within the borders of Linn County, OR.”
Click here for the report and Sheriff Mueller’s letter.
Several sheriffs in the State of Oregon have followed Sheriff Mueller’s
example and issued similar statements: Sheriff Jim Hensley of Crook
County, Sheriff Larry Blanton of Deschutes County, Sheriff Glenn Palmer
of Grant County, Sheriff Craig Zanni of Coos County, and Sheriff John
Hanlin of Douglas County.
In fact, sheriffs from all over America have begun taking similar
stands. One of the first was Sheriff Denny Peyman of Jackson County,
Kentucky. Also add Pine County, Minnesota, Sheriff Robin Cole. Sheriff
Cole said, “I do not believe the federal government or any individual
in the federal government has the right to dictate to the states,
counties or municipalities any mandate, regulation or administrative
rule that violates the United States Constitution or its various
amendments.” The sheriff said that the right to bear arms is
“fundamental to our individual freedoms and that firearms are part of
life in our country.”
A news report on the story noted, “The Sheriff said he would refuse to
enforce any federal mandate that violates constitutional rights, and
that he would consider any new federal regulation on guns to be
illegal.”
Also include Madison County, Alabama, Sheriff Blake Dorning; Smith
County, Texas, Sheriff Larry Smith; and Martin County, Florida, Sheriff
Bill Snyder to the list of sheriffs who are vowing to protect their
citizens from the unconstitutional overreach of the federal government.
Click here for the report.
This is exactly the kind of response that is needed! No law enforcement
action of any kind (county, State, or federal) can take place without
the approbation of the county sheriff. Constitutionally, he is the
highest law enforcement officer of the county. This is why I have
repeatedly said that ultimately our freedom will be won or lost at the
State and local levels.
Big Government toadies love to quote the so-called “supremacy clause”
in Article. VI. Paragraph. 2. of the US Constitution. It reads, “This
Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in
Pursuance thereof . . . shall be the supreme law of the land…” This
clause, they say, gives carte blanche to federal lawmakers to usurp,
negate, or expunge any local or State law–or even the Constitution
itself. Such an interpretation is absolutely ludicrous!
Notice that those federal laws that are considered to be “the supreme
law of the land” must be made “in Pursuance” of the existing
Constitution. Nowhere is it written that federal laws that contradict
the existing US Constitution are to be considered lawful. In fact, just
the opposite is true. Laws, even federal laws, which contradict the
Constitution, are deemed to be null and void.
In the Marbury v Madison Supreme Court decision (1803), the
Constitution was firmly established as the “supreme law of the
land”–not legislative acts which contradict the Constitution. In the
landmark ruling, Chief Justice John Marshall, writing for the majority,
said, “So if a law be in opposition to the constitution; if both the
law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court
must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the
constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law;
the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the
case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.
“If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and the
constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the
constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which
they both apply.
“Those then who controvert the principle that the constitution is to be
considered, in court, as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity
of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the constitution,
and see only the law.
“This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written
constitutions. It would declare that an act, which, according to the
principles and theory of our government, is entirely void; is yet, in
practice, completely obligatory. It would declare, that if the
legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act,
notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It
would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence,
with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within
narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those
limits may be passed at pleasure.”
The decision concludes, “Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties
agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that
constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon
him, and cannot be inspected by him.
“If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn
mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime.
“Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United
States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential
to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution
is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by
that instrument.”
Click here for the Marbury decision.
How could this decision be any more clear? The US Congress has no
authority to pass laws, and the President has no authority to execute
laws which contradict the US Constitution, and any such laws that are
passed should be considered null and void.
In addition to the Court, the founders also expected that the states
would serve as a check and balance on potential encroachments upon the
people’s liberties by the executive and legislative branches of the
federal government.
At this point, allow me to quote my constitutional attorney son,
Timothy Baldwin:
“One of the constitutional tools by which socialist and nationalist
ideologues have incorporated political principles of centralization and
state annihilation is through the ‘Supremacy clause’ of the U.S.
Constitution, which states, ‘This Constitution, and the Laws of the
United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all
Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the
United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.’ (USC, Article 6)
To many people, this phrase has been construed to mean whatever laws
and treaties those in the federal government pass, execute and uphold
are binding on the people of the states and their respective
governments. Admittedly, this concept has taken a stronghold in America
and has been treated as the accepted principle of constitutional law
for generations. Undoubtedly, every law student attending an ABA
accredited law school is taught this as fact, just as I was when I
attended Cumberland School of Law at Samford University. Not everyone
agrees with this construction, however.
“Big-government and monarchist himself, Alexander Hamilton sheds light
on the error of this position in 1787 when he addressed the concerns of
those Americans who rejected the U.S. Constitution because of the fear
that the expected effect of the ‘Supremacy clause’ would be to subvert
the sovereignty of the States to govern themselves according to their
constitutions. Hamilton attempts to calm their fears, saying, ‘It will
not follow from this doctrine [of supremacy] that acts of the large
society [i.e., the union] which are NOT PURSUANT to its constitutional
powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the
smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land.’
(Federalist Paper 33) Perhaps everyone in America would concede this,
but what is not agreed upon is what the States can and should do about
those laws that are NOT PURSUANT to the constitutional powers of the
federal government. Many place the burden of correcting that grievance
on the U.S. Supreme Court, as if a body of nine judges appointed by the
executive of the federal government are an adequate remedy for the
machinations of that distorted philosophy broadly accepted by those in
federal office. Contrarily, those who believe in the principles of a
federalist system should recognize that each unit of the union (i.e.,
States) have the duty to do what Hamilton suggested in response to
those laws contrary to the constitution: ‘These [laws] will be merely
acts of usurpation, and WILL DESERVE TO BE TREATED AS SUCH.’ (FP 33,
emphasis added) These laws should be treated as no law at all, and
moreover, as attacks on liberty, and should be resisted on every level
of the union, from federal to state to local governments, as well as
individuals.”
Click here for Tim’s website.
Sheriffs Mueller, Peyman, Cole, et al. are dutifully fulfilling their
oaths of office and are exemplary examples of what it means to be a
constitutional sheriff.
I strongly urge readers to take a copy of Sheriff Mueller’s letter to
the White House to your own county sheriff and ask him where he stands
on protecting your Second Amendment liberties. And if your sheriff
balks at his duty of standing firm for your liberties, vote him out of
office as quickly as possible and replace him with a true
constitutionalist sheriff. Remember, without the approbation and
cooperation of your county sheriff, no federal police agency has any
ability to implement Senator Dianne Feinstein’s semi-automatic rifle
ban or high capacity magazine ban, should Congress pass such a ban.
Sheriffs are not elected to be paper pushers or attend Rotary Club
meetings or a hundred other mundane tasks; primarily, sheriffs are
elected to protect the liberties of the citizens in his or her
county–even if that means defying unconstitutional laws handed down
from Washington, D.C.
Kudos to the sheriffs of the State of Utah; kudos to Sheriff Mueller,
Peyman, Cole et al. Come on folks! Find out NOW whether you have a real
sheriff in your county or just a political opportunist who wears a
badge. Your liberties hang in the balance.
Source: chuckbaldwinlive.com
Read this and other articles at Mail Magazine 24
|
|
|
|
