Posted on 02/10/2015 6:43:07 AM PST by HomerBohn
Sometimes Posse Comitatus trumps the Sheriff. Last spring, Warlord Bundy and his militia threatened war not only with BLM but also the Clark County Sheriff's dept.
Tell them you will only communicate with the IRS in writing.
I am in favor of a national sales tax because I think that would be the fairest tax. Yes, it is downright scary how much power the IRS has at collecting debts. I agree with your analysis of the federal Marshalls here.
No citation is needed. That is basic civics 101. A federal official gets their authority from laws enacted by Congress and have supremacy clause authority from the federal Constitution. A sheriff gets his authority from the respective state constitution and/or state statute. Federal officers do not answer or report to state officials in the faithful performance of their duties. For example, ever wonder why a state court cannot give an order to a federal agency such as the EPA. It is because the federal government is considered a separate sovereign from the state.
I think the federal government has much overstepped its federal Constitution limit of powers but in all technicality unto federal laws are ruled unconstitutional then the federal agents have power even over local sheriffs to enforce and carry out federal law.
Not exactly. The judicial system is the proper and lawful venue for challenging federal laws that might run afoul of the powers delegated to the federal government in the US Constitution. If any sheriff could just hypothetically disagree and nullify a a federal law in their county then you would have hundreds and hundreds of different interpretations which would lead to mass confusion and instability. A sheriff just like any other regular civilian is subject to obey federal laws. Even the state governor has to obey federal law.
Post 50 by ctdonath2 seems to offer an answer to that objection. Institute a Fair Tax type consumption tax at the state level. Let each state determine how best to contribute its fair share to fund continuation of the Union.
When FedGov is lawless, I'm okay with refusing to obey an unlawful order. That would have been the correct response when I was in the military, and it is the correct response to an unlawful order from the IRS.
Opinion: "The Framers rejected the concept of a central government that would act upon and through the States, and instead designed a system in which the State and Federal Governments would exercise concurrent authority over the people. The Federal Government's power would be augmented immeasurably and impermissibly if it were able to impress into its service–and at no cost to itself–the police officers of the 50 States" ... "Federal control of state officers would also have an effect upon the separation and equilibration of powers between the three branches of the Federal Government itself."
Again. Federal agents receive their authority from laws enacted by Congress. These laws enacted by Congress give the specific federal agency subject matter jurisdiction. They do not answer to sheriffs when they are actively enforcing federal laws. Remember, a sheriff is a state created position no different than a governor, county board of commissioner, etc. Here is the key. The sheriff is the highest law enforcement official pertaining to state laws and county ordinances in his county. (And even that is dependent on the respective state and applicable state constitution and state law). When it comes to federal laws and enforcement of federal laws-then federal agents have sole authority and cannot be impeded by local sheriffs. A sheriff has no lawful purview to interpret federal laws or to supervise federal agents directly enforcing federal laws. The sheriff is only a state empowered official. It is just like a state court cannot order a federal agency to do anything. Same concept here.
Yes, a federal agent is not exempt from traffic laws. Speeding is not the same as enforcing federal law so that is apples to oranges.
18 USC 115 makes it illegal to directly impede with a federal law enforcement official in the performance of their duties.
The Supreme Court in that case did rule that federal agents cannot compel local law enforcement to enforce federal law. However, the elephant in the room is that it has nothing to do with federal officers enforcing federal law. That decision never gave any notion to the concept that local law enforcement can now dictate or control or have authority over federal officials enforcing federal law. Federal “control” here in the citation is not referring to the authority of federal agents over local officials in reference to federal laws. “Control” here refers to the feds using local law enforcement as mandated de facto deputies who have no choice but to enforce federal law on the whim of the federal government.
Thanks for the ping, Shark.
And a big thank you to to Sheriff London.
Tarheel25
Read the links and start learning that the feds do not have authority over sheriffs.
http://www.criminalgovernment.com/docs/sheriff/sher_boots_feds.html
http://www.mintpressnews.com/sheriffs-defy-feds-refusing-honor-detainer-requests/192541/
http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/government/us_constitution/news.php?q=1321294429
http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/04/its-sheriffs-first-in-arizona/
I’ll read it in a little while but, the feds only have permission to operate in the area by ascension of the sheriff.
However, the Feds do have authority on certain federal laws and orders.
In this instance, the sheriff doesn’t believe “Due Process” has occurred and is within his authority to deny their physical operations within his border of authority.
Oops!!!
Thought your post was in support of the tarhead poster assertion.
No point in engaging him. He is a driveby and rarely posts throughout the course of a year and even rarer engages in constructive discussion or any other type.
It is not taking place on Federal lands where the Feds have absolute, mostly, domain and control.
It is happening on private lands and property where the sheriff is the ultimate authority.
Similar to local police attempting to enforce a good many laws on lands and roads controlled by a HOA.
It’s private property and things like speeding are completely unenforceable.
My property, not the government’s and not common use.
He would not be actively making a defacto deputy of local law enforcement here because he is actively in the process of enforcing federal law. In that particular case, the sheriff becomes no different than any ordinary civilian because he is mandated to follow the lawful orders of a federal agent enforcing federal law. If a sheriff were to hypothetically impede here then he becomes no different than any other civilian that would try to impede federal law enforcement enforcing federal law. The federal agent cannot mandate the sheriff to actively assist him but the sheriff cannot get in the federal agents way without risk of lawful arrest.
Remember that federal laws are supreme per the US Constitution and as a result federal agents have supremacy clause authority to not be impeded by local law enforcement when they are reasonably and faithfully carrying out federal law. Since the federal government is a separate sovereign from the states they have a right to carry out their enforcement of federal laws without state interference.
Now yes there are extraordinary circumstances were a local law enforcement could intervene. An extreme example would be if a federal agent hypothetically started to shoot a suspect just out of the blue or roughed them up. The local DA could bring state charges although federal law would provide for the federal agent to request the case be moved to federal court from state court even over the states opposition.
Preventing illegal seizure and foreclosure: This is exactly how Jimmy Traficant, D-Ohio, went from being Sheriff to sitting in Congress.
If you read the article concerning Wyoming in the link you will find where the US District Court of Wyoming stated that they never said or implied that local law enforcement can prohibit federal agents from entering their county. In fact, the court reiterated that anyone who interferes with federal agents performing their duties would be subject to criminal prosecution. So reading that link might not help your premise one bit at all.
In fact that is another example of people reading things on the internet and taking it for gospel. The sheriff being the most powerful and king of his domain is nothing but “localism libertarian” type rhetoric that has no actual basis in the rule of law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.