Posted on 12/24/2002 1:18:42 PM PST by sarcasm
He's not lying,but he IS mistaken. The sorriest SOB's around are the spineless and/or corrupt bastards in the RNC and the White House who not only permit the illegal alien problem to exist,but whose actions even encourage it. All the Border Patrol brass are doing is following the orders of their political masters.
That's not what the Constitution says.
The Federal government was given limited and enumerated powers. Under the Tenth Amendment, powers not granted to the Federal government are reserved to the States or the people.
In the case of Klamath, where does the Constitution, in your opinion, grant the power to the Feds to overrule local law enforcement?
Yes sir. The Constitution is very clear and explicit on where those boundaraies are. The expansion of Federal power via the Commerce Clause has corrupted the Founders' intention of a limited central government.
The 16th and 17th Amendments were drastic mistakes as well, IMO, but at least the Amendment process was the proper way to change the powers of the Federal government.
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;
In addition, only THREE things are recognized by the Constitution as being crimes under general (that is, outside of the areas listed above) FedGov jurisdiction: Piracy, Treason and Counterfeiting. However, deporting illegals could come under their purview, I suppose. The rest of the things FedGov gets into are clearly unconstitutional. Thank God some local sheriffs are getting smart about that sort of thing.
As a Federal LEO, I would have to disagree with you.
First off, I doubt there is any Federal LEO that would risk his or her career or life by attempting to arrest a County Sheriff or any other local LEO that disputed the Feds authority.
In their jurisdiction, the locals pretty much run the show, unless the Feds want to get a court order, or have proof that the local LEO is obstructing justice and interfering with their investigation.
In most cases, both the Feds and the local LEO's know when to concede their authority or know when they have no authority. It all depends on the case and situation.
In the case that Jeff Head described, if those Federal Officers wished to continue their investigation or thought that the Sheriff was obstructing their investigation, they would have just gone and obtained a court order for the Sheriff to cease and desist. They had no authority over the Sheriff at that time and they knew it. If the investigation was worth while, they would have done just that. As it appears that they did not, then the investigation must not have been worth while in the first place.
Debacles like Ruby Ridge and Waco are not isolated events. They happen to be the largest and most publicised. There are many others that occur.
They are endemic of a condition where the Federal component is continuing to gradually exceed its constitutional mandates. What happened at Klamath Falls Oregon with the water situation last year is another large example that did get a lot of press (because a few people were willing to risk all to stand up against it and get the word out) that, thankfully, ended peacefully. It had all the earmarks and potential for ending much worse.
The issue becomes what is considered "lawful" and what is "constitutional". In a condition where judges (like at Klamath) rule abject tyranny to be "lawful" and "constitutional" little room is left but for the people to stand with their local authorities (if they can muster them) against the infingement. When your very livelihood and that of your wives and children hang in the balance ... waiting several years for the issue to be addressed is not an option.
Anyhow. like I said, and as Marine Inspector has pointed out ... the case in Idaho was one where the people stood up with their sheriff and the Federal authorities backed down. If the Feds had tried to "put him down hard" as you infer ... there would have been a civil war. Thank God they understood this and saw that what was being pushed did not warrant or merit that type of reaction.
In the end, all LEO's, both local and federal serve at the request and the allowance of the people. It is something they can not afford to lose sight of. If they turn the large majority of the people against them through such acts as we are speaking of ... then the path is both tragic and horrific to contemplate. But it is one that must not be shirked if we are to avoid potential tyranny. Our founders faced just the same prospects and they provided the example.
No one I know wants that. We all hope and pray such events do not occur ... but vigilance, common sense and history demand that we not lose sight of it.
Look at the credibility on this thread for example . You wont find a better class of people in the current circles that you have now probably .
Not to mention the knowledge they have coupled with deep rooted love & passion for the Republic . Do yourself a favour and get to know these folks or at least read some of the threads they visit .
You will be a better man rest assured .
I agree on both points. There is a balance of power between the States and the Feds, and in the past the Feds have abused it, but the States can and have abused their power also. It's very fine line and it is sometimes hard to stay on the right side.
Roger Barnett was one of several Cochise County residents who testified before Congress three years ago!
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.