Posted on 01/26/2013 8:21:09 PM PST by PotatoGun
As an elected official and a sheriff, I have the great honor to take an oath of office. Very few occupations include the special pride that comes with the trust inherent in an oath of office, but mine does.
In that oath, I swore to uphold the Constitution and laws that we live under in this great nation. Those words were my promise that I would not use my own personal interests to decide what is right and wrong. I swore to work within our system of law and justice to fairly enforce what you, through your elected representatives in the Legislature and Congress, have decided should be the law of our land. Those laws are set upon a foundation of checks and balances, embodied in the separation of powers between the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government.
When we forsake the law or disregard those checks and balances, we take the first step down the path towards anarchy.
(Excerpt) Read more at idahostatesman.com ...
This is the part that is concerning:
“I did not swear to uphold just part of the Constitution. Our Constitution includes the right to keep and bear arms, but it also includes the “supremacy clause” that says that every state shall abide by the laws passed by our Congress.
So, despite the fact that I personally oppose some of the gun control measures currently under consideration, my oath requires me to uphold the laws that are passed by our federal and state representatives.
When we disagree with those laws, the checks and balances built into our government point us toward the proper remedy: changing the laws or challenging them in the judicial branch. As to whether or not the president has the power to issue executive orders limiting our Constitutional rights, that is another matter to be decided by the Supreme Court, not by 44 different sheriffs in Idaho.”
I’ve been waiting on his response and I have to say that I am not surprised that he’s playing word games and essentially deferring to the federal govt to be his ultimate authority on what is and isn’t constitutional... I am very disappointed and my gut has been telling me to find a place outside of Boise.. hell, even Corvallis OR is starting to look better..
Reads more like the words of a slimey politician than a Sheriff to me. If Obama issues Executive Orders corrupting the Second Amendment he is setting a precedent that must be challenged, and defeated by every true American.
Looks like this Ada County resident will be voting for someone else next time...
For the rest of this term. Maybe.
Somebody should tell him to read the 2nd clause of
Article VI. There he will find the word “Pursuance”.
The Supremacy Clause only applies if Congress is acting in pursuit of its constitutionally authorized powers. Federal laws are valid and are supreme, so long as those laws were adopted in pursuance of—that is, consistent with—the Constitution.
The Supremacy Claus doesn't say States bow to the Congress, it says that States cannot subvert the Constitution which reigns above all else.
BS. If one can read and understand plain English one can decide.
Why would we think that a bunch of over educated lawyers who can not even understand plain English be the only ones.
Why would we be willing to give up are rights just because 9 of them say it is so.
Tyranny by the courts is easy if the masses obey them.
Roberts sure showed us, didn’t he.
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.