Federal Framework Being Set Up To Arrest Sheriffs

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by Jacurso, Apr 3, 2013.

  1. Jacurso

    Jacurso
    Douglas Co.
    Active Member

    Messages:
    222
    Likes Received:
    57
    Colorado, and apparently Texas (next) are being targeted with an attempt to set up a federal authority framework that will enable Secret Service agents (not just those guarding the president), and others of the U.S. Secret Service including uniformed division officers, physical security technicians and specialists, and other ‘special officers’, to arrest and remove an elected sheriff for refusing to enforce the law (or anyone breaking the law).

    The bills being introduced defines law as including any rule, regulation, executive order, court order, statute or constitutional provision.

    Why are they doing this? Here’s why…


    It would establish federal authority police powers in a State, enabling an enforcement arm reporting directly to the president (the Secret Service).
    more.........
    http://modernsurvivalblog.com/govern...rest-sheriffs/
     
  2. deen_ad

    deen_ad
    Vancouver, WA
    Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,088
    Likes Received:
    1,312
  3. One-Eyed Ross

    One-Eyed Ross
    Winlock, WA
    Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,367
    Likes Received:
    755
    Well, the article says bills are being introduced, but doesn't give a number for the bills so we can look up what is being introduced. Makes me think this is a conspiracy theory type of thing....(not that I trust the .gov, mind you, just can't verify the information....)

    Further, the Supreme Court has already ruled that the Federal government cannot make a local LEO enforce a Federal law. (Check Printz v US, 95-1478 "Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion. He stated that early federal statutes did not suggest that Congress thought it had the power to direct the actions of State executive officials. Also, the overall structure of the Constitution implies that Congress may not direct State officials: “The Framers explicitly chose a Constitution that confers upon Congress the power to regulate individuals, not States.” Finally, although it is the President's job under the Constitution to oversee execution of federal laws, “The Brady Act effectively transfers this responsibility to thousands of CLEOs in the 50 States, who are left to implement the program without meaningful Presidential control….”

    Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)
     
  4. jfw

    jfw
    Clackamas county
    Active Member

    Messages:
    137
    Likes Received:
    54
  5. tkdguy

    tkdguy
    Portland, Oregon
    Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,183
    Likes Received:
    611
  6. BryanMunson

    BryanMunson
    United States, Albany, OR
    Member

    Messages:
    64
    Likes Received:
    26
    So is this covered by the Commerce Clause too? :rolleyes:
     
  7. Glock Jock

    Glock Jock
    Wilsonville , OR
    Well-Known Member 2017 Volunteer

    Messages:
    803
    Likes Received:
    614
    I back the Sheriff
     
    gearhead and (deleted member) like this.
  8. gearhead

    gearhead
    NC
    Active Member

    Messages:
    229
    Likes Received:
    42
    Mene mene tekel upharsin

    I'm not religeous, but I find the sentiment appropriate.
     

Share This Page