The Glade 4.0

Since sheriffs are directly elected, I'm not really sure the legislatures of states have the right to fire them, so who knows where this would go. Anyway, posted without further comment:


http://washingtonexaminer.com/law-would ... le/2525518

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Seems to me that a law officer that blatantly defies the law should be fired.

What happens when he gets reelected after the firing?

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

1) That doesn't happen now
2) Again, in most states sheriffs are directly elected.

Why should the legislature be able to overrule the people's will without proof of wrong-doing and due process?

Also:

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

On further examination.... who is going to come remove the sheriff? If the state constitution doesn't specifically allow for this type of blanket removal of elected officers from their office, who's going to enforce it?

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Not disagreeing with you, but examples of the executive branch defying the law start much higher than a local sheriff. Ever notice how rot is contagious?

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Don't disagree. I seem to recall we have other branches that are supposed to help hold them accountable.

And those other branches are uniformly uninterested in holding Barack Obama accountable for several demonstrably illegal acts while President of the United States, one of which was deliberately treasonous. That said, the 2nd Amendment says what it says; the Supreme Court of the United States has struck down every gun bill and gun enforcement policy it has faced in the last 3 years; and it fully incorporated the 2nd Amendment pursuant to DC v. Heller. Let me know when you want someone to hold the President or Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid accountable for defying Federal law and Supreme Court application of said law, because as I see it ...

You only want to punish people who disagree with Obama's ideology.

_________________

No, you only see what you want to see Khross.

lol

Care to address either of my points? I'm interested in your response.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Sure.

1. It doesn't happen now.

I suspect it does happen now, to varying degrees. Certainly individual judgement on what laws to enforce and not enforce on a case by case basis happens all the time. For example a cop letting you off with a warning when speeding. However, if a law enforcement officer is derelict in their duty to a large extent, I'm certain that there are provisions for removing them from office.

2. Sheriffs are directly elected.

Not overly relevant I think, given the above. There is the matter of re-election and I suspect that will have to be a bridge that gets crossed if this type of legislation becomes law.

3. Who's going to remove the sheriff? Who's going to enforce it?

Not sure, but definitely a problem that the legislators are going to need to deal with if they want to enforce this.

At the end of the day, we all know that this is mostly a publicity stunt but I do think that it raises an interesting and valid concern. How do you deal with law enforcement officers who blatantly rebel against the duties they have been charged with? As for Khross' comments, I agree that Presidents are given a get out of jail free card on many things that are on the grey side of law. However, there are processes for dealing with rogue Presidents as well. That our various other bodies don't actually go after issues like this is either an example of cowardice or more likely a lack of sufficient evidence to build a strong case. It is, however, telling that our legislature got wound up enough to attempt to impeach a President because he **** an intern, yet can't be bothered to address anything related to killing brown people en-mass.

I find it amusing that everybody supports military refusing unlawful orders, but not sheriffs doing the same.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

Please quantify "everybody".

Barack Obama unilaterally (as in his White House Administration) to release the locations of all NATO held nuclear weapons in Europe to the state of Russia. It was deliberate; it was solely the responsible of the White House; and as Commander in Chief, the only people on his staff who has legal clearance and access to that information are individuals who act with his voice and authority. That was deliberately treasonous and illegal. There's no argument on that, especially since the release of said information was in contravention of no less than 4 formal alliances and the NATO agreement.

I don't just see what I want to see. I don't levy treason allegations lightly. Your boy got a free pass on giving away more State Secrets than every executed spy in U.S. history combined managed to pilfer.

You wanna talk about facts; you and RangerDave think W committed war crimes; that's debatable, but I probably wouldn't object to a reasonable investigation. Your guy, however, actually did commit a deliberate act of treason. We won't talk about White House authorship of legislation (constitutionally prohibited); we won't discuss him refuse to fulfill constitutional obligations regarding a budget, money, and other executive duties. We don't have to.

Obama ponied up the entire NATO Nuclear Arsenal to the Russians; he gave them an European Nuclear Strike priority list in negotiations for a treaty that didn't happen; and he did so in violation of existing treaties and U.S. Law. That's Obama's White House; and it's been glossed over by Glade liberals since it happened. Likewise, he gave a stand-down order to U.S. soldiers in a firefight and the lied to the public about it. Let me make this clear ...

The ONLY person in the United States who could have given the stand-down and cease assistance order during the Embassy attack in Benghazi was Barack Obama. THE ONLY PERSON.

So no, don't say I see only what I want to see. You're ignoring the fact Barack Obama has already demonstrated a completely disrespect for the rule of law in this country. There's no argument to be had on this point.

_________________

There's a difference between refusing an unlawful order and refusing a lawful order because you don't think it should be lawful. For instance, a soldier might believe that under "correct" constitutional interpretation it would be unlawful to attack a country without a formal declaration of war by Congress, but if Congress has passed some form of authorizing resolution, and the courts have found such resolutions to be Constitutionally sufficient, then that soldier has to follow the order to attack.

That said, I'm all for soldiers and cops refusing to follow an order or enforce a law they believe to be unConstitutional, but I also believe they should be relieved of duty unless and until they can demonstrate (in court if necessary) that the order/law is in fact unConstitutional.

Can you provide some links on this, Khross?

So...does this include deliberate non-enforcement of federal immigration law?

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Depends on the circumstances. Selective enforcement due to budgetary constraints isn't really analogous, if that's what you're getting at. Nor, for that matter, is the exercise of prosecutorial discretion within the scope of discretion provided by existing law. However, the forgoing assumes good faith, and from the little I've read on the subject, I get the impression thatthe Obama Administration is inappropriately using the sequester and its ordinary discretionary powers to circumvent the intent of Congress on the immigration front. I'm not cool with that.

Not to put words into anyone's mouth but perhaps Stathol is referring to the alien amnesty program that your president enacted.

_________________
"If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me." - Alice R. Longworth

"Good? Bad? I'm the guy with the gun." - Ash Williams

Or their open refusal to enforce laws that they do not agree with.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

The Executive's check on the power of the legislator is getting to not enforce laws that are unconstitutional. That is where the Sheriff fits in as highest Executive ie law enforcement power in the county.

The legislature can pass any law it wants because there aren't direct punishments for legislators passing laws outside the scope of their power thus the check on power is at the Executive and Judicial (both).

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

For a lot of history, sheriffs have been the people's check on the ruling class. A law is useless if you can't get the boots on the ground to enforce it and juries to convict it. I don't think it's "activism" It's just the natural order of things.

I hope people are awake enough to look after their sheriffs if they do come under fire.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

It seems that some folks want phrases like "equal protection" to mean things other than the most fundamental meaning of the phrase... Taken literally, it's not so much about gay marriage as it is about not being the victim of a crime.

The executive branch has failed the people on every level - national, state and local. There are places with little or no serious crime and other places that are extreme hotbeds of crime. People are arming themselves in no small part because that's the only way they feel they can protect themselves. In my case, my days of fooling myself into thinking I can protect myself are over. I can't go toe-to-toe with a youngster and I sure as hell can't run away, not with these knees. Since minorities seem to be the targets of violent crime, I'm surprised that there are those folks that want to claim to be their protector in one breath and in the next, call for limits to their means of protecting themselves.

Equal protection should - at a minimum - mean that, for all intents and purposes, we as a society are equally safe. Now to those that claim "That's never going to happen" I say, "and that's why taking my means of protecting myself away from me is never going to happen".

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.