Sunday, January 27, 2013

So, You think Sheriffs should obey the President (POTUS) ?

I read an interesting article on Gawker today (Jan 27, 2013) and was floored that most people jus t don't understand that our individual rights and liberties are under attack. Not from any terrorist, but from misinformation and feelings of what should or shouldn't be.  IT is everywhere from child molestation and domestic violence to free speech and gun rights - we are enacting laws and making decisions based on fear.

Definitions for ease of reading: POTUS = President of the United States
                                                 SCOTUS= Supreme Court of the United States

Today on Gawker's article made me realize that I have strong feelings. My answer in length posted now - people need to be MAD, get ANGRY feel SOMETHING!!! I don't claim to understand all the issues and reserve the right to be wrong. Notwithstanding I totally disagree with the surmise of the author, who is basically saying; Sheriffs do not have the right to choose which laws to uphold.

LAW enforcers are required by oath to uphold our (YOUR) constitutional rights.   The Supreme Court has already ruled on the right to bear arms and assault weapons previously and confirmed the constitutional right to bear arms - including assault weapons. So the Sheriffs (even if I am not thrilled with much of the actions) are correct to NOT act in opposition to the rights granted in the constitution (not to mention upheld by SCOTUS).    

While in 2008 there was some ambiguity left in the SCOTUS ruling as to the ability of States and Feds to limit types of weapons; there was not assault weapon ban passed by SCOTUS, as pointed out by Mcclatchy DC

Sheriffs are elected not appointed and they are required to serve the PEOPLE and protect them from anything that deprives them of constitutional rights.  That is why some have refused to evict homeowners after foreclosure (although that is far to rare of an event,  given the 84% fraud rate depriving people of constitutionally protected property).

The Sheriff's jobs have always REQUIRED that the people's constitutional rights be upheld first - regardless of it being deprivation of property, guns or free speech. (Free speech another area that Sheriff's should focus on - as it is being squashed.). Does that mean there are not abuses in this office? NO, but the ideal is that the Sheriff will protect people - even from their own government. (Forget all that crap about "we are the government" - we haven't been the government for many years - we elect people that ignore the people that vote in the election).

What really is missing is that ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS take an OATH of office to uphold the constitutional rights of its people.  That includes Free Speech, Protests, Property, and more. Now if the President infringes on the constitution - that does not mean that the new POTUS enacted law cannot be challenged. The Presidential executive orders can be and should be challenged in the courts.  A law is not a law if it goes against people's rights as outlined in the constitution, the question is - how far does the constitution extend in gun rights -- and that to the best of my understanding, is interpreted by SCOTUS decisions.

No comments: