National sheriffs’ group, opposed to federal laws on guns/taxes, calls for defiance

In essence, they are troubled by the overreach of the federal government in matters concerning guns, taxes and land management, and founder Richard Mack has described the federals as “the greatest threat we face today,” and his association as “the army to set our nation free.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ral-government-overreach-gains-size-momentum/

Click to expand...

Interesting to see if any law enforcement officers will defy laws they decide themselves are illegal.

...would be nice...

After all, it worked out so well for the Bundyville Militia takeover of the Oregon bird sanctuary.

OC for ME said:

Interesting to see if any law enforcement officers will defy laws they decide themselves are illegal.

...would be nice...

Click to expand...

Well if there are any of these unicorns around, they cannot post here ! LAW-ABIDING ONLY.

beebobby said:

After all, it worked out so well for the Bundyville Militia takeover of the Oregon bird sanctuary.

Click to expand...

The Oregon incident was a example of trespassing and what happens, or could happen, if you fail to leave the property when directed to do so. But, liberals routinely fail to grasp the obvious.

The rancher shot in the back -executed - on the highway by some unknown Federal/state agent - with no current version grand jury investigation - was not an example of trespassing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just because a law is presumed constitutional does not mean it is constitutional.

The legislators and courts keep forgetting that "We The People" actually are the final word as to what is constitutional.

HPmatt said:

The rancher shot in the back -executed - on the highway by some unknown Federal/state agent - with no current version grand jury investigation - was not an example of trespassing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

...and what happens, or could happen, if you fail to leave the property when directed to do so

Click to expand...

Not disagreeing with your assessment of the rancher's death. If they wudda left when directed to leave he would likely be alive today.

We advocate that OCers leave a establishment when asked to leave before we are trespassed due to our OCed handgun. Now, that incident, it seems, is exempt from our own "rule?"

...OK

If the SCOTUS says it's Constitutional, then it is. I think some folks think that something becomes unconstitutional just because they don't agree with how the SCOTUS interpreted a particular law.

There is a big difference between trespassing and armed occupation.

beebobby said:

If the SCOTUS says it's Constitutional, then it is. I think some folks think that something becomes unconstitutional just because they don't agree with how the SCOTUS interpreted a particular law.

Click to expand...

Yes indeed.

Some folks are perfectly ok if local officials ignore federal drug laws.

Some folks are downright gleeful if local officials not only ignore federal immigration laws, but also actively impede enforcement of such laws by refusing to honor immigration holds on illegal aliens who have been picked up for some other crime.

Those two issues, widely accepted in liberal States and cities pretty much disqualify liberals from raising any principled objections if a few conservative sheriffs refuse to enforce gun laws or work to limit the ease with which federal officers can swoop in and use excessive force to arrest people over minor violations of obscure federal laws.

Goose and gander, pot and kettle kind of thing there our little gun hater looking to stir up trouble.

Just think of this as "sanctuary counties" for gun owners kind of like sanctuary cities for illegal aliens. You'll feel better about it.

Charles

I was referring to who determines which laws are Constitutional, not who decides which laws are enforced.

beebobby said:

I was referring to who determines which laws are Constitutional, not who decides which laws are enforced.

Click to expand...

Of course you were.

But if you concede that local officials can determine which laws to enforce and which ones not to enforce or even which ones to impede federal enforcement of, then does it really matter what the reasons are the local officials use?

That you agree with some local decisions and get saddle sore over others is just your personal views which are no more or less valid than anyone else's. I suspect a duly elected local sheriff has at least as much authority to determine what laws to enforce and which to ignore as does a city or county board/council or mayor.

Also, can you provide any constitutional authority for the Supreme Court of the United States to have sole jurisdiction to determine which laws are constitutional and which are not? Marbury v Madsen or other Supreme Court decision wherein the court declares it has power to determine which laws are constitutional do not count as constitutional authority. These Sheriffs are doing nothing more or less than did the court in Marbury. What I'm wondering is if you can point to specific constitutional language that grants the Supreme Court sole authority to determine which laws are constitution. As a bonus question, with respect to who or what is the Supreme Court, supreme?

Charles

I think we are seeing development of the state where there is a breakdown of the concept of a nation of citizens consenting to being 'governed by the rule of law'. When the laws are crammed down on citizens by perverse reading of the Constitution by a few unelected jurors - voided Congressional actions and State laws and State referendums that had support of millions of citizens; or consensus laws developed over decades like immigration - which are now being ignored by large liberal/democrat cities; or the Federal Government BLM and other agencies expanding cronyism in states where the Federal government owns/controls massive amounts of land - and it is managed by bureaucrats/environmentalists thousands of miles away in Washington, the rule of law and obedience to it and its selective enforcement is beginning to fray all over the place.

The authors of the Constitution set up the three branches and defined the process for establishing the laws and how they were to be deemed Constitutional. The SCOTUS is part of that process. If you disagree with that model a mechanism is in place to seek redress. It's all right there in the Constitution. Perhaps you believe the Constitution isn't constitutional.

the bloodiest things i learn out here & to respond to your query mate, quote: utbagpiper, 29 April 16 0428PM: Also, can you provide any constitutional authority for the Supreme Court of the United States to have sole jurisdiction to determine which laws are constitutional and which are not? Marbury v Madsen or other Supreme Court decision wherein the court declares it has power to determine which laws are constitutional do not count as constitutional authority.

here we go into wiki land...

quote: Two landmark decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court served to confirm the inferred constitutional authority for judicial review in the United States: In 1796, Hylton v. United States was the first case decided by the Supreme Court involving a direct challenge to the constitutionality of an act of Congress, the Carriage Act of 1794 which imposed a "carriage tax". The Court engaged in the process of judicial review by examining the plaintiff's claim that the carriage tax was unconstitutional. After review, the Supreme Court decided the Carriage Act was not unconstitutional. In 1803, Marbury v. Madison was the first Supreme Court case where the Court asserted its authority for judicial review to strike down a law as unconstitutional. At the end of his opinion in this decision, Chief Justice John Marshall maintained that the Supreme Court's responsibility to overturn unconstitutional legislation was a necessary consequence of their sworn oath of office to uphold the Constitution as instructed in Article Six of the Constitution.

quote: The Constitution does not expressly provide that the federal judiciary has the power of judicial review. Rather, the power to declare laws unconstitutional has been deemed an implied power, derived from Article III and Article VI.

Article III: quote: The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. . . . The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority. . . . In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. unquote.

you will love this part mate:

quote: The power of judicial review has been implied from these provisions based on the following reasoning. It is the inherent duty of the courts to determine the applicable law in any given case. The Supremacy Clause says "[t]his Constitution" is the "supreme law of the land." The Constitution therefore is the fundamental law of the United States. Federal statutes are the law of the land only when they are "made in pursuance" of the Constitution. State constitutions and statutes are valid only if they are consistent with the Constitution. Any law contrary to the Constitution is void. unquote.

fascinating read mate, and you can get the whole picture here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_the_United_States

ipse

beebobby said:

The authors of the Constitution set up the three branches and defined the process for establishing the laws and how they were to be deemed Constitutional. The SCOTUS is part of that process. If you disagree with that model a mechanism is in place to seek redress. It's all right there in the Constitution. Perhaps you believe the Constitution isn't constitutional.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you could provide the citation to the specific constitutional language that grants the Supreme Court final say on what is or isn't constitutional. (Hint, you can't because it isn't there.)

And then you can provide the language to clarify with regard to what or whom the Supreme Court is supreme. (This one you can do, but the answer is not what most today believe it to be.)

You made an assertion of law when you wrote: "If the SCOTUS says it's Constitutional, then it is."

I'm calling for the citation to back up that assertion of law. And you need to be a little more specific than just "the constitution".

Good luck.

Charles

Not going to play the "Why is the Supreme Court called the Supreme Court" game with someone so willfully obtuse.

beebobby said:

If the SCOTUS says it's Constitutional, then it is. I think some folks think that something becomes unconstitutional just because they don't agree with how the SCOTUS interpreted a particular law.

There is a big difference between trespassing and armed occupation.

Click to expand...

That's an absolute false claim.

Also has little to do with the post since even SCOTUS has recocnized that local law does not have to help enforce federal law.