Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 40

Thread: Who is supreme? Local sheriffs or federal LEOs?

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Who is supreme? Local sheriffs or federal LEOs?

    This is only tangentially related to OC, so I am posting it in the social lounge.

    A Montana Republican representative is proposing a law that would make federal LE ask county sheriffs before taking any LE action in Montana. Is this a State's right? Or, is this a violation of the supremacy clause? I hope it is a State's right. However, reality may be that the supremacy clause would prevail. I am fairly ignorant on the scope of the supremacy clause (as, I suspect, are many others here). We should remedy that.

    Even if the former is preferable, we can't pick and choose which parts of the Constitution we want to apply without making the whole thing meaningless. Interesting dilemma.

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/03/23...-sheriff-town/

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Montana is right.

    Why should the Federal government be able to prosecute medical marijuana patients in California, who are totally in compliance with their state's laws (for example)?

    Granted it wouldn't prevent Sheriffs from giving the Feds permission, but there is at least the notion that local LEOs do not enforce Federal laws.

    Too bad they will probably lose, because this issue has already come up w/re medical marijuana, and the courts sided with the Feds.

    Y'all reap what you sow. I hope everyone is pleased.
    Last edited by marshaul; 03-24-2011 at 12:50 PM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Lese majeste is what the supremacy clause is based on, "the king can do no wrong." It stems from the Assizes in English Common Law and was carried over by the Founders. While I agree with marshaul, the fact is that Federal Law and cops take precedence over state or local. The flip side is, of course, the BoR takes precedence, as well, once incorporated. It's a win some, lose some proposition.
    Last edited by Gunslinger; 03-24-2011 at 03:58 PM. Reason: can't spell agian today, it seems

  4. #4
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713
    Isn't the county Sheriff the highest law enforcement officer in the land? The Feds aren't even supposed to have many police powers.
    Last edited by Felid`Maximus; 03-24-2011 at 04:25 PM.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by Gunslinger View Post
    Lese majeste is what the supremacy clause is based on, "the king can do no wrong." It stems from the Assizes in English Common Law and was carried over by the Founders. While I agree with marshaul, the fact is that Federal Law and cops take precedence over state or local. The flip side is, of course, the BoR takes precedence, as well, once incorporated. It's a win some, lose some proposition.
    This is true.

    Although, I've argued before that it would be appropriate for the Fed to overrule the states only when in furtherance of individual liberty, as enumerated by the Constitution.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Does anyone have anything to contribute regarding the reality of the law? I have heard all the jaded opinions before (repeatedly to the point of becoming tiresome). I was hoping for an intellectual discussion of the supremacy clause.

    Anyone? Bueller?

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , Virginia, USA
    Posts
    387
    I recall that Sheriff Mack had addressed this very thing along with pertinent cites and justifications.
    I cant remember if it was on his site or if it was in one of his writings. I would have to look at again to confirm. I want to say that it was touched upon in a SCOTUS decision of a challenge he brought against the Brady Act.

  8. #8
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    I heard from fairly reputable resources that our local sheriff kicked out the BATF, when they were trying to make a new gun shop jump through more hoops than the law required.

    But I say that ultimately we are the superior law enforcement and not anyone who does it for money.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Does anyone have anything to contribute regarding the reality of the law? I have heard all the jaded opinions before (repeatedly to the point of becoming tiresome). I was hoping for an intellectual discussion of the supremacy clause.

    Anyone? Bueller?
    I'm interested in this law as well. All I've heard, (or can contribute) is what I've heard. Surely there is soeone on this forum who can direct us to actual USC, or CFR that defines the role of LE agencies at thedifferent levels.

    IMO we would be a lot better off if federal agents were confined to investigating police agencies, and providing a national database. I'd love to return to the day where FBI agents carried .38's in sport coats as a last resort. Not ninjas falling out of the sky or rolling out of the back of armored vehicles.
    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

  10. #10
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Interesting subject. Looks like one is not more superior than the other. It looks like the States are not obligated to enforce federal laws.

    Interesting read is Printz vs. U.S.

    http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...=2,48&as_vis=1

    We have held, however, that state legislatures are not subject to federal direction. New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144 (1992)
    Interesting quote from Justice Thomas.

    The Court today properly holds that the Brady Act violates the Tenth Amendment in that it compels state law enforcement officers to "administer or enforce a federal regulatory program." See ante, at 935. Although I join the Court's opinion in full, I write separately to emphasize that the Tenth Amendment affirms the undeniable notion that under our Constitution, the Federal Government is one of enumerated, hence limited, powers. See, e. g., McCulloch v. 937*937 Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 405 (1819) ("This government is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers"). "[T]hat those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written." Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 176 (1803). Accordingly, the Federal Government may act only where the Constitution authorizes it to do so. Cf. New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144 (1992).
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  11. #11
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    I like Sheriff Mack's take on this.

    http://www.callingallsheriffs.info/AmericasLastHope.pdf

    What excuse could any Sheriff offer to any of his constituents from not helping them or protecting them from abuse or crimes of the IRS or any other agency?(snip) For the Sheriff to tell his constituents that they should just get a lawyer and fight back the best they could is throwing them to the dogs......
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605
    In Accordance with The Ninth Amendment and The Tenth Amendment to The Constitution of The United States of America, State Authorites are Superior to Federal Authority, with The Close Range Exceptions Enumerated under Article I Section 8.

  13. #13
    State Researcher lockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Elgin, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    1,202
    The sheriff should be supreme except federal laws that regulate areas that have a direct interstate commerce relationship. Commerce as in "commercial". Growing pot for your personal use or sharing with your neighbors should not be a commerce issue. The future of a lot of federal law is going to hinge on the commerce clause.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    This is true.

    Although, I've argued before that it would be appropriate for the Fed to overrule the states only when in furtherance of individual liberty, as enumerated by the Constitution.
    That would indeed be the ideal.

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    This is only tangentially related to OC, so I am posting it in the social lounge.

    A Montana Republican representative is proposing a law that would make federal LE ask county sheriffs before taking any LE action in Montana. Is this a State's right? Or, is this a violation of the supremacy clause? I hope it is a State's right. However, reality may be that the supremacy clause would prevail. I am fairly ignorant on the scope of the supremacy clause (as, I suspect, are many others here). We should remedy that.

    Even if the former is preferable, we can't pick and choose which parts of the Constitution we want to apply without making the whole thing meaningless. Interesting dilemma.
    Yeahhh... yuck. Ok, I'll respond.

    The Constitutution was meant to do 2 things:

    1. Unite the thirteen colonies, from memory of which all had been individually recognized as "states" meaning "countries" as in The State Department. Technically, by the defination of the day, the U.S. became not the first, but one of the most notable unions. The E.U is such a union, as was the U.S.S.R. ("U" standing for union). There have most certainly been others throughout history.

    2. Preserve State's rights to the maximum extent possible, except where it would be more beneficial to all the States to consolidate both rule and authority in an area better suited to the fed than to the state.

    That's it.

    Whoops! I forgot a BIG ONE!!!

    3. Confer to the maximum extent all rights first and foremost to the people. And if that is not possible, then and only then to the state. And if that is not possible, then and only then to the Fed.

    I'm sorry I listed the most important one last. Even I get caught up in the parties' nationalist rhetoric.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  16. #16
    Regular Member stuckinchico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Stevenson, Alabama, United States
    Posts
    506
    Quote Originally Posted by Felid`Maximus View Post
    Isn't the county Sheriff the highest law enforcement officer in the land? The Feds aren't even supposed to have many police powers.
    UMmmm not some much where you hear this ?

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    923
    Quote Originally Posted by stuckinchico View Post
    UMmmm not some much where you hear this ?

    Article one Section eight.
    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.- Thomas Jefferson March 4 1801

  18. #18
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    The police powers that the National government has been given by the constitution is to wage war. The FBI, The ATF, the whole gambit of federal law enforcement as we know it today is not specified in the constitution. Just as the framers of the constitution did not like the idea of a standing national military, in the same way, they also did not like or trust the idea of a "national" police force.

    As with when FDR was president, the make of of the supreme court will decide what it does, for good or for bad.
    Last edited by hermannr; 04-04-2011 at 02:41 AM.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    215
    Sheriff's are elected officials therefore the highest law enforcer in a state.
    The feds have jurisdiction in federal areas, a federal area in a state is areas
    ceded to the feds so it is no longer owned by the state.
    Sheriffs can order federal agents out of their jurisdiction.
    Life is tough, its tougher when your stupid.

    http://www.itsnotthelaw.com

    Feds: U.C.C. 1-308, State: U.C.C. 1-207, Both: U.C.C. 1-103.6

  20. #20
    Regular Member stuckinchico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Stevenson, Alabama, United States
    Posts
    506
    Quote Originally Posted by Butch00 View Post
    Sheriff's are elected officials therefore the highest law enforcer in a state.
    The feds have jurisdiction in federal areas, a federal area in a state is areas
    ceded to the feds so it is no longer owned by the state.
    Sheriffs can order federal agents out of their jurisdiction.
    Dear Sheriff
    Please kick the ATF out of your state. We are tired of their BS.


    Ya i see that going very well

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510
    Quote Originally Posted by Butch00 View Post
    Sheriff's are elected officials therefore the highest law enforcer in a state.
    That's the theory whose legal basis the OP is trying to confirm

  22. #22
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by KBCraig View Post
    That's the theory whose legal basis the OP is trying to confirm
    It is also what I always assumed, but I am not so sure after looking at some of the info I linked.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  23. #23
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Does anyone have anything to contribute regarding the reality of the law? I have heard all the jaded opinions before (repeatedly to the point of becoming tiresome). I was hoping for an intellectual discussion of the supremacy clause.

    Anyone? Bueller?
    Gee, I mention lese majeste, the Assizes and the Founders. How much more intellectual do you want?

  24. #24
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Gunslinger View Post
    Gee, I mention lese majeste, the Assizes and the Founders. How much more intellectual do you want?
    It seems to me when some folks say intellectual they mean something they can agree with.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  25. #25
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    It seems to me when some folks say intellectual they mean something they can agree with.
    Now that is a very good point...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •