Who is supreme? Local sheriffs or federal LEOs?

eye95 · Mar 24, 2011

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/taking-liberties-new-sheriff-town/

marshaul · Mar 24, 2011

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.

Gunslinger · Mar 24, 2011

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.

Felid`Maximus · Mar 24, 2011

Isn't the county Sheriff the highest law enforcement officer in the land? The Feds aren't even supposed to have many police powers.

marshaul · Mar 24, 2011

Gunslinger said:
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.

eye95 · Mar 24, 2011

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?

Toad · Mar 24, 2011

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.

sudden valley gunner · Mar 24, 2011

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.

PrayingForWar · Mar 24, 2011

eye95 said:
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.

sudden valley gunner · Mar 25, 2011

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_c....S.+(521+U.S.+898)&hl=en&as_sdt=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).

sudden valley gunner · Mar 25, 2011

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......

aadvark · Mar 25, 2011

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.

lockman · Mar 25, 2011

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.

Gunslinger · Mar 25, 2011

marshaul said:
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.

since9 · Mar 28, 2011

eye95 said:
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.

stuckinchico · Apr 4, 2011

Felid`Maximus said:
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 ?

END_THE_FED · Apr 4, 2011

stuckinchico said:
UMmmm not some much where you hear this ?

Article one Section eight.

hermannr · Apr 4, 2011

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.

Butch00 · Apr 4, 2011

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.

stuckinchico · Apr 4, 2011

Butch00 said:
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

Who is supreme? Local sheriffs or federal LEOs?

Well-known member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Activist Member

Campaign Veteran

Well-known member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

State Researcher

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member