Sovereign power and authority of the states over the federal government

I saw this video and it raised a few interesting questions and scenarios with me. The salient part of the video is the sheriff talking about an event in his county with federal agents where threats were made of armed force.

Now it has been my belief for a while that a sheriff held power and authority over any other law enforcement agency be it state or federal (open to clarification on this). So if federal agents did enter his county to conduct an illegal activity, such as firearms confiscation or illegal searches, he has the power to arrest these agents and can use whatever force is necessary to do this.

I know there is a movement afoot by some sheriffs to enforce constitutional law across the nation which can effectively emasculate a fair amount of federal power wielded against innocent citizens. This could be a very good move to restore states' power over the federal government and put the chains of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights back on their wrists.

Comments anyone?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoYtnoFn09Y&feature=related

There are a few sheriffs who are showing they are men enough to stand up for whats right.

Sheriff Mack had taken a case all the way to supreme court and won.

He has started a coalition for people like himself (http://www.cspoa.org/) I am trying to see if my local sheriff's are willing to take a stand and their view points on this. I have an tentative meeting with the current sheriff (If he stays current) in January to discuss some issues.

I think it is up to us to demand from them and make public their decisions to be part of the problem or solution.

sudden valley gunner said:

There are a few sheriffs who are showing they are men enough to stand up for whats right.

Sheriff Mack had taken a case all the way to supreme court and won.

He has started a coalition for people like himself (http://www.cspoa.org/) I am trying to see if my local sheriff's are willing to take a stand and their view points on this. I have an tentative meeting with the current sheriff (If he stays current) in January to discuss some issues.

I think it is up to us to demand from them and make public their decisions to be part of the problem or solution.

Click to expand...

Yes, I am a little familiar with Sheriff Mack's position. Sounds like a good man. The reason I posted this thread is because of a thread on another website where some folks had pretty much accepted the Big Brother fed vs states and their power and authority. This is an anathema to people like myself and I suspect others on this site, who are more of a mind that the federal government long ago began their program of enveloping the states and the People. Not what was intended by the Founders at all and yet some of the people on that website almost seemed as though they were defending the big centralized concept over that of sovereign and independent states. Perhaps they were just accepting what has transpired and thereby, relinquished any hope of reigning the feds in.

I should reiterate that I certainly don't have the answers and welcome comments from those more knowledgeable that I about the legal aspects of this topic.

SouthernBoy said:

I know there is a movement afoot by some sheriffs to enforce constitutional law across the nation which can effectively emasculate a fair amount of federal power wielded against innocent citizens. This could be a very good move to restore states' power over the federal government and put the chains of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights back on their wrists.

Comments anyone?

Click to expand...

If so, I estimate they have at least 15,000,000 citizens who would be willing to volunteer and be deputized. Please note this action, provided it remains Constitutional, would be a restoration of lawful government.

sudden valley gunner said:

I think it is up to us to demand from them and make public their decisions to be part of the problem or solution.

Click to expand...

Do you think perhaps there might be reasons as to why this would not be a good idea? Do you think perhaps this is something we should allow them to make public as they see fit? If they are doing this, we should trust them to do it right. Mucking up the works by forcing their hand serves no one, and no cause.

since9 said:

Do you think perhaps there might be reasons as to why this would not be a good idea? Do you think perhaps this is something we should allow them to make public as they see fit? If they are doing this, we should trust them to do it right. Mucking up the works by forcing their hand serves no one, and no cause.

Click to expand...

A public servant should never hide his "hand" from the public.

If a sheriff is willing to take a stand for the people who elected him against the feds, I don't see how that would muck up the works.

Nope I believe our public servants public actions need to be evident and accountable.

SouthernBoy said:

Yes, I am a little familiar with Sheriff Mack's position. Sounds like a good man. The reason I posted this thread is because of a thread on another website where some folks had pretty much accepted the Big Brother fed vs states and their power and authority. This is an anathema to people like myself and I suspect others on this site, who are more of a mind that the federal government long ago began their program of enveloping the states and the People. Not what was intended by the Founders at all and yet some of the people on that website almost seemed as though they were defending the big centralized concept over that of sovereign and independent states. Perhaps they were just accepting what has transpired and thereby, relinquished any hope of reigning the feds in.

I should reiterate that I certainly don't have the answers and welcome comments from those more knowledgeable that I about the legal aspects of this topic.

Click to expand...

I think you are correct on your points many defend the big fed (why I believe nationalism in it's current state is dangerous to liberty) or have simply capitulated to the power. It is anathema to myself to, I abhor strong centralized government on the federal and state level.

Someone (I was working for) brought up Lincoln on a job site, I said "He was a Tyrant" and mentioned some specific actions that goes along with the very things you posted. His reply "don't you think his cause was worth it". I told him his 'cause' set racial relations back several decades in this country, and that his "cause" had nothing to do with the war that killed over 600,000. So I think also people are simply taught history and how our government works wrong and they think this is how it is supposed to be.

I don't propose to have any answers but think proper education and discussions like this thread you started helps.

I have been very apathetic politically, never voted in my life very disturbed with the whole political scene. But I have decided to become more involved. Even gave a stump speech to the politicians at a local rally.

sudden valley gunner said:

Nope I believe our public servants public actions need to be evident and accountable.

Click to expand...

I would like nothing better than for of our public servants to never let it leave their minds that they are answerable to us and that it is we who pay their salaries as they do our bidding, and that failing in this will result in a quick termination of their position, regardless of what that may be.

Interesting -- he won at the Supreme Court!

SouthernBoy said:

I would like nothing better than for of our public servants to never let it leave their minds that they are answerable to us and that it is we who pay their salaries as they do our bidding, and that failing in this will result in a quick termination of their position, regardless of what that may be.

Click to expand...

Exactly!

SouthernBoy said:

INow it has been my belief for a while that a sheriff held power and authority over any other law enforcement agency be it state or federal (open to clarification on this). So if federal agents did enter his county to conduct an illegal activity, such as firearms confiscation or illegal searches, he has the power to arrest these agents and can use whatever force is necessary to do this.

Click to expand...

If the feds don't have a warrant and are doing illegal searches/seizures ANY law enforcement agent can arrest them because they are acting outside the scope of their authority. A federal agent doesn't have the right to steal from people, nor kick in their door without cause. This is why the 4A states that warrants signed by a magistrate must be issued.

If they dont have that, (barring probable cause/reasonable suspicion exceptions) they don't have legal authority to take or search anything, and if they try to do so then they are acting as common criminals and can be arrested as such.

As I understand it: a Sherrif is the highest county-level elected official with powers of arrest. This site gives a good rundown of how this relates to the Posse Comitatus Act and is the basis of the authority of County Sherrifs.

Now, what does that mean when the feds are involved. First, as I understand it, ANY federal law enforcement action must be authorized by the Governor of the State, unless that is the focus of the feds. The Federal Government and it's agents do not have the authority to operate against a citizen of a State without the knowledge of the Governor, but it is generally an open-door policy. Now, no matter what the Governor says, the Sherrif of the county must also be informed ... this is why the Waco Sherrif was so POd about the ATF and all that crap.

For instance, when the Feds want to serve a Federal Bench Warrant (US Marshalls), they contact the Governor's office, or their designated contact person, who will provide State Police coordination if necessary. The only Federal Agency that can operate within State Boarders without express permission of the Governor is the FBI and that is only under their investigative authority. By the time the FBI has moved to the arrest stage, they have presented their evidence before a Supreme(?) court judge who has then issued warrants of arrest, which are then presented to the Governor/Attorney General of the State where the arrests will take place.

That is about all I am familiar with in that regards, and some or all of it may or may not happen in that manner in your particular state. But, this is what I saw happen and some of what the FBI explained to me when one of my defendants was taken on a federal arrest warrant. Geesh, the paperwork I had to do for my District judge!

Now, since9, I think you are a little off the mark when you said this:

Do you think perhaps there might be reasons as to why this would not be a good idea? Do you think perhaps this is something we should allow them to make public as they see fit? If they are doing this, we should trust them to do it right. Mucking up the works by forcing their hand serves no one, and no cause.

Click to expand...

because a Sherrif is an elected official who is the county-wide law enforcement. Are you happy with the way the Sherrif in your county is applying enforcement of the law? If so, then you have a good one. If not, when did you first become aware of whatever policy of his that you disagreed with? Wouldn't it have been better to have known that was his policy before he was elected? What about the Sherrif in Jefferson county (re: The Six Bells Rabbits) who seems to be led around by the nose by animal rights activists such as The House Rabbit Society (see the National HRS Statement of Purpose and Philosophy)

As with the presidential candidates and their stance on gun-control, knowing a local Sherrif's stance on gun control would be a good thing IMHO.

Sovereign power of the states over the federal government?

Muhahahahahahahaa!!

Your ancestors gave away their sovereign states' powers.

The whole consent-of-the-governed thing was just window dressing for what we really intended. The whole idea that the federal government is a creature of the states, created by the states for the benefit of the states was just sleight of hand. Heh, heh, heh, heh, heh.

Your ancestors gave away state sovereignty when they acceded to a document with lots of little pitfalls and loopholes, sold to them by our henchmen writing the Federalist essays.

Admittedly, it was a narrow victory. If we hadn't shut up some pro-freedom types like Patrick Henry and George Mason with a Bill of Rights, we might not have succeeded. But, you will notice--heh, heh, heh--that your precious Bill of Rights contains no penalties for fedthugs who violate any of your precious rights. No time in prison, no drummed out of office, no hefty personal fines.

Did you really think we were going to pay attention to the constitution and bill of rights? Suckers. Heh, heh, heh, heh, heh.

But, we've got you now. By the pocketbook and state parties. Oh, yes. We've got you good. Your so-called sovereign state politicians aren't going to give up federal transportation funds, grants for whatever it pleases us to dispense, education funding, subsidies... And, your oh-so dignified sovereign state governments are composed of which parties? Oh, yeah. Republican and Democrat. Yeah, keep dreaming, those boys are ours. They want more for themselves--they'll play our game our way. State government is just a stepping stone on the way to federal office.

Oh, and would you please thank your ancestors for me. Tell them I said thank you so much for the 16th Amendment. Passed by the party-controlled legislatures. It gave us the power to tax individuals. Lots more money directly to us, without having to ask your sovereign state governments. That's the kind of sovereignty we like. You keep the label sovereign, we get the money.

Yes, they gave it away. Piece by piece. Trading your future for their personal gain. You've got the dead-letter 10th Amendment. But, we've got the power to tax, meaning we get the money.

Hey!! Get away from there! Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain! Do you hear me! Get away from there!