Skip to comments.Effort to abolish local sheriffs a stealth federal power grab?
Posted on 01/27/2013 11:54:28 AM PST by bkopto
A news report has been quietly making its way around the alternative media, under the radar screen, concerning a Delaware legal decision to strip county sheriffs of their arrest powers in the state.
The mainstream media has not reported the story, but the son of Vice President Joe Biden, who serves as Attorney General for the state of Delaware, has issued a mandate to county commissioners informing them that sheriffs in the state's three counties no longer have arrest powers.
When the information reached this reporter late yesterday evening, further investigation revealed that there is a nationwide effort to strip local sheriffs of most of their enumerated powers that are mandated in the state constitutions of the various states. Such a move would have the net effect of abolishing local sheriffs departments and strengthening the power of federal law enforcement agencies.
And this is not the first time such an effort has been launched.
In the 1970s an initiative was launched by county supervisors in California to eliminate the office of sheriff, but one supervisor instead was able to persuade two state legislators to get a question placed on the California ballot as to whether or not the office of the sheriff should be an elected office. The measure passed overwhelmingly, and the mandate for elected sheriffs was placed in the state constitution.
And in 1935 President Franklin D. Roosevelt was set to eliminate all of the 48 states in order to implement nine regional governments that would operate as extensions of the federal government. All local law enforcement would be eliminated.
The plan failed, but the fact that it was attempted points to an ever present, insidious stealth plan on the part of some within the federal government to take away the right of the people and the states to elect their own local law enforcement and to vastly strengthen the hand of the numerous federal law enforcement agencies that currently operate throughout America.
Proponents of such unconstitutional measures desire to forge a world government of sorts under the control of the United Nations. Various methods are used to expedite this plan, including the infamous 'Agenda 21' that has raised the alarm among some citizens.
The key to the success of the implementation of such plans is enforcement. How would the federal government insure compliance among the states and their citizens?
Dozens of federal agencies have their own law enforcement divisions, and those divisions are growing quickly under the Obama Administration. Homeland Security is purchasing 450 million rounds of hollow point bullets.
The IRS will need roughly 16,500 new employees to implement ObamaCare. The White House has just sent $500 million to the IRS to enforce the new healthcare law.
The EPA's recent penchant for using heavy handed tactics outside the authority given to it by Congress has placed businesses under the gun and stymied economic recovery. Citizens complain that the agency regularly violates private property rights.
And then there are such agencies as the FBI, ATF, DEA, ICE, and others that are under suspicion for widespread corruption in the Fast and Furious scandal, a fact that has not hampered Congressional Democrats from calling for massive new funding and expanded powers for these agencies.
The move to weaken and dismantle sheriffs offices around the country is viewed by Constitutional watchdogs as an ominous signal in a broader attempt to usurp the rights of citizens on the local level in lieu of an expanded nationalized police force under the control of a federal bureaucracy.
Pretty weak in terms of showing that this really is a current, real, focused effort of any significance. I see more, bigger, real threats to be concerned about.
And exactly how are you going to prevent a constitutional convention from being hijacked by the statists?
This would be a very dangerous move, requiring extreme vigilance on the part of the Republicans (face it, they will lead the conservative caucus) to avoid being steamrollered by illegal voting to elect the delegates, bait-and-switch delegates, etc. Considering what happened to the Hillary delegates across the country in the 2008 campaign, to expect the Republicans to do better against the Axelrod/Ayers/Soros crowd is silly.
This kind of crap has been going on across the board, often under the guise of saving money.
My governor would like to get rid of all these pesky townships that won’t enact ordinances he and his urban friends like. There are others who want to consolidate all the school districts in the county into one.
Where does the power to do this come from? I live in an unincorporated part of the county. There is no State Police office around here that I am aware of, just sheriffs. Who will they send if I need LEO help? Democrats need to be abolished.
PA is eliminating the local Tax Collector.
It can and has been done in the past. Are we so weak kneeded or ignorant today, that we just sit back and allow a tyranical, out of control federal government to destroy our lives and the lives of our protegy?
The states calling a CC, is the best, safest, and least bloody method of shoving the federal beast back into its cage before it's too late; it's a safeguard left by our founders to use before resorting to the 2nd. It takes a bit of courage, but as Winston Churchhill put it, "if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves."
Make that progeny instead of prodigy. ;)
Jan 2, 2013 Court decides on how much power sheriff has.
127 sheriffs won’t enforce Obama gun laws.
Freeper needs a “thumbs up” option!!!!!
Do a FR title search on the word “Sheriff”, you’ll see a couple of pages of headlines, sheriffs all over the country saying they won’t enforce BO’s gun grab.
I thought like 20 years ago that it would not be possible for the federal government do things like patrol our highways which is left to the individual states and subdivisions of state police/highway or state patrols or local cops. Unfortunately now, I can see it where there is a possibility of having a national highway patrol and that role could be played by TSA. Already done in TN with commercial vehicles.
Personally, I was pulled over in Missouri for speeding back in Nov 2007. I passed a Homeland Security police car with US GSA plates and about 20 miles down the road, I got pulled over by the MO State Highway Patrol and the DHS guy was with the patrolman behind him. What I remember is the patrolman went back to the DHS car and came to mine. When I dealt with the court for the speeding ticket, I was not even allowed to plea bargain the ticket. I was told if I attempted to plea bargain, I would expect other charges to be filed besides speeding.
For those who don’t know: Deleware has only 3 counties, the least of any state. 88 is the average.
Consequently it may be the test case for the democrats to centralize all power to the state, in preparation for the next move to all federal power.
guess I’ll have to tame it down.
“Are we so weak kneeded or ignorant today, that we just sit back and allow a tyranical, out of control federal government to destroy our lives and the lives of our protegy?”
Yes. Otherwise there wouldn’t be a need for a Constitutional Convention.
No. That’s why our adversaries need a Constitutional Convention they can over in order to succeed where they can’t now.
Where exactly have they not suceeded in pushing their agenda, once they've put an effort into it?
Bankrupting the country?
Closing power plants?
Voter and election fraud?
Increasing energy dependence?
Increased environmental regulation?
Increased small business regulation?
Increasing the size of government?
Yea, they've had a really hard time succeeding alright. /s
We're on the verge of CWII; calling a CC to limit the federal government by at least attempting to repeal the 16th is the least of our "risky" options.
If the states are so stupid and cowardly as to allow this naked power grab, they...and we...deserve to be enslaved by the federal government. This should spark states to consider secession.
Yes and here’s why.
Sheriff’s are the top LEO in a county. They are the only LEO in the county that has jurisdiction in the entire county.
They also are the only LEO that can kick the feds out of their county. Technically they can approve or disapprove of any federal LEOs actions in their county. The feds can’t do anything in a county if the sheriff says NO.
That’s why they want to get rid of them.
Never let them get rid of sheriffs. If anyone has to go your local town cops are the ones to let go.
Are we so weak kneeded or ignorant today, that we just sit back and allow a tyranical, out of control federal government to destroy our lives and the lives of our protegy?I think you may have missed his point: If we want a constitutional convention, then we better darn well be comfortable with Bohner and McConnell leading the way and mindful of the current squishy GOP leadership's serial capitulation to the dems. So, at least for the present moment, with absolute *DUDS* for republican leadership, the dems would likely ride roughshod over the GOP. You'd stand a high chance of achieving just the opposite of what you intended: Dems enshrining socialism in the constitution, rewriting most if not all of the bill of rights in their favor, all while the GOP just watched and offered weak-tea resistance.
Remember, the last election showed that over half the voters approve of big-govt and they handily re-elected Obama. The majority of voters "asked what their country can do for them" and not the other way around.
I wouldn't call for a convention unless we had high confidence the GOP (which is what we are stuck with for now) grew a spine and showed they were willing to get their knuckles bloody. You'd still have to get whatever proposed amendments ratified by 2/3's of the states. And again, the majority of voters chose big-govt and Obama. What are the odds they would ratify the liberal agenda or the conservative agenda? Is the political environment (from the politi-sluts down to the voters) conducive to bolstering the constitution with conservative amendments?
“Where exactly have they not suceeded in pushing their agenda...”
I wrote “...to succeed where they cant now”. I didn’t write that they had not succeeded in pushing their agenda. You’re arguing (correctly I think) against a point I didn’t make.
They haven’t completely taken over the country yet:
>We’re still posting on this forum.
>In many places we can carry a firearm, concealed or not, without running afoul of the law.
>They haven’t filled the “camps” or started the mass executions.
>They don’t have complete control.
They haven’t destroyed the nation like the chaos of CWII will allow them to do. CWII, if they are even partially successful, will break up the nation. Part of it will be theirs. Then they will go after the rest. If you say they will be stopped from taking over the rest, I’ll say stop them now.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
A more descriptive explanation of what you're reading from Wiki Answers:
Article V of the Constitution explains the amendment process of the Constitution, that is, how the Constitution may be amended. There are two processes for proposing amendments, either by two-thirds vote in each house of Congress or by an Article V Convention. All amendments thus far to the Constitution have been by proposal of Congress.
The reason a convention to propose amendments, or Article V Convention has never been called despite the 750 applications from all 50 states, is because Congress refuses to obey the Constitution and call the convention. The Constitution mandates that if two-thirds of the state legislatures (34) apply for a convention, Congress must call it. A convention can only propose amendments to the present Constitution and is not empowered to write or propose a new or replacement Constitution.
Regardless of how an amendment is proposed it must be ratified in the states either by three fourths vote in the state legislatures or by three fourths vote in state ratifying conventions. The method of ratification is by choice of Congress but Congress has no power to withhold a proposed amendment or veto it once it has been ratified.
Once an amendment is ratified, it becomes part of our present Constitution.
It's only a matter of time until the remaining freedoms you've listed are taken away, IMO.
Stop them now? "Resist We Much!" - Sharpton...
I wrote: “Youre arguing (correctly I think) against a point I didnt make.”
Your responded: “Yet!”
So you’re arguing against a point I didn’t make yet but you say I will make??
Naw, you twisted what I wrote, trying make a correct argument while pretending I was wrong, so you could play “Errant wins!!”.
What I'm saying is: It's only a matter of time until the remaining freedoms you've listed are taken away as well.
Have a great evening,
So you can only be concerned about one thing at a time?
That's got to be a tough way to live.
Honestly, you don't see this as a major issue?
Good evening, or good morning/afternoon depending on when you see this.
So, considering the current political makeup of the country (majority is a combination of dems and romney-championing, gop “moderates”), what are the odds we would wind up with liberal amendments (either proposed or ratified)? What are the odds the conservative proposals would never see the light of day, much less make it all the way through to ratification?
I think that’s why the original poster was basically implying, “now might not be the best time to be clamoring for a convention”.
I would muster for a response, should the local sheriff ask.
Luckly, we have enough red states (38 are required) to get this amended and perhaps enough in Congress to go along with the states and allow the convention to be called. This isn't up to congress, other than we need enough to on our side to allow the states to hold the CC in the first place (unless the states force the issue - read above). Our founding fathers left two ways in the Constitution to call a convention to amend the Constitution (i.e, the states and the state legislatures can also call one). I say the states need to do so now, and put a stop to this handful of corrupt tyrants in DC, who are destroying our country, our lives, and our children and grand children's futures!
Let's try to put this tool our founders left for us to use before a bloody civil war becomes our only hope to regain lost freedoms.
Yes, but how many of those red-states’ voters were eagerly supporting Romney early in the primaries when they had demonstrably more conservative options?
I would love nothing more than a conservative resurgence to solidify the founders original intent regarding the constitution; I have serious doubts the current political makeup of the country would allow it — at either the state or federal level. I think it would backfire. Even within the GOP, conservatives are outnumbered and we can’t even rely on our own side in a political fight. None of the tertiary “right” parties have enough power or influence to gain traction yet.
So, I’ll hope for the best and prepare for the worst. Best of luck in your endeavors.