Posted on 02/13/2013 6:52:50 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
My friends, there is hope. Law enforcement officers at the local level are making their stand and they want you to be a part of that. While I’ve written on various sheriffs that have made their own stance to protect their citizens from anyone attempting to confiscate guns, I recently ran across Police Chief Mark Kessler of the Gilberton Borough Police Department in Pennsylvania. He wants citizens to join with his police department in building a “reserve force” that will aid his police force should the need arise to resist Federal authorities when it comes to the Second Amendment.
(VIDEO AT LINK)
I spoke with Chief Kessler and he is most definitely a patriot and a Constitutionalist. The police force is quite small in his town and, much like my own town, criminal activity is not rampant.
The reserve force will be made up of volunteers, they can be past or current police officers with act 120 training, along with non law enforcement personnel interested in joining the reserve force....
(Excerpt) Read more at freedomoutpost.com ...
Is this [the underlined] correct though? Consider, for example, the case where the representatives/senators enact something contrary to their respective state's Constitution. If they are commissioned under the State, then they fall under the authority of the State Constitution and to act contrary is lawlessness (and contrary the 10th amendment).
As a specific example, let us consider H.R.5122 of 2006 -- that it has apparently since been repealed is no concern -- which allowed the President to "take charge of United States National Guard troops without state governor authorization." Now many, if not most, States have language similar to the New Mexico state constitution which says: "The militia of this state shall consist of all able-bodied male citizens between the ages of eighteen and forty-five, except such as are exempt by laws of the United States or of this state. The organized militia shall be called the 'national guard of New Mexico,' of which the governor shall be the commander in chief."
But HR 5122 effectively alters the New Mexico constitution, removing the governor as its commander in chief. If valid, then the Constitution of a State means nothing, as the [federal] ruling class could simply enact [federal] law negating any particular state's constitution in any particular area.
You'll have to say something that doesn't make me break out laughing to dampen my fire. ;-)
Interesting; do you have some links showing this heartening news?
Where I live, in northeastern calif., we have five county Sheriffs that have signed and pubicly announced, that they will abjure from any further restictions on RTKB, by the state or federals.
great, but it would be better if sheriffs were asking for this, as they are the top lawman in the county and have county-wide juridiction.
From http://sheriffmack.com/ Scroll down the page some.
The Attorney General of Delaware is the son of Joe Biden. Obviously he did not fall far from the “lack of intelligence” tree as he gave an opinion that the sheriff has no arrest authority!!! How is it that the State Constitution states that the sheriff is in fact the “conservator of the peace”, yet according to Beau Biden, he lacks the authority to arrest anyone who may violate the peace? This is why I (Richard Mack) and the CSPOA are helping Sheriff Christopher fight the political stupidity of some out of touch Delaware politicians. We must make certain that Delaware does not repeat the outrageous unconstitutional removal of the office of sheriff from the State as Connecticut did about 12 years ago.
Um. I would be concerned just who might have access to the list of names of these public-minded citizens who sign up for this. Could be awkward if the Feds ask for the list.
bflr
It's called a "militia".
I told’ya law enforcement would split.
I cannot help must wonder what would have been the outcome in the recent Dorner manhunt had the LA police or the county sheriffs had instead formed a public militia to head out hunting for Dorner.
I know many consider the 2A to be used specifically to keep the government in check and may say thats as far as it should proceed. But Dorner was a rabid dog with lots of firepower and training, nobody can say if he could have created a plan to kill on a collosal scale, so I would say its always possible and that law enforcement absolutely needs public assistance.
The problem is to what degree is the law enforcement still attached to the Federal pipeline and policies?
And the FBI and CIA plus a whoever else out there is under orders to sting any militia as often as possible, so personally I won’t just jump in my truck and rush down to the police station or troopers office in a mad rush to be “enlisted”.
The nationalization of a state’s National Guard is extremely tricky, and to a great extent cannot be done without the permission of the government.
An excellent, recent example, was when hurricane Katrina hit Louisiana and Mississippi. Governor Haley Barbour of Mississippi immediately coordinated with W. Bush to have an ordered response to the disaster in his state; but Louisiana governor Kathleen Blanco froze up, and despite repeated entreaties by W. Bush, she just would not do anything.
Importantly, this meant no coordination with state authorities at all, not because she opposed it, just because she didn’t approve it. The feds, even FEMA, just had to sit on Louisiana’s border waiting for permission to enter.
Now granted, *since* then, the US National Guard *Bureau* (note, not “Command”, as such) (federal) has been reorganized somewhat, with the Chief of the National Guard Bureau now sitting on the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the military branches. But the same principal still applies.
According to Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, says that the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and U.S. Treaties are “the supreme law of the land.”
However, there is a conflict there. That is, the constitution dominates, and only if they are constitutional do federal statutes apply, and only if treaties both follow the constitution and federal law, do they apply.
“The Supremacy Clause only applies if Congress is acting in pursuit of its constitutionally authorized powers. Federal laws are valid and are supreme, so long as those laws were adopted in pursuance of—that is, consistent with—the Constitution.
“Nullification, is the legal theory that states have the right to nullify, or invalidate, federal laws which they view as being unconstitutional; or federal laws that they view as having exceeded Congresses’ constitutionally authorized powers.
“The Supreme Court has rejected nullification, finding that under Article III of the Constitution, the power to declare federal laws unconstitutional has been delegated to the federal courts and that states do not have the authority to nullify federal law.”
However, this is not as clear as it seems. Because states have some degree of autonomy, while congress can push around state legislatures, and federal judges can push around both state judges and state legislatures; neither the POTUS, nor the congress, nor can federal judges (for the most part), can push around state governors.
But this is somewhat muddy, and instead of clearly being dictated by the constitution, over time it has instead become a “contest of wills”.
And to make things even more interesting, the Roberts’ decision in Obamacare opened the door to what in the future can be a “great return to constitutionalism.”
That is, FDR abused the constitution, horrifically extrapolating the Interstate Commerce Clause to mean “all commerce”, an extrapolation which has existed since; and LBJ made just as bad an extrapolation of the General Welfare Clause, to create a welfare state. And *that* is still being used, though clearly violating the constitution.
And they are still at it, the most recent effort to extend the federal government’s authority over “navigable waterways” to *all* water in the US, is downright obscene.
But the Roberts’ decision might change all that, because though the Supreme Court was humbled by FDR into rationalizing his clearly unconstitutional actions, the SCOTUS is starting to lose its fear, and may now undo a lot of the villainy that was done.
But he did so by opening the door to a future congress to change things back to constitutionality, and making it easier for them to do so.
...and it should be called...LEGALLY...a militia. That would start solving many problems. (Where can I sign up?)
Sign me up!
Roberts is probably subject blackmail over his children who were, apparently, adopted by circumventing Irish law.
I don't know; I think the resultant Affordable Care Act (which is what you're talking about, no?) majority opinion was addled, written like a drugged man. It's not indicative of someone in a sound state of mind. Overwhelming fear could account for it, as could the aforementioned drugs. In neither case, however, does the opinion read with the real confidence/assurance of one without fear.
But he did so by opening the door to a future congress to change things back to constitutionality, and making it easier for them to do so.
Congress always had that option; the "it's not the SCOTUS's job to protect the people from unconstitutional acts" statement was completely and utterly false: it is the Supreme Court's job... just like it's the Congress's, or the President's. What else can the oath of office mean?
“Nullification, is the legal theory that states have the right to nullify, or invalidate, federal laws which they view as being unconstitutional; or federal laws that they view as having exceeded Congresses’ constitutionally authorized powers. The Supreme Court has rejected nullification, finding that under Article III of the Constitution, the power to declare federal laws unconstitutional has been delegated to the federal courts and that states do not have the authority to nullify federal law.”
I somehow get the uneasy feeling that this is nothing more than the legal attempt to discredit jury nullification. By overloading the word 'nullification' an agent of the Judiciary can say "the supreme court has found nullification to be unconstitutional" and technically be making a true statement but, deceiving nonetheless, let people think that he is talking about jury nullification. (It seems to me the judiciary [and prosecution] hates and despises jury nullification; which is why they work so hard on making it seem like the jury must convict if the accused was in violation of some statute/ordnance/law even [especially?] if it is unlawful -- simply because of the fact that they lose power the more autonomy the jury has.)
State nullification is very real and unto itself, apart from jury nullification (which is actually a tacit thing, based on the efforts of British judges to ‘direct a conviction’ from a jury that did not want to convict. In other words, it is the recognition that a juries say for acquittal is *final*, and while a judge, detecting unfairness, can set aside a conviction, he cannot set aside an acquittal, even if he judges that a defendant is guilty.)
State nullification first came about, as such, during the reign of Andrew Jackson, the “Nullification Crisis”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_Crisis
Ironically, Jackson threatened to take the US Army into his home state, and hang any legislator who had voted to nullify.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.