Posted on 10/31/2022 12:04:19 PM PDT by Twotone
The adjective in the title of this essay begs a question. What is it that distinguishes a constitutional sheriff from a sheriff? The short answer is that a constitutional sheriff understands his oath of office and demonstrates its relevance. The oath is front and center in his policing and policy decisions. His oath is a source of courage and restraint day-to-day. Article VI of the Constitution for The United States of America requires all legislators, executive and judicial officers of the federal government and several states take an oath or affirmation to support the Constitution for the United States of America. The Constitution for The United States of America is the highest law in the land.
Sheriffs are executive officers and therefore required to take the oath. For most of Americas 3,100 sheriffs the day they are sworn in is the last time “the oath” shares the same room. (The same goes for legislators, judges, and other executives). They might use the adjective, “constitutional” on a campaign sign, but cannot articulate or demonstrate the meaning in any substantive way.
The Constitution was written in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence where in it we are told the purpose of government is to secure God-given rights. Read that again: “God-given rights.” Man does not give us our rights. There are self-evident truths/rights that we are born with; among them are: the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The Constitution is a limiting document. In essence, it is the employee handbook of the federal government. The federal government was created by the states and chained down by a constitution that limits its powers and jurisdiction to only what was delegated.
(Excerpt) Read more at idahodispatch.com ...
Shouldn’t every Sheriff be a Constitutional Sheriff?
It’s a good bet more than half don’t understand the term.
Ping
A national survey undertaken by the National Sheriffs’ Association (“Association”) reviewed the current legal status of our nations over 3,000 elected Offices of Sheriff. The research data shows that only 3 states, Alaska, Hawaii and Connecticut, do not have the position of Office/Department of Sheriff. The other 47 states do have an Office of Sheriff, which leads to the question in those 47 states whether or not the Office of Sheriff is deemed to be a “constitutional office” created under individual state constitutions. The data shows that in 33 states the Office of Sheriff is explicitly named in the state constitution.
In 13 states the Office of Sheriff is not created by the state constitution but is a created by state statutes. This data demonstrates that the Office of Sheriff is a “constitutional officer,” in the majority of states; however, in a number of state jurisdictions, particularly states in the Midwest section of our nation, this is not the case.
“His oath is a source of courage and restraint day-to-day. Article VI of the Constitution for The United States of America requires all legislators, executive and judicial officers of the federal government and several states take an oath or affirmation to support the Constitution for the United States of America. The Constitution for The United States of America is the highest law in the land.”
The sheriff of each county in a state is not a law enforcement officer for the federal government except under certain situations. The act of dictating law enforcement concerning the federal government powers in a state are limited and can only be enforced in the protection of federal property and to assist by request of the governor. If you’re referring to insurrection, then the feds can step in. But normal law enforcement is at the disposal of the state dedicated people. This is where separation of states’ rights become apparent.
This was demonstrated in Washington state and Oregon. Trump offered both governors the assistance of federal troop support in both cases of parts of their state being taken over and was denied entry with federal troops in the northwest by the governors. He even offered to pay for it, but these two liberal bastilles turned him down flat. The only use of federal force was by Homeland Security to come in and arrest rioters trying to burn federal buildings in Oregon. That had nothing to do with the state as it was on federal property but the state still screamed about them being there. They were ignored and the federal threat was removed.
Wy69
In several pictures and videos of the FBI arresting J6 protesters there were Deputy Sheriffs in the background. They were not there to offer support to the protesters, they were back up for the FBI. People can believe what they want about Sheriffs and their deputies, but most will do what they’re told.
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.