[kc2bya]

(queue Star Wars theme music)

Riverside County Sheriff Calls Gov. Newsom Hypocrite, Bully, 'Dictatorial'

The Riverside County Sheriff is blasting CA Gov. Newsom (D) over his "dictatorial" approach to enforcing lockdown and stay-at-home orders,

www.breitbart.com

"Bianco (Riverside County) is the latest California sheriff to rebuke the governor’s stay-at-home orders. Sheriffs in Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Sacramento counties have also stated they won’t enforce the mandates. "

They seem to be finally waking up in Kalifornia. Let's pray it spreads east, FAST!

 

[Canyon Man]

I like a Sheriff that stands up against his Governor when so much is at stake.

 

[SeaMac]

I like a Sheriff that stands up against his Governor when so much is at stake.

Such actions by constitutionally elected Sheriff's is admirable although it wouldn't work in Florida. Our Governor has the power to remove any Sheriff from office. Still though KUDOS to these Commifornia Sheriffs!

 

[kc2bya]

Zerohedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

 

[archmark]

Just a few minutes ago on Live From Studio 6B on America's Voice News TV, it was announced that a NY state representative has just introduced a bill that would force all NY state residents to receive the COVID-19 vaccine whether they want to or not. If they refuse to receive the 2-dose immunization, they would face "unspecified penalties".

Think things have crossed that "line in the sand"yet? Hearing politicians espousing ideas like that means it's only a matter of time before similar facist suggestions have spread across this entire nation. Time to break out the whetstone and spiff up the edge of my old M6 pig sticker me thinks...

 

[glowing_plasma]

Personally, I prefer Sheriffs who follow and enforce the laws rather than those that try to make the law themselves or decide based on their own personal opinion which laws to enforce or not. The executive branch doesn't get to make laws nor does it get to decide which laws are Constitutional or not.

 

[Canyon Man]

Personally, I prefer Sheriffs who follow and enforce the laws rather than those that try to make the law themselves or decide based on their own personal opinion which laws to enforce or not. The executive branch doesn't get to make laws nor does it get to decide which laws are Constitutional or not.

It takes more than a Governor to make law. The Governor can call it a law all he wants - but since it didn't go through proper procedure - it's not law - rather a recommendation. Recommendations do not have to be adhered to, and are not punishable by law. The Sheriff in this case seems to be following the letter of the law. And a law that is passed that is not constitutional is also not a law. This is why our constitution allows for amendments to be added, and it is intentionally designed to be a cumbersome process.

 

[steven.m.shannon]

Personally, I prefer Sheriffs who follow and enforce the laws rather than those that try to make the law themselves or decide based on their own personal opinion which laws to enforce or not. The executive branch doesn't get to make laws nor does it get to decide which laws are Constitutional or not.

It’s simply not possible to follow one’s oath to uphold the constitution without questioning whether a law is constitutional.
Personally, I’m comforted that some sheriffs are willing to refuse to carry out orders they feel would violate their oaths.

There have been executive branches who blindly followed orders. The Nuremberg trials dealt with one notable example.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[glowing_plasma]

It’s simply not possible to follow one’s oath to uphold the constitution without questioning whether a law is constitutional.
Personally, I’m comforted that some sheriffs are willing to refuse to carry out orders they feel would violate their oaths.

There have been executive branches who blindly followed orders. The Nuremberg trials dealt with one notable example.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

This is a fair point, but a complex one. "Just following orders" isn't a valid excuse against crimes against humanity, like murder. Buy a Sheriff refusing to enforce public health mandates that are nominally legal and are backed by science is a LONG ways from murdering people. A Sheriff, much like a soldier, cannot just refuse a lawful order just because they disagree with its wisdom. We are not a nation of vigilantes each deciding what their own version of "justice" is. We are a nation of laws. If there is a question about the law, that is a matter for the courts, not the individual executive officers like SHeriffs. If a Sheriff disagrees with the court's decision, then they can (and should) resign. They should not take the law into their own hands.

 

[steven.m.shannon]

This is a fair point, but a complex one. "Just following orders" isn't a valid excuse against crimes against humanity, like murder. Buy a Sheriff refusing to enforce public health mandates that are nominally legal and are backed by science is a LONG ways from murdering people. A Sheriff, much like a soldier, cannot just refuse a lawful order just because they disagree with its wisdom. We are not a nation of vigilantes each deciding what their own version of "justice" is. We are a nation of laws. If there is a question about the law, that is a matter for the courts, not the individual executive officers like SHeriffs. If a Sheriff disagrees with the court's decision, then they can (and should) resign. They should not take the law into their own hands.

“Just following orders” isn’t a valid excuse against any unconstitutional act, not just crimes against humanity. I agree that sheriffs and soldiers should follow all legal orders, but that necessarily implies that they weigh the legality of the order. In the example of the sheriffs in California they have performed that assessment, found the orders to be unconstitutional, and have taken a stand. That’s exactly what they must to to uphold their oath of office. Simply getting out of the way so someone else can follow an unconstitutional or illegal order isn’t “protecting and defending” the constitution. That’s the passive way out, but does nothing to protect anything other than the conscience of the person resigning and even then the conscience should be troubled. There’s always someone willing to follow orders blindly. If you were ordered to lock up a journalist who had proof of a government coverup, would you resign and let your undersheriff do it or would you actively resist the order by calling out those who ordered you?
You and I could argue ad infinitum whether we believe those orders are constitutional or legal or not, but there’s no point. It’s the sheriffs who must decide at the time they receive the order. That’s why they are elected rather than appointed. Later the legality or constitutionality of the order may be argued in the courts and voters may even recall their sheriffs based on their sheriffs’ willingness to obey or resist the orders. Presumably a sheriff could even be charged with complicity if the order was found to be legal afterward.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[SeaMac]

Actually a constitutional Sheriff as Chief Law Enforcement Officer of his or her county wields a considerable amount of authority. They and they alone as CLEO's can choose whichever laws they wish to enforce. Some state constitutions allow the governor to remove a sheriff (like Florida) others do not. In many states the sheriff essentially answers to no one but a judge or a state's attorney general. Also, a constitutional sheriff swears an oath to the USC not a state, county or governor. If they determine a law is unconstitutional they are in no way obligated nor can they be compelled to enforce it.

 

[glowing_plasma]

“Just following orders” isn’t a valid excuse against any unconstitutional act, not just crimes against humanity. I agree that sheriffs and soldiers should follow all legal orders, but that necessarily implies that they weigh the legality of the order. In the example of the sheriffs in California they have performed that assessment, found the orders to be unconstitutional, and have taken a stand. That’s exactly what they must to to uphold their oath of office. Simply getting out of the way so someone else can follow an unconstitutional or illegal order isn’t “protecting and defending” the constitution. That’s the passive way out, but does nothing to protect anything other than the conscience of the person resigning and even then the conscience should be troubled. There’s always someone willing to follow orders blindly. If you were ordered to lock up a journalist who had proof of a government coverup, would you resign and let your undersheriff do it or would you actively resist the order by calling out those who ordered you?
You and I could argue ad infinitum whether we believe those orders are constitutional or legal or not, but there’s no point. It’s the sheriffs who must decide at the time they receive the order. That’s why they are elected rather than appointed. Later the legality or constitutionality of the order may be argued in the courts and voters may even recall their sheriffs based on their sheriffs’ willingness to obey or resist the orders. Presumably a sheriff could even be charged with complicity if the order was found to be legal afterward.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Every soldier or sheriff is obligated to follow all legal orders/laws, yet also expected to refuse to obey illegal orders/unconstitutional laws. If a soldier or sheriff refuses an order because they believe it to be illegal or unconstitutional, while their commanding officer or state legislature believes the order to be legal, how do we resolve the dispute? The judicial branch, of course! If a soldier or sheriff refuses to follow an order or enforce a law, and a court finds their case lacking, there can and should be significant consequences! Ideally, this should be a very rare occurrence. However, it is becoming more and more commonplace as those on the right believe that they can just ignore laws with which they disagree.

 

[glowing_plasma]

Actually a constitutional Sheriff as Chief Law Enforcement Officer of his or her county wields a considerable amount of authority. They and they alone as CLEO's can choose whichever laws they wish to enforce. Some state constitutions allow the governor to remove a sheriff (like Florida) others do not. In many states the sheriff essentially answers to no one but a judge or a state's attorney general. Also, a constitutional sheriff swears an oath to the USC not a state, county or governor. If they determine a law is unconstitutional they are in no way obligated nor can they be compelled to enforce it.

I'm not a lawyer, but I do not think you are correct. Of course, every state is somewhat different, but I do not believe any state gives Sheriffs the right to determine what laws are Constitutional or not. Sheriffs are not federal officials. Whether they swear an oath to the US Constitution or not, their primary obligation is to (and 100% of their executive power comes from) their county/state, NOT the federal government.

 

[coupe11]

Lot of sheriffs in VA were involved in the votes by over 95 counties and cities/towns (except of course, the ones located around DC which are heavily corrupted by the large number of federal government employees who vote dim/lib/prog/socialist every election) when those counties/towns stood up and passed resolutions saying their counties/towns/cities would not enforce any new state laws that would be counter to the US Constitution (2nd amendment, mostly).

When old blackface (imagine the tears and cries that would have happened if a republican governor had such pictures in his college year book) threatened those sheriffs and their deputies their citizens rallied around them and old blackface was told his state police (even the VANG was mentioned as a possible means of arresting/detaining county LEOs and county administrators) would not be allowed to enter their counties and take away their LEOs.

Not sure it got a lot of national press since it was about people standing up to a government intent on destroying their Constitutional rights (as the dim/lib/prod/socialist politicians running for government offices this year repeatedly threaten they intend to do). In the end, the VA legislature, old blackface, his accused rapist lt. gov. and his junior blackface state attorney general were unable to get the majority of their anti 2nd amendment proposals through the legislature. So no one had to stand up and do what they'd promised to do.

I expect another mess this January with the state legislature gets together again. They will either ignore their party's losses in many other state legislatures and nationally in congress and go ahead anyway with their threats to begin abolishing the US Constitution (which is mostly mirrored in the VA Constitution). Or, equally bad, they'll figure their asses will be out of office after the fall 2021 elections and do their best to do their evil with their limited time in office.

 

[SeaMac]

I'm not a lawyer, but I do not think you are correct. Of course, every state is somewhat different, but I do not believe any state gives Sheriffs the right to determine what laws are Constitutional or not. Sheriffs are not federal officials. Whether they swear an oath to the US Constitution or not, their primary obligation is to (and 100% of their executive power comes from) their county/state, NOT the federal government.

I am correct a Sheriff as CLEO is the reigning authority as it applies to law enforcement in their respective county. Not even the Fed's have more authority in fact a Sheriff or their Deputies can arrest ANY Fed LEO. There are two attorneys in my family one who formerly worker for Florida's AG Pam Bondi, she would confirm this.

Since a Sheriff's oath is to the USC as well as their state's constitution their authority is written within those legal instruments.

There are numerous cases which attempted to challenge a Sheriff's authority, I cannot recall any losses. They can only enforce laws that are constitutional and they have plenty of their own attorneys in house.

 

[glowing_plasma]

I am correct a Sheriff as CLEO is the reigning authority as it applies to law enforcement in their respective county. Not even the Fed's have more authority in fact a Sheriff or their Deputies can arrest ANY Fed LEO. There are two attorneys in my family one who formerly worker for Florida's AG Pam Bondi, she would confirm this.

Since a Sheriff's oath is to the USC as well as their state's constitution their authority is written within those legal instruments.

There are numerous cases which attempted to challenge a Sheriff's authority, I cannot recall any losses. They can only enforce laws that are constitutional and they have plenty of their own attorneys in house.

The position of "Sheriff" is not mentioned directly in the US Constitution, so presumably (because I am not a Constitutional lawyer) that means it's up to the states to decide what their role is. However, while Sheriffs are given broad authority to decide how to enforce the law and what laws to prioritize, I do not know of any states that explicitly give sheriffs the right to determine whether a state's law is constitutional or not. That role is, to my knowledge, reserved for the state Supreme Courts--in all 50 states.

It might be a fine distinction, but as I understand it, a sheriff has broad discretion and authority to prioritize how to enforce the laws. They could decide that their department does not have sufficient resources to enforce a particular law. However, they can not just determine that a law is unconstitutional or not otherwise legal.

Again, I could be wrong.

 

[archmark]

Sheriff's get their power because they are the highest ELECTED law enforcement individuals in the country, even though the Prez., Federal & State Atty. Generals, Director of the FBI, yada, yada, yada bestow the bullshit term upon themselves, they ARE NOT ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE STRICTLY TO ENFORCE THE LAW, ONLY SHERIFF'S ARE. They are the PEOPLE's DULY ELECTED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS, not anyone else and YES THEY CAN determine what laws, Federal, State or Local, that they will & will not enforce, such as Firearms Sanctuary cities.

What main thing that Sheriffs have going for them is that THEY ARE ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE STRICTLY TO ENFORCE THE PEACE & GOOD ORDER...

 

[SeaMac]

^^^Being the reigning CLEO can be a good thing^^^

Unfortunately not all Sheriff's are good Sheriff's, fortunately they are elected officials. I will add that in Florida at least our Attorney General IS elected!

 

[HK SD9 Tactical]

Actually a Sheriff can determine whether to enforce or not enforce a mandate from a Governor if the Sheriff questiones if it is unconstitutional.

Look at how many Sheriffs are not enforcing the 30 round mag ban in Colorado, passed by the legislature, signed by the governor, the force of law, that the Sheriffs consider unconstitutional and a violation of the 2nd. Lo and behold, the 9th Circuit has voided California's hi cap mag ban as unconstitutional, and Colorado is not in the 9th Circuits appealets coverage.

Those if us that have taken the oath do so understanding it's the Constitution first and above all.

Some Governors are going to be cut down a few notches when this is over and the state legislatures limit their questionable authority to issue these health mandates, some that are clearly unconstitutional.

And even if Biden as president signs an EO or tries to make law that we all have to wear masks, it will only be enforceable on Govt grounds, buildings, etc. It will have no effect and will be unenforceable on We the People.

 

[archmark]

Actually a Sheriff can determine whether to enforce or not enforce a mandate from a Governor if the Sheriff questiones if it is unconstitutional.

Look at how many Sheriffs are not enforcing the 30 round mag ban in Colorado, passed by the legislature, signed by the governor, the force of law, that the Sheriffs consider unconstitutional and a violation of the 2nd. Lo and behold, the 9th Circuit has voided California's hi cap mag ban as unconstitutional, and Colorado is not in the 9th Circuits appealets coverage.

Those if us that have taken the oath do so understanding it's the Constitution first and above all.

Some Governors are going to be cut down a few notches when this is over and the state legislatures limit their questionable authority to issue these health mandates, some that are clearly unconstitutional.

And even if Biden as president signs an EO or tries to make law that we all have to wear masks, it will only be enforceable on Govt grounds, buildings, etc. It will have no effect and will be unenforceable on We the People.

Before glowing_orgasm mentions it, was your comment "Some Governors are going to be cut down a few notches when this is over..." a terroristic threat? He's probably already reported you to the Joe Kameltoe regime...