Connect with us

Constitution

Sheriff! An open letter from We, the People

Published

on

Your local sheriff might be all that stands between you and a coup d'état.

A sheriff is the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in each County in every State. Every Sheriff swears an oath to “…support and defend the United States Constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic.”

At this time in our history the American people are facing a domestic enemy that continually violates the U.S. Constitution. Yet, the spineless Congress as well as judiciary has demonstrated their oath of Office is meaningless, and as for courage; they have none.

Who will stand up for the People?

Only the Sheriff has the legal jurisdictional authority to stand against this tyrannical administration. The time has come for every Sheriff to decide whether he is a man of honor, who will abide by his/her oath of office to defend the Constitution. The questions will our Sheriffs cower to tyranny out of fear paving the way for tyranny?

Mr. Obama is contemplating nineteen “Executive Orders” to curtail Firearms ownership. Legally it is inarguable such an order will irrefutably usurp the United States Constitutional. Positive Law is crystal clear, see, Amendment II:

…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

First, and foremost, the Founding Fathers defined Militia as all men 16 to 60. The progressive/Marxists would have you believe the militia is only the National Guard that enjoys that right, which is an outright lie. That  fabrication is repeatedly advanced by the progressive/Marxist in order to disarm the public. State organized militias came into existence in 1902. Regardless, until Congress amends the Second Amendment neither the Executive Branch, Congress, regulation and/or Executive Order has any validity.

Let me make this absolutely clear, “Executive Orders” are not, nor ever will be law. Only the Quislings in Congress have the authority to make law; with one caveat, if the law they are purposing does not conflict with the Constitution.

Robert Longley at About.com likewise confirmed how executive orders work While they do bypass the U.S. Congress and the standard legislative law making process, no part of an executive order may direct the agencies to conduct illegal or unconstitutional activities.

Any “Executive order” issued by the Marxist now occupying the White-House will cause the American people to lose even more of our freedom. Sadly, we are saddled with life time; political stooges that would sell out their country for 30-pieces of silver, in many cases succumb to bribery or blackmail.

Legally, the Sheriffs in every county has the authority and obligation to arrest any federal agent attempting to enforce any unconstitutional regulation and or any “Executive Order” that would usurp the Constitutional rights of the citizens in his/her jurisdiction.

Sadly, the people of New Jersey, New York and other liberal bastions of progressivism have Governors and legislators that repeatedly demonstrate their contempt of for the Second Amendment. But, there is a bright side, the Sheriff who only answers to the people that elected him/her when upholding the Constitutional Rights of the people in his County; is the law!

No executive authority can override the Sheriff

Sheriff of El Paso County, Texas

Badge of the Sheriff of El Paso County, Texas. Photo: El Paso County Sheriff’s Office

Neither Obama, Governor “Blunderbuss” (Christie), Governor Spooky (Cuomo) nor Congress can override the Sheriff. I have a suggestion for the Governors, and the legislature; Read the article posted in CNAV, or Essex County Conservative Examiner, an interview held with Mr. Frank Cottone of Monmouth County who I sure will be happy to explain the duties and jurisdictional role the Sheriff has. Sadly “Blunderbuss” and “Spooky” like Obama, couldn’t care less what “Positive law” says or means. Take heart: there is an office that can protect our civil rights: the Sheriff’s Office, the holder of which answers only to the people.

Equal Protection of the Laws

Let’s take a different approach, I truly believe an argument can be made, that any regulation, legislation, or Executive Order banning or restricting any type firearm violates the “Equal Protection Clause.” Bear with me.

The law is well defined: the police can act only after a crime is committed. That’s right: they are under no obligation to protect you unless a crime has occurred. A federal Court in Washington D.C. made clear: the police are responsible to respond within a reasonable time frame and have no culpability, if a victim of a crime was injured regardless of how long it took to respond, even in a life and death situation.

Now the parasites in public office have armed security details for themselves and their families, 24-7. Yet the rest of the population does not. Any high officer holder can obtain a concealed firearms permit, in liberal states, too. So can their political donors. But you try getting one. Screw the Second Amendment! Let’s take it a step further: these useless vermin will impose laws on law-abiding citizens, at the same time aid and abet the criminal element by taking away a citizen’s right to defend himself.

They tell you no, we believe the people have a right to bear arms, as long as you comply with what we say is enough protection. So I ask, just how you are going to confiscate the illegal weapons that are in hands of the criminals. You cannot and never will.

Most of the high-minded morons, will say you don’t need high capacity magazines. No so. Tell me, how you stop a mob of looters or gang of hoodlums? Does Katrina or the L.A. riots ring a bell? Why don’t you tell that to the citizens of Korea Town? Yet a law was passed granting life time secret service for certain legislators. Should not all Americans live by the same rules? Wake up! Gun control is not the answer!

Lastly, I remind the reader and especially every Sheriffs, what the most liberal Circuit Court in the nation, the Ninth, held, Nordyke v. King,

…The right to bear arms is a bulwark against external invasion. We should not be overconfident that oceans on out east and west coasts alone can preserve security. We recently saw in the case of the terrorist attack on Mumbai that terrorist may enter a country covertly by ocean routes, landing in small craft and then assembling to wreak havoc. That we have a lawfully armed populace adds a measure of security for all of us and makes less likely that a band of terrorist could make headway in an attack on any community before more professional forces arrived.

Second, the right to bear is a protection against the possibility that even our own government could degenerate into tyranny, though this may seem unlikely, this possibility should be guarded against with individual diligence.

One would believe even this bastion of liberal jurisprudence must have had the Obama administration in mind and adding the latter.

The SCOTUS in the case of District of Columbia vs. Heller. Whether banning handguns in Washington D.C. was a violation of the Second Amendment. Thank God Justice Antonin Scalia held in the majority opinion:

the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

So, Sheriff, what will you do?

So the question to the Sheriffs in the State of New Jersey and our sister States; will you defend the Constitution of the United States? Will you honor your oath of office? The people of the People’s Republic of New Jersey as do the people throughout the United States ask. The citizens of the State of New Jersey await your answer for publication.

The Eagle

[subscribe2]

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
CATEGORY:Constitution
28 Comments
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

28 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John Day

John Day liked this on Facebook.

Theresa Brooks

Theresa Brooks liked this on Facebook.

AlexM

The Militia is indeed the National Guard. This is made pretty clear if you read the Militia Acts of 1972, 1862, and 1903.

The Militia Acts of 1792 makes it pretty clear that the militia is supposed to be tightly controlled by the federal government. You can read it here: http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

The militia is all men 18-45 (I have no idea where you got 60 from), exempting government employees.

The militia’s stated purpose is to be called forth by the president to defend the United States against both invasions and insurrections. Members of the militia are guaranteed the same pay as regular troops. It is broken down into divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions, and companies, with specified numbers of artillery, drummers, officers, etc per each unit.

If there was any doubt that the militia falls under orders from the federal government:
” Sec. 5. And be it further enacted, That every officer, non-commissioned officer or private of the militia, who shall fail to obey the orders of the President of the United States in any of the cases before recited, shall forfeit a sum not exceeding one year’s pay, and not less than one month’s pay, to be determined and adjudged by a court martial; and such officers shall, moreover, be liable to be cashiered by sentence of a court martial: [words added in 1795:] and be incapacitated from holding a commission in the militia, for a term not exceeding twelve months, at the discretion of the said court: and such non-commissioned officers and privates shall be liable to be imprisoned by the like sentence, or failure of payment of the fines adjudged against them, for the space of one calendar month for every five dollars of such fine.”

The Militia Act of 1862 allows for African Americans to serve in the Militia. This further strengthens the argument that the Militia is a force controlled by the government.

The Militia Act of 1903 (http://www.jstor.org/stable/25119439) (aka the Dick Act) re-branded the Militia as the National Guard. This actually lessened federal control over the Militia as it removed it from the War Department while increasing funding.

AlexM

^ Typo above, the first Militia Acts were in 1792, not 1972.

Terry A. Hurlbut

The Constitution gives Congress the power to call up the militia to handle an invasion, and to make regulations that apply to the militia under those circumstances. The Constitution also says that the President is commander-in-chief of the militia when Congress has called it up.

Those Acts you cited, if and to the extent they exceed these limits, are unconstitutional and just waiting for the first person, having suffered any sort of injury-in-fact, to challenge them.

Note: I said “if.” Because I think you have misconstrued them, especially the Dick Act.

AlexM

It gives Congress more power than just that. From Section 8 of the Constitution:
“To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”

It is up to the Supreme Court to decide whether something is unconsitutional or not. But are you really suggesting that in passing the Militia Acts of 1792 the Founding Fathers forgot about the Constitution that had been passed just a year earlier?

This is from the Dick Act:
“That the militia shall consist of every able-bodied male citizen of the respective States, Territories, and the District of Columbia, and every able-bodied male of foreign birth who has declared his intention to become a citizen, who is more than eighteen and less than forty-five years of age, and shall be divided into two classes—the organized militia, to be known as the National Guard of the State, Territory, or District of Columbia, or by such other designations as may be given them by the laws of the respective States or Territories, and the remainder to be known as the Reserve Militia.”

Terry A. Hurlbut

Now at least you quote the rest of the Dick Act. The National Guard is only PART of the militia. The other part, the Reserve Militia, consists of all the rest of us. And that’s the part that BHO now seeks to destroy. (Though I don’t expect him to say that up front.)

Now when you say that “it is up to the Supreme Court,” you are saying that “The Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means, any time it says it.” That sort of thinking marks a country governed by fallible human interpreters, not by immutable written charters.

AlexM

The Dick Act never specifies what the Reserve Militia actually is. It could refer to the state defense forces. We dont know. But I prior to the Dick Act the Militia Acts did not include any specification of a “Reserve Militia”, and the militia was tightly regulated by the government. I think that gives us a better idea of what the Founding Fathers’ intention was.

Can you provide one piece of actual evidence that the president wants to destroy the second amendment? Or even one piece of evidence that he wants to confiscate guns? There is a big difference between restricting gun sales and confiscation.

With regards to your second point, the Constitution is not divinely inspired, it was written by human beings. Human beings who didnt have electricity, cars, rifles, or effective mass communication. So a document they came up with obviously needs to be re-interpreted in order to still be functional in the modern world. Are you really prepared to argue that it is not the Supreme Court’s job to interpret the Constitution? The Supreme Court’s power of judicial review has been pretty well established since the case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803.

Terry A. Hurlbut

The Marbury case establishes who has jurisdiction in matters of Constitutional violation. But a judge or Justice who deliberately violates the Constitution, also violates his oath of office, and as such becomes subject to removal from the bench on impeachment for, and conviction of, an offense tantamount to treason.

DinsdaleP

” Now when you say that “it is up to the Supreme Court,” you are saying that “The Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means, any time it says it.” That sort of thinking marks a country governed by fallible human interpreters, not by immutable written charters.”

And yet the whole focus on this “sheriff option” is about the reliance on a single individual and the the threat of force to make the same fallible interpretations on key issues. At least the Supreme Court requires a panel majority among the 9 Constitutional experts.

Terry A. Hurlbut

We deal here with a question of a sheriff’s authority, and also the limits of higher authority. You have no doubt noticed, doubtless to your chagrin, that more than one sheriff in ;more than one State has vowed never to enforce federal gun control in his jurisdiction.

AlexM

“But a judge or Justice who deliberately violates the Constitution, also violates his oath of office, and as such becomes subject to removal from the bench on impeachment for, and conviction of, an offense tantamount to treason.”

And who gets to decide if somebody or something violates the Constitution? You? An individual sheriff? We have over 200 years of precedent that establishes the Supreme Court as the interpreter of the Constitution.

Terry A. Hurlbut

Well! Now you’re ready to revoke Article II, Section Four of the Constitution, the one setting forth the power of impeachment.

Ted Foster

Ted Foster liked this on Facebook.

MatthewJ

Who do you contend are the members of the ‘Reserve Militia’, and what are their rights and responsibilities? What is the command structure of the Reserve Militia? Unless I’m mistaken, the Dick Act was the first to use that phrase.

Terry A. Hurlbut

The members of the Reserve Militia are all citizens and lawful residents who have any sort of firearm, or indeed any sort of weapon. I argue that it includes any person having ready to hand anything that he could use as a weapon. Including cooking knives, meat cleavers, hammers, and such.

MatthewJ

Excluding those above 45 and below 18? Excluding women? Excluding nonwhites, as the Militia Act of 1792 did? You didn’t say what the command structure is, or what the conditions are under which they are activated, or what the Constitutional basis is for your claims.

AlexM

“The members of the Reserve Militia are all citizens and lawful residents who have any sort of firearm, or indeed any sort of weapon.”

What is your source or evidence for that claim?

Terry A. Hurlbut

A simple definition.

AlexM

We have established that the Reserve Militia is not defined in the Dick Act. So where is this definition of yours coming from?

Terry A. Hurlbut

But it is. First it defines militia generally, then it defines “organized militia,” then it says that everyone else is “reserve militia.”

MatthewJ

Not ‘everyone else’. _If_ you think the Dick Act of 1903 is the final say on the matter (as opposed to, say, its 1908 amendments, the National Defense Act of 1916, the Amendments of 1920, the National Guard Status Act of 1933, or others), then all ablebodied male citizens (as well as foreign males who have announced an intention to become citizens) of ages 18-45 are the ‘reserve militia’. It says nothing of arms, even knives or hammers. Article I section 8 of the Constitution says that _Congress_ organizes, arms, and disciplines the militia, does it not? Do you have any references to the ‘reserve militia’ other than the Dick Act? Do you believe that Congress can call up all ablebodied 18-to-45-year-old males and place them under the command of the President as CIC to execute the laws of the Nation?

Terry A. Hurlbut

Can you show that the sections of the Dick Act have been specifically repealed? We do not have an Abrogation Principle known to American law.

MatthewJ

Quite a few of the elements of the Dick Act of 1903 have been amended or superseded. For example, the term of service of the Organized Militia (now known as the National Guard) is no longer 9 months, and they can now be deployed overseas. If you are asking whether anyone has repealed the part of the Act that says all males 18-45, etc. are members of the Reserve Militia, then no, I don’t think they have, because that represents the pool of individuals who can be called up for military service (ie the draft). Being (presumably) over 45, you, Dr. Hurlbut, are not a part of the Reserve Militia (per 10 USC ss 311), unless you have a history of military service that we don’t know about and are also under 64 (per 32 USC ss 313).

Do you have some countervailing reference to back up your claim that the reserve (or ‘unorganized’) militia is “all citizens and lawful residents who have any sort of firearm, or indeed any sort of weapon”?

Terry A. Hurlbut

And that’s the point: we haven’t had a repeal of the provision that defines the militia, which is National Guard plus “reserve militia.”

I reject your implied premise that, just because I would be Five-A for the draft, I am, on that account alone, ineligible to keep and bear arms.

MatthewJ

My premise is not that you are ineligible to bear arms; my premise is that when you make statements that are at odds with the facts, you should be corrected; viz.:

“The members of the Reserve Militia are all citizens and lawful residents who have any sort of firearm, or indeed any sort of weapon. I argue that it includes any person having ready to hand anything that he could use as a weapon. Including cooking knives, meat cleavers, hammers, and such.”

“The other part, the Reserve Militia, consists of all the rest of us.”

” First it defines militia generally, then it defines ‘organized militia,’ then it says that everyone else is ‘reserve militia.'”

None of which are true.

Terry A. Hurlbut

I was speaking of the broader premise of your arguments, and your position.

Do you believe that the Second Amendment guarantees to an individual citizen or lawful resident the right to keep and bear arms?

Or do you not?

That is the central issue. Absent a settlement of that issue, debate is impossible.

[…] Sheriff! An Open Letter […]

Trending

28
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x