Gawker conveys ARPAIO's U.S. Constitution to us, and his new HITLER 'do & Brownshirted goon

[UTUSN]

To somebody rueful over ARPAIO's recurring elections, my commiseration with hope? to the effect that we had a dictator/mayor for over 20 yrs, and the MINUTE he was finally defeated, the waters closed over him like he had never existed. These a-holes idiotically think their "legacy" will last forever, but they still can't be gone soon enough to suit us. The pic is a .png file I don't know how to post, it's inside the link.


*************QUOTE*************

http://gawker.com/5979096/now-sheriffs-will-choose-what-laws-to-enforce-because-thats-what-sheriffs-think-the-constitution-says

[font size=5]Now Sheriffs Will Choose What Laws to Enforce Because That’s What Sheriffs Think the Constitution Says[/font]

Hamilton Nolan

As all schoolchildren know, the Firsteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution reads, "No law passed by the federal government may be enforced UNLESS it is cool with a bunch of sheriffs of rural counties." Leave it to the NObama administration to flagrantly ignore this Divine Right of Random Sheriffs to Decide About the Legality All Laws Based on Just Whatever Pops Into Their Heads.

The WSJ notes the important ongoing legal work of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, which amounts to a collection of dozens of county sheriffs publicly declaring that they won't enforce the Obama administration's new gun laws, should they pass. Because that's what good sheriffs do: unilaterally decide what is and is not constitutional, based upon their constitutional law degree close reading of FoxNation.com. (Not to imply that that's all they do — they also pose for terrifying pictures in the WSJ.) Here's the group's rallying cry, from retired sheriff and Martian legal scholar Richard Mack:

“Mack to Obama, ‘you have no authority to tell me what kind of gun I can own, how big of a clip I can own, or even that I have to go through your stupid background checks. I'll own whatever kind of gun I want, and it's NONE OF YOUR DAMN BUSINESS!’ “

The U.S. president has no power to sign laws that would regulate the behavior of sheriffs. That is what the U.S. Constitution says. Look it up Take our word for it.

(WSJ. Pic via)

*************UNQUOTE*************

[ck4829]

1. Sounds like a revival of the psycho Posse Comitatus organization

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_%28organization%29

[regjoe]

2. This whole Sheriff thing brings up a lot of interesting questions

If 11+ mags and AR-15s are banned, how will the bans be enforced without the help of the Sheriffs department? How will the feds serve the warrants?

It's going to be interesting to see how this whole thing plays out.

[wandy]

3. Enforcement need not involve any form of direct confrontation......

It's simple relay.
Just cut off all federal funds to any city,county or state not in compliance.
No interstate highway maintenance, no post office, no FAA, nothing. Not one red cent.
This would not only apply to gun laws but all federal regulations.

If Teapuublicans feel that the federal 'gubbermant' is all that bad then let them do without federal welfare.
It's about time Teapublicans got serious about reducing the debt.

[regjoe]

4. Won't be an option

Such action would affect ALL in those areas, 2nd Amendment supporters and those who do not.
It could also lead to a "payback" kind of government where Republicans would do the same thing when they are in power. "Safe Cities" for illegal immigrants, city and states that don't enforce pot laws, etc... could all be targets.

[wandy]

5. Like you said, brings up an interesting question.......

Would sending in armed federal agents be a better answer? I think not.
Do the people who voted that sheriff want a confrontation with the federal government?
If that's the case then, you get what you paid for. Or voted for.
If you knew that you're actions would affect ALL those around you would you think more carefully?

Gun rights; state vs. federal rights, is a hard question.
A question not answered by bellicose noise but rather by dissuasion followed (most likely) by compromise.
A gun law that makes sense for a large city may be insane for a rural area.

One thing is certain. "Scream and leap" is not the way to go about it.