by Jeff Matthews
After reading my first article on State Sovereignty by Sheriff Mack, letting it sink in slowly, and then, listening to his most recent podcast on TAC, I thought it time to speak up on the importance of the county sheriff from a concerned citizen’s point of view, as well as a strategic point of view.
There is no doubt this nation is at a “cross roads.” There is no doubt the states’ legislatures are speaking up against the federal government. There is no doubt the citizens are demanding the federal government’s respect of its Constitutional limitation on powers. So, what does the county sheriff have to do with any of this?
We, the people of our various states, have elected our sheriffs to preserve and protect our Constitutional rights. Classically, we see this role as being executing by protecting us from thieves and robbers and by exercising appropriate restraint to insure they do not violate our rights by conducting improper searches and seizures against us. A good sheriff does both of the above.
A great sheriff, however, goes beyond the two aforementioned roles. A great sheriff will stand on the side of the people who elect him or her, and do that which is necessary to preserve their rights.
Now, let me explain the reason for the catchy title of this brief article. If (or when) the people have a face-off with the federal government, and many ordinary citizens gather to demand their rights, what happens when words do not matter? On which side of the line would you want your sheriff standing? With the people, or against the people? I think we can all agree we want the sheriffs’ guns pointed away from us and not at us.
Clearly, the sheriff has an important decision to make when such events occur. One of the unfortunate things that has occurred over the decades is that the federal government has, in so many cases, been viewed, and accepted, as always on the right side. In so many cases, when federal law enforcement officials enter into matters of local jurisdiction, if our local officials are not “rubber-stamping” their actions, that is because they are busy rolling out the red carpets.
Sheriff Mack appears to be making a valiant effort to correct this misguided reception of federal influence. We, the people, elect our sheriffs. We do not elect federal law enforcement officials. We provide substantial tax dollars to our sheriffs, for the hiring of deputies and for properly equipping them to deal with out-of-control situations where ordinary citizens cannot.
Our sheriffs have quite an infrastructure in place. They are not our state representatives. They are the “guns” behind our state representatives. It is good to support action through our legislatures, and by all means, this should continue. But think about how important it is to have law enforcement, with its infrastructure in place, on our side. When words stop mattering, we just might find our sheriffs to be invaluable.
I urge citizens to promote our Constitutional causes by educating and offering assistance in any way we can. Our rights are not just about words and legislators. We must convince our sheriffs (if they are not already convinced) that they need to be on the side of the people. Our sheriffs need to hear from us. And, as usual, if we find complacent or uncommitted sheriffs, we need to vote them out.
We need to work with Sheriff Mack or at least parallel to him. Good job, Sheriff Mack!
Jeff Matthews [send him email] is an attorney living in Houston, Texas. His current projects include the website SovereignStates, and the forthcoming organization, The National Taxpayer Takeover.
Copyright © 2009 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit to the author and this website is given.
If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Subscribe to entries
Subscribe to comments
All content © 2010 by Tenth Amendment Center
A question for the Sheriff. How does an individual citizen determine when the government has abused his/her constitutional liberty? I mean to ask, if you know your liberty is being abused do you have to ask the government "please give me my freedom back"? Most folks feel abused but dont want to break the law and feel stuck.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by TenthAmendmentCenter, No New World Order. No New World Order said: RT @TenthAmendment: A great sheriff will do what's necessary to preserve the liberty of the people #10th http://su.pr/31MmDv [...]
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by TenthAmendment: A great sheriff will do what’s necessary to preserve the liberty of the people #10th http://su.pr/31MmDv...
We have Sheriff Mack coming to speak at the San Ramon CA Marriott in February of 2010. We are delivering a copy of his book with an invite to all Sheriffs in a 200 mile radius. We also have some people in our organization vetting candidates for Sheriff throughout California for the 2010 elections. You might consider doing the same in your State.
Hi Bob my name is Mike. I live in Redding Ca. would like to get Mr. Sheriff Mack to come to our Redding Tea Party meeting…….. We need to force Govenment to follow the Constitution (by educating the people).
Bob. I am one of those running for sheriff in San Luis Obispo County. Please email me at mark@markadamsforsheriff.com
This is fantastic! I doubt my lazy sherrif would ever stand up for anything but a beer, but I'm sure there's good people around the country that will do SOMETHING if they know people are behind them!
While I agree with the article I think it should be pointed out that many of our local law enforcement officers are being made deputy federal officers in an effort to win the drug war. Others, such as my county’s sherrif know little or nothing of the U.S. Constitution or the legitimate function of government under it. The federal government has bought many by supplying funds for eqipment and manpower. We have witnessed the creation of a national police force in the guise of homeland security. My Sherrif says he took an oath to uphold the Ohio Revised Code. Yes he needs to be replaced by someone who has some concept of constitutional government but it will take more than luck to find such a man. Our Criminal Justice professors are not teaching it. They are parroting the party line as written in the textbooks. I am encouraged by Sherrif Mack and the Oathkeepers and pray their numbers increase. I also pray our country can survive for next years elections.
Standard Response:
Where does the Sheriff get his power?
(From the prospective in a citizen in Phoenix, AZ and if you have been paying attention the Federal government has been putting the heat on our Sheriff Joe Arpaio)
I don't know what the Federal Government is going to do about the Good Sheriff. Sheriffs are Constitutional officers, not U. S. Constitution but State Constitution.
The people created the Constitution which empowers the Federal government to protect the people. Also, he Tenth Amendment reserves to the states respectively, or to the people, any powers the Constitution did not delegate to the United States, nor prohibit the states from exercising.
The office of sheriff is created by the Constitution of the great state of Arizona. The sheriff is bound by the oath to uphold the Constitution of the state and answerable only to the people of the county NOT the Federal Government. The office of sheriff IS a part of the checks and balances of the United States of America. It is there to prevent the Federal Government from doing what it is trying to do today.
So what is the Federal Government going to do? Amend the Arizona State Constitution? I think not.
I would agree Sheriff's in most States as far as the Federal government should be concerned are effectively agents of the State in this battle.
I honestly dont think the Federal government was ever meant to have it's own law enforcement capability of any significant quantity, precisely as to make it practically imposable for them to appose any states nullification with out the activity military support of the other states, willing to take drastic mesures to help it impose its authority upon such a people.
In general it makes sense that the states should have "the benefit of the doubt" and general discretion in such matters provided that any such indiscretion are not so seriously injurious to the other states as to justify reprisal by the same other states supporting the same Federal Government.
That being said as uses-full and honorable as what Scalia said in Mack/Printz, I find it hard to embrace any ruling by the court on the extent of federal powers particularly in any expansionary direction due to the clear conflict of interest the same FEDERAL court holds. He is right thou that the Supremacy clause in no way grants the federal government general supremacy merely the Federal Constitution. My point however being here that the meaning of the same Constitution can not be the sole provence of the same Federal government's own self-appointed court.
The propose of the Federal court is not to define the limits of its own power but rather resolve constitutional and otherwise disputes among the branches of the federal government and between disputing states where constitutionally applicable. Not to become the arbiter of power between itself (the federal government) and that of the States. Being an appointed agent of the same Federal government they are woefully unqualified for such a position on the grounds of lack of impartiality.
It is perhaps possible that i am wrong in this interpenetration of the constitution with regard to the will of our founders and that this is indeed a fundamental and fatal flaw in our system dooming it to the product of tyranny.
Such is a conclusion which I am for my love and devolution to the cause of liberty rendered unable to accept, if such be the case and even if such not be the case, then a constitutional amendment is clearly needed to remidty even the incorrect assumption of such a fatal flaw in our system.
[...] http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/12/i-shot-the-sheriff/ Easy AdSense by Unreal Bookmark It Hide Sites [...]
[youtube rXTiMLSYXF0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXTiMLSYXF0 youtube]
This is very true, without law there is anarchy. And anarchy is very much like the vacuum in physics, it needs to be filled even if by the first tyrannical entity that comes along.