Constitutional Sheriffs & Majority Rules
I'd been hearing about the Constitutional Sheriffs holding events around the state. They had one in Del Norte County not long ago. I believe the Sheriffs of Mendocino, Del Norte and Siskiyou Counties attended. I wondered about our very own Mike Downey. Why wasn't he there? Wouldn't he be in such an organization?
It appears so. This Reason magazine article lists 90 or so Constitutional Sheriffs. Mike Downey is among them, as are all the Sheriffs of far Northern California counties. Way to go, Mike!
~~~~~~~
He refers to a college class he spoke to about ten years ago where he brought up the concept of majority rule. About half the class seemed to think the majority should be able to pretty much rule without regard to the rights of the minority (my interpretation). I'd be willing to bet things have gotten worse over these last ten years with even more students feeling that way.
posted by Fred Mangels @ 7:56 AM
14 comments
14 Comments:
Fred, if I understand you correctly, that our sheriff has pledged to disobey the rule of law, you have yourself a scoop! One of our area's wannabe journalists will need to put the question to him.
Nope. He has pledged to follow the Constitution, as have all the other far Northern California sheriffs. And some not from the far North.
The article implies they're disregarding gun control, which is Constitutional. And if there was some question, the issue would be determined by our court system, not sheriffs.
You're acting a bit like people who don't pay taxes because they think it's unconstitutional.
To me, this news would firmly place our sheriff in the real of conspiracy nuts, and I would no longer feel safe living in this county. Because... who knows what other laws get disregarded because he feels like it.
Gun Control is unconstitutional. If you read the letter they were not going to take away guns from law abiding citizens.
Constitutionality depends on how the courts interpret it. Whether they're disregarding "gun control", is simply yours and the author of the article's interpretation.
Keep in mind the article is referring to Obama, and thus federal law. I don't believe local law enforcement is under any obligation to enforce federal law other than to protect citizen's rights as enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
They're actually in a pretty safe position in that regard. Remember that Sheriff Joe Arpaio and the State of Arizona got in trouble with the feds over their trying to enforce federal immigration law.
...and I would no longer feel safe living in this county..
Then move. It wouldn't bother me. Remember that you'll have to find a county where the Sheriff hasn't pledged to defend your constitutional rights so The Bay Area southward is where you'll want to go.
"Henchman Of Justice" says,
Downey a "Constitutionalist?" Wow, Thanks Fred, HOJ just barfed his cereal and milk out while laughing (because someone is on a list means it must be true????)..... Downey has mega- problems with rogue deputies on his watch. Obviously, he can't be blamed for others' continued misconduct, but, then again, he was an internalized employee who was promoted and then elected as he was second in command under Philp. Additionally, how can the Sheriff's Department claim they have honorable and sincere "review processes of police misconduct" when it is the higher-ups (Downey, Morey, etc...) who will tend to always find for their subordinates. Then, The Grand Jury (like Robert Dunlap) want to deny that the Grand Jury is responsible by state law to investigate matters regarding public agencies and public employees who commit misconducts (The Grand Jury is a stage for insiders to cover-up really bad abuses if it can be done).
As far as majority rules - this is why the BILL OF RIGHTS EXIST (First Ten Amendments); and, judging today's voter electorate, only half of those eligible to vote actually vote, so majority rule is only those who vote (something the Bill Of Rights authors understood was more than a possibility, especially when government becomes more and more tyrannical.... in this case of modern day America, it is social tyranny configured around consumerisms, large business and tax collections based upon social agendas by the minority majority..... America is gonna go down like a jet airliner on fire if the debt is not cured immediately. - HOJ
This comment has been removed by the author.
Are you an ancient history fan? The trial of Socrates ought to be considered a warning against the tyranny of the majority. Ancient Athens invented democracy, but it did not have legal mechanisms to protect Socrates' freedom of speech and freedom of religion from the repressive will of the majority of free adult males. (I happen to think Socrates is overrated as a moral teacher, but that's another issue for another day.)
"Henchman Of Justice" says,
Hey Fred, what was the comment about that you deleted? Was it that bad? - HOJ
It wasn't deleted by me. It was a duplicate comment made by Brian Sorgatz. He deleted it.
"Henchman Of Justice" says,
Thank You Fred for clarifying! Anyhow, how does a commenter delete his own comment after upload? Just curious as that is a newfoundly understood tool. - HOJ
Once you've posted a comment, check your comment. There should be a trash can to the right of the date the comment was made. Click on the trash can and it takes you to a page where you're asked to verify you want the comment deleted. Click on the delete button and it's gone, except for a note that the comment was deleted.
Blog owners see a trash can on all comments, so we can delete comments as needed. Everyone else can just delete their own comments.
Downey is hardly a Constitutional Sheriff.I remember back when prop 19 was on the ballot,and he said that he would essentially back the Feds should the measure pass.And more recenlty he has asked the Feds for more help here in combating pot growing,even grows legal under 215.
"Henchman Of Justice" says,
mresquan, maybe Downey is only a "U.S. Constitutionalist" and not a "State Constitutionalist"?
As is anything, lists mean zilch prior to when the bell tolls and for whom the bell tolls must step-up to their former words of egotized character labels or else be shown as no less skirtly deceptive. Now, if Downey signs a petition that is strongly worded, uploads his signature and petition on the county sheriff's department website, maybe his "constituionalist zest" will have more "cleansing scents".
Hopefully, Downey can clean-up his department of rogue deputy cops if he is so on board, constitutionally. Ya see, rogue cops violate their victim's constitutional rights, but alas, kept as hush, hush quiet as possible.
Lastly, what happens when evidence is suppressed by either or both the Sheriff's Department and District Attorney. Many employees from both departments/agencies have worked years, often together at one time in the same agency. It is a small area where "cover-ups" is near daily. Downey needs to clean-house, but probably won't for votes in the next election, shameful anti-constitutionalist stance, really. - HOJ
Post a Comment
<< Home