Scary article . . . . Sheriffs want to decide what's "evil".

Just a hunch.

 

So, you just go off a hunch before you accuse someone of being willing to commit genocide? That is a serious accusation to level at someone.

 

Yeah, but with this guy it's a pretty strong hunch.

 

Yeah, right. It's about the Constitution ...

Insight: Right-wing U.S. sheriffs vow to probe 2020 voter-fraud claims

 

Look at him.

 

Agree. And I suppose it's possible that this sheriff is merely channeling his inner Locke and only wants to remind everyone of the natural law theory and how it's our duty to disobey evil laws.

 

So, if you see a fringe right group move in lock-step and become radicalized and start a Rwanda-like killing of minority groups or anyone that differs from them, you think the vast majority of the rest of our society should just accept it?

 

It’s a good point, but not without its own reverse danger, where the individual becomes the law.

The question is who decides exactly what is a justified reason to revolt against the government?

 

If/when such “sheriffs” start violating the constitution or federal law in organized fashion, they should be labeled as domestic terrorists or enemy combatants and such. It’s possible the full force of the federal government would need to be used against them.

As of now, it’s just fanciful talk from nutbars. But of course civil rights groups and whatnot need to have their eyes looking out for these sorts, and make sure the local electorate is aware of them. Eventually most will be voted out like that goofball that used to be in Maricopa, and if not then the state govt would step in before the feds. At least in the non shithole states. It’s possible there could be real problem with civil rights in some deep red states where they get more “sheriffs” of this ilk and even a state level of govt no longer committed to the constitutional law of the land and civil liberties. These guys are like an equivalent of “sovereign citizen” nutjobs, but potentially more dangerous in a way because they have govt agency.

 

I would resist a Rawanda-like genocide if I had lived in Rawanda at the time.

 

I too have no problem with a public official refusing to take legal action that they rightly believe is unconstitutional. Of course, those issues under our system are supposed to be resolved by the courts. A public official takes an oath to abide by the Constitution, which includes that courts ultimately resolve those issues. I will acknowledge that there are instances where one could be justifiably of the belief that the courts ruled wrongly.

But in that case, the option is to resign or, at a minimum, to refrain from action. But that is not what the constitutional sheriff movement is about. That movement says that sheriffs are the ultimate authority in any county, over any higher ranking state official or federal official. It's based on old common law maxims which are not remotely applicable. According to that doctrine, the local sheriff can not only refuse to enforce the law that he deems unconstitutional, even if the courts have ruled otherwise, he could legally employ violence against other agents of the state which seek to enforce the law within his jurisdiction.

There's absolutely no justification for that conduct, and that's exactly what they're talking about. If someone rightly believes the law is unconstitutional for which they are charged with enforcing, their remedies should be to resign or at least not stay in the way. If they actively try to impede others who are granted the power to enforce the laws, then they are taking the law unto themselves.

One can always come up with an extreme scenario where this seems defensible. But this doctrine is not for extreme scenarios; it's just a current version of interposition, used to preserve local hierarchies of oppression.

A related point is epistemic immodesty. Obviously one must abide by one's conscience, but one should be extremely wary that their judgment is superior to most others or even all others. In Catholic theology, which is hierarchical, we refer to a fully formed conscience. You are supposed to act according to conscience, but only if your conscience is fully formed, meaning that you have considered all of the contrary teachings and reasoning and carefully measures them against ethical principles. That's a bit of an oversimplification.

But to put it simply, it is the rare instance that one of us is going to have superior judgment to all others, and imagining yourself as capable of such superior judgment is almost always dangerous. Though whole systems can and have gotten it wrong ethically, ultimately separating powers among many is the best check against human self-delusion of individual righteousness, which almost always leads to bad results.

 

You think it’s impossible that a guy like that could be convinced to round up particularly offensive (to him) Democrats and liberals, and whatever could happen after that?

 

yep. Just like I wouldn’t think our posters would go along with edicts to support a holocaust of our neighbors.

 

Agreed. Neither the government nor the individual have the authority to define good and evil.

 

It is essentially a “conspiracy theory”, not unlike the sovereign citizen movement. It’s like the backwoods sheriffs version of that. In both cases, giving themselves ultimate sovereignty over the law (nullifying, in their own mind, any law they don’t agree with). This sheriffs movement is potentially more dangerous because of their government agency. Although I’m not aware of one of these sheriffs causing real world harm yet, whereas sovereign citizens are a legit domestic terror threat killing dozens of cops annually. That tends to happen when a person doesn’t think the law applies to them. An attempt to enforce the law ends in violence.

 

I would not assume this either unless if someone said in words something to the effect that obedience to the government is compulsory even when it commands evil. I asked the question because it seemed like that is exactly what the OP was saying here:

NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. That is NOT what your oath of office says. You do not get to decide what is "evil". You enforcethe laws as written! Period.
​

And FWIW he still has not rescinded the statement, which is interesting. His response was whataboutism.

 

It is very tied into the sovereign citizen movement. Good call