Its an eternal problem. I think we are best off substituting “constitutional” for “evil.” If what these sheriffs are doing is indeed constitutional, than their actions be seen as just. Though determining whether their actions are constitutional itself needs to be done according to constitutional process, as @tampagtr deftly explained above. Of course the constitution itself could be evil, but importantly the constitution contains within its words a process for amending it. If one views the law itself as evil, they may indeed feel justified in acting outside the constraints of the constitution. This is a situation that applies to both sides, as some liberals demonstrate with respect to abortion and immigration. But it seems to me if one side opens the door to extra-constitutional action, they must expect members of the opposition to walk through it.
My first thought is a lower magistrate investigating the possibility of potential illegal activity in their own jurisdiction does not seem like some kind of overthrow of the Constitution. I cannot think of any Constitutional overthrow that has occurred there. I am not a Constitutional expert, so I could be wrong there. Second, I have only advocated for civil disobedience to the government when the government requires a person to do something evil. The obvious examples are unjust killing, lying, and stealing. I do not believe anyone who has ever forgone an abortion lives any part of their life with a guilty conscience because they committed some great act of evil by not getting an abortion. I don’t know a single person who would say they are an evil person because they did not get an abortion. So, I would argue abortion belongs in a completely different category than what I described. Best case scenario (if we grant the hotly contested and debated presupposition that abortion is not murder) you could argue banning abortion is like banning someone from driving a car. Would a person have a guilty conscience if they took the bus to work instead of driving a car? No they would not. Banning private transportation, while inconvenient in several ways, would not require anyone to comply with evil. No person would be wringing their hands and trying to do penance to purge their guilty conscience for taking public transportation. I wouldn’t like it, but I could live my life in a way where I would not be forced to do something that would burden me with an evil conscience. Immigration also belongs in the same class of issues. It does not require the average citizen to commit evil acts of commission. If a person is not allowed to immigrate to the United States, they are not going to have a guilty conscience. Life might involve a lower standard of living where they are, but I don’t know anyone who would consider themselves to be an evil person because they failed to immigrate to the United States.
I believe the law has long been that state and local governments can't be compelled to enforce Federal law. We've seen that with immigration and marijuana laws. I don't know how most state constitutions are written or how much leeway or deference is given to sheriffs. Assuming for the sake of argument that governors or legislatures have the constitutional authority to remove elected prosecutors when those prosecutors allegedly exceed their discretion, wouldn't the same would be true of sheriffs?
Their argument, which I read in detail one time, is based upon Old English common law pre-us Constitution, which they argue supersedes the Constitution
Not sure what you are going on about. The risk with these “constitutional sheriffs” is them doing something they have no real authority to do, because like the “sovereign citizen” movement, they don’t think they are actually bound by federal law or the constitution. These sheriffs aren’t likely to be defending their constituents from tyranny, quite the opposite given their actual beliefs that they are beyond the reach of the U.S. constitution. You are looking at abortion and immigration from the wrong perspective far as the potential harm from this movement. Let’s take immigration, you are looking at the immigrants perspective when it comes to decision making, but that’s actually separate and apart from the issues with this wackadoodle sheriffs movement. Let’s say a “constitutional sheriff” decides he’s going to enforce immigration laws. He violates due process of Latino citizens and noncitizens. Seizes property. Perhaps even imprisons “illegal immigrants” (as he defines them) in a local jail or prison camp for not having papers (skipping that whole inconvenient “due process” thing). The sheriff would run directly afoul of U.S immigration law in doing any of that. Let’s say there are human rights abuses going on. It would be the federal governments duty to shut all of those activities down post haste. Now what happens if the “constitutional sheriff” refuses court orders? It would, in effect, be an insurrection against the government. The badge doesn’t change that. The question is “what happens?”. Does it turn violent like sometimes happens when individual “sovereign citizens” interact with a police officer? You could potentially have a small sheriffs department holed up like the Bundy’s, fighting the rule of law. Hasn’t happened yet, but almost seems inevitable given their rhetoric
Yes, the same could be true for sheriffs. Process varies by state but there is no elected official that cannot be removed from office. Often, the goal is to first put pressure on the sheriff (or any other elected official) to compel resignation before any formal process is initiated.
Seems to be another right wing angle at reshaping how laws in enforced. We had a thread a while back about a sheriff's retreat where the organizer taught there are two classes of citizens, one class that the sheriff should rule over with an iron fist, and another class that the sheriff should mostly look the other way ... I'm guessing the organizers fell into the latter group....
So, when a Judge decides to change election processes - even though the law says it’s the purview of the State legislature - is that acceptable? I don’t like the usurping of power from the Executive Branch nor do I like the usurping of power from the Judicial. Agreed?
It sounds like the type of thinking that was the basis of the Revolutionary War. It is not too dissimilar to how things work in the military. You might be an enlisted soldier. Your admiral might tell you to do something, but if you know his commands constitute insubordination to those who out rank him then you don’t obey him. It is the same exact principal. The Constitution grants authority to officers in the government. If a government officer or government body flaunts the authority of the Constitution then they are in a state of insubordination to a superior authority. Their words are those of private citizens not words that are backed by the authority of the office they are serving in. What constitutes such an event would have to be determined on a case by case basis. However, the 2nd amendment exists so that the federal government can be deposed by the people if such a scenario were to ever play out.
Both fascinating issues, and I think both come down to our question of who is authorized to decide. 1. Investigating illegal activity certainly seems to be the charge of a sheriff, but it seems to be the opinion of at least some in this thread that they are going beyond this charge. But regardless, it’s not up to any of us. The sheriffs can go through the courts if they feel they’ve had their constitutional rights wrongly infringed, and all sides should accept their decision. 2. We’ve got a similar problem here trying to define evil. I think all of us believe the holocaust is evil, and we would defend one’s right to resist engaging in such an act. However, since all of us think that act is evil, there’s really no on around to even impel that kind of evil behavior. The real questions are going to be those which display some level of disagreement among our populace, such as abortion. To you banning abortion may not be an evil. In fact, to many abortion is an absolute evil in itself. However, others believe banning abortion is an evil. I think we had a thread on here some time back about a very young girl who was forced to deliver her rapist’s baby, and I can see why that seems evil. For immigration, we have some people seeking refuge from terrible life conditions. Again, I can see why some would see it as evil just to send the people right home. I am reading Solzhenitsyn’s The Gulag Archipelago right now, and he clearly thought it evil of the allies to send all Russian POWs back to their homeland. In the end, we have the same problem: who decides what is evil? If we agree that it shouldn’t be the individual, then your and my opinions on the abortion issue are meaningless. If evil has a clear definition, unjust killings, we should just spell it out in the constitution, but even an “unjust killing” resists a clear definition. In the end, if we aren’t going to allow each individual to define their own “evil”, we have to decide how to determine what is our communal concept of evil. I think the answer must always be the same: via the constitution. I think we have to trust that our system of laws will come to well match our communal morality. If it don’t trust our constitution to do this, I think we will have a serious problem as I don’t think we are going to love any of our second best options.
We have 3 co-equal branches. Nothing should be “outside the purview” of any of the 3 branches, particularly where state legislatures may be acting in partisan or unconstitutional ways (not that the judicial branch is above partisan activities anymore). The pandemic was an interesting case. Was that “usurpation of powers”, or ensuring citizens could exercise their constitutional rights to vote? Where a state seeks to illegally restrict voting rights, or in the case of the pandemic seeks to do so through inaction and manipulation (pushing their voters to suddenly reject mail in voting in the face of a pandemic), is it not the judicial branch’s duty to ensure constitutional rights are protected? That citizens have access to the ballot box? A partisan legislature surely should not have free rein to give themselves power. That’s the way they do things in Russia… and apparently the way they want to do things in Alabama (who is presently defying the Supreme Court on gerrymandering… and if they are defying *this* court you know it’s bad).
Great idea. All it takes is one of these dingleberries calling someone a groomer and they’ll run with it and consider them “evil” with no proof and that will be it.
The changes were at the State level so the "3 equal co-branches" referring to the Federal Government does not apply. It's my understanding that it is the State legislatures that are given the power to determine how elections are handled. So, if that is true, are you saying it's okay for a Judge to circumvent what the law says but not a Sheriff? I don't think either are appropriate.
I believe the argument was between State Legislature and state Supreme Courts on these pandemic related voting issues. Some state legislatures, in response, have even passed laws to try and limit or eliminate judicial review or the governors veto authority (particularly when a governor of the opposing party takes over, such as in Wisconsin). I get state constitutions may not be 1:1 with the federal constitution, but these radical ideas about state legislatures having final authority seem highly unamerican to me, and when gamed out to one party rule (partisan gerrymandering) can only end in conflict with the U.S. constitution.
