These laws may very well be unamerican - so, do you find it acceptable to disobey laws you don’t agree with? And, is so, how are you different than the Sheriff in the story?
I’ve seen it mentioned that the office of sheriff is the only LE position included in the Constitution I think they get some fuel from that as well.
It seems a completely partisan group that’s more about its side of the aisle than about the constitution
You threw me off with that one because I didn't think the Constitution mentioned sheriff's. And I'm correct. They're lying. From Wikipedia on the movement What does the Constitution say about sheriff? "); display: inline-block; height: 24px; width: 24px; transform: rotateZ(-180deg);"> Sheriffs are not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. The ideological basis of the sheriffs' movement is instead based on various incorrect historical and legal claims, relying on a pretense that the historic powers of the high sheriff of an English shire apply in the USA regardless of subsequent legal developments.
They basically argued that the 7th Amendment reference to the right to trial by jury in civil actions as defined by common law incorporates all of the common law as the US criminal code and supersedes any subsequent codification. The first part doesn't make a lot of sense but the last part makes no sense.
Let me play devil's advocate. If Trump were to win and the GOP gained total control of Congress, and if they proceed to pass draconian laws, would we not be compelled to call them "laws of tyranny" and encourage law enforcement to not enforce them? I say this merely to point out the futility of trying to convince that Michigan sheriff, and people who believe as he does, he's wrong.
And look at what's on the wall behind him. Look at the MAGA cultists. They enable Trump with the same mindless abandon that many Germans enabled Hitler. So, while that particular guy might not, he's of a type found everywhere on the planet and is more likely than not to act with evil in his heart.
If Trump passed tyrannical laws, then the sheriff would be justified in not enforcing those laws. 100% agree with that. The freedom of the lower magistrate to resist tyranny of the upper magistrate is the underlying principle that laid the ground work for the American Revolution. At its core the rights of the lower magistrate is a very American idea.
Depends. During civil rights some governors called up the state guard or their national guard to prevent black children from attending the same state schools as whites. They used some illusory legal standings to deprive people of their rights. It was up to the federal government to defeat that, along with some courageous individuals willing to be “escorted” through those armed lines. I just think given political alignments these “constitutional sheriffs”, just like those turd governors and guardsmen in the 1950’s, are infinitely more likely to be on the side of deprivation of rights rather than preservation of rights - other than their own rights - of course. As of now, it strikes me as fanciful and self-serving more than anything, not unlike the sovereign citizen movement already discussed. The hypothetical “following an illegal order” (as in a military command structure) is not at play here, they are talking about not following the law itself - not some hypothetical illegal order. Some sheriffs have stated they won’t enforce certain state or federal level gun restrictions. Others might have said they won’t prioritize immigration law or charging abortion as a crime. If this is all we were taking about, there’s a bit of that going on both sides of the isle. None of these are ideal, but technically they are cases affirming individual rights by deprioritizing enforcement of certain laws, so I can buy some sympathy for that sort of “protest” (they can always just call it prioritization of resources). But the “constitutional sheriffs” movement is much more involved than that. It’s a conspiracy theory where they actually think they ARE the law. When a nutbar sheriff talks about getting involved in voting processes and ignoring state or federal law, to me that harkens back more towards civil rights issues and suggestive of possible election interference in that county. That isn’t any type of “affirmation of rights”, it’s actually potential criminality on the part of the sheriff, straight up. Just like the folks in a few states that got involved in conspiracies and tried to hack or steal data from voting machines. As far as I know we haven’t seen a “constitutional sheriff” commit crimes yet, I’m just stating the language and deranged entitlement as to their powers, makes it seemingly inevitable one of these “sheriffs” is actually going to break the law (not merely to deprioritize or fail to enforce a certain law).
Legally, that BS. There's always discretion in terms of dedication of resources at every level of law enforcement. But sheriffs do not have the right to determine constitutionality.
You cannot force them to enforce federal law plain and simple. I was a deputy in Florida, still know lots of currents ones, and a few sheriffs. Washington can scream and holler all they want. Florida sheriffs will do what they feel is right and many deputies would tell their sheriff to KMA or resign before going after a local over a federal statue. In Florida the only person who can take a sheriffs power away is the governor.
So, it’s okay for local law enforcement agencies to choose to not cooperate with ICE in its enforcement of federal immigration laws ……. or it’s okay for Florida DAs to decide which crimes they will prosecute …… but it’s wrong for a sheriff to exercise their judgment regarding enforcement actions?
I agree with your first paragraph from a 1990s gun decision on "commandeering", which of course the Right Wing legal establishment unprinciply ignored when Trump tried to compel state mandatory cooperation in immigration enforcement. No consistent principles. But the larger point remains. The "constitutional sheriff" is based on a legal "argument" that old English common law survived and takes precedence over the US Constitution and that sheriffs are the ultimate arbiter of the meaning of the all law, including the Constitution, not the courts. It's a principle from before full legal systems. It's total BS. All enforcement officials are entitled to use discretion in terms of resources, and of course there comes a point where you can refuse to enforce what you believe to be an illegal law. But that's not what this movement is based on. This movement is based upon the presumption that sheriffs are the ultimate arbiter, over the courts and over any elected official, of the law in their own county, to the point they can lawfully disregard court orders. It's just another dressed up justification for white supremacy.
My post applies to federal law only. If you read the link I provided it mentions court decisions as they pertain to sheriffs. Whether you or I like it or not the sheriff in each county is the duly elected enforcer of criminal “state”statue. Deputies take orders from their sheriff who through his or her appointment gives them the power they have. The sheriff answers to the governor who can remove them from office.
