Kind of scary considering the whole sheriff of Nottingham English mythology.

My experience with small county sheriffs is not good. My dad told me when I was very young that the sheriff murdered his wife and got away with it, I suppose to warn me about law enforcement in general. That said I always got along well with local law enforcement even perhaps getting special privilege. I was a "good boy" I guess. Certainly unlikely to cause them any problems.

"There is a long and noble history of the office of sheriff, originating in England and dating back over a thousand years. The sheriff is the last line of defense for American citizens and is the only elected law enforcement official in America. He is the protector of rights, guardian of liberty and keeper of the peace. Sheriff’s have taken an oath to uphold and defend the U S Constitution and have the authority to tell federal agents what they can and cannot do in their respective county. They are the ultimate authority and law enforcement power in his/her jurisdiction. They are there to protect and defend their citizens from all enemies, both “foreign and domestic”.

Some would argue the sheriff cannot overturn federal rulings, but consider the precedence set in Mack/Printz v. USA. These two contested the constitutionality of a mandate in the Brady Act requiring them to perform background checks on handgun applicants and won. They set this precedence upon the following: In New York, the Court held that “The Federal Government may not compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program.”

In layman’s terms, the U S Supreme Court declared that states and their respective subdivisions (such as CLEO’s – County Law Enforcement Officer) “are not subject to federal direction”. This precedence makes provisions in favor of States’ Rights and local autonomy and is in direct alignment to our 10th Amendment rights (separation of state and federal governments).

Justice Scalia weighs in on the issue by quoting James Madison, who is considered the Father of the Constitution: “This separation of the two spheres is one of the constitution’s structural protections of liberty. Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the federal government serve to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front.” To quote Madison again, Scalia writes, “Hence, a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.”

Our state governments are actually and literally charged with controlling the federal government. To do so is “one of the Constitution’s structural protections of liberty.”

With state and federal laws having their checks and balances, next week I’ll cover how our Colorado CLEO’s stand on this issue."

[worldjournalnewspaper.com]

The powers of sheriffs vary from place to place according to state and local laws so the above may not apply everywhere equally. The article was written in Colorado.

As I hinted at in my opening paragraph in a sane world you would not want a local official having so much power. In a sane world the division of power that we see enshrined in the U.S. Constitution would be seen as inefficient at best and anti democratic to the naive. Those of us who live in the real world and are old enough to have a wide range of experience are not so naive. The technocracies of California and the EU are glaring examples of the failure of those sanctified by credentials to not only provide a safe society but one that functions at some reasonable level. As I'm not much into conspiracy theories I tend toward the explanation that the people like those at Davos egos are only matched by their incompetence. In a way they represent the return to the Divine rights of kings and nobility.

I don't think many people think Trump is a genius yet he was able to do what the intellectuals could not. Make the world more peaceful, reduce carbon emissions, restore hope and jobs to the working poor, take on corporate media, force China and North Korea to mitigate their aggressive policies, restore logic to immigration policy, defeat radical Islam, the list goes on. All he had to do was apply American pragmatism in opposition to continental philosophy. Keep in mind that everything Trump did were short term solutions. They were policies proven by Reagan to work in the short run. To be fair the intellectuals want longterm solutions.

Nothing the intellectual class does seems to work. Welfare has been an unmitigated failure turning inner cities into war zones, head start did nothing, their theories on education have broken the education system, infrastructure is falling apart, California and EU energy policies have done little more than increase dependence on outside sources, their China policies have done little more than create the only real fascist power in the world, despite decades of political correctness racial tensions remain the same, the rate of innovation has actually declined under the technocrats, in an attempt to stop corporate overreach by breaking traditional power structures they have created one that is even worse, their stand against traditional religion has only replaced it with a new religion just as unscientific, universal health care is failing in places like Britain, Obama care actually reduced access for the poor, their effort to control a pandemic laughable, cancer rates in places with strict guide lines hardly different than place with more lax standards, theories are parenting have made for the weakest and most unhappy generation in decades, womens rights have not made women happy, drug abuse is rampant along with crime, the list of failures is long and depressing.

In another post someone said I don't tie the "dots" together. What I'm trying to tie together here is the pattern of failure that results from the arrogance of people who have never faced any checks and balances. The answer to the overreach of Federal power is not to return it to the locals. The answer is to return to the balance of power as outlined in the Constitution. To give up the silly notion of Democracy and return to a republican form of government. It's a system in which presidents and senator are not directly elected forcing people to take an interest in local politics not go for the king maker system we have. Because of our evolutionary history people want strong leadership that they do not have to participate in. It's an evolutionary history devoid of productivity. It has left us with instincts for fairness, networking and sensuality at odds with the demands of civilization.

Any elected local official is now a target for take over by those who wish to have total control of the people.

In the film "Walking Tall", the sheriff is evil and he bullies The Rock. The Rock runs for sheriff, wins, fires everyone in the department, and starts rehiring from scratch.

In Dukes of Hazard, Uncle Jesse should have run for County Commissioner and unseated Boss Hog.

The left will try to buy every office. They installed an army of pro-crime DAs. I imagine they want to
install pro-crime sheriffs.

The last hope is the sheriff, I agree.