16 votes

Important supreme court ruling:Your local sheriff is above the the state and federal law enforcement. Make it viral

This is a very important win for liberty.

The supreme court ruled that the local sheriff is above the state and federal law enforcement agencies. This is huge as we the people now have another avenue to voice things. The people elect the sheriff at a local level. I am not sure of this but I think they can also get rid of them too. Is that the case? If it is than there is a very simple process to get them in line. And get them to cooperate with the people. Make this viral everyone should know about this and we should come up with a program to educate and work with the local sheriffs to uphold the constitution. There are some work has been done on this before, but this court ruling gives a new prospect to capitalize on this.


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

There are lots of ways to restore

the Republic. This is my favorite. County sheriff is the most powerful position in America. Mack's little book should be required reading of all sheriffs.

Is your Sheriff an Oathkeeper?

During the swine flu scare in 2009, my progressive governor, Charlie Crist, had declared Florida in a state of emergency for the swine flu. (That meant he turned over Florida to the WHO of UN regarding the "epidemic".) WHO was calling for mandatory vaccines. I called Crist's office and no one knew anything. Having a son in school, I did not want him to get the vaccine. The talk was they would do the schools first.

I called my sheriff's office to find out if they would impose the mandate over parents' wishes. Less than 20 minutes before I called, the sheriff, deputies and clerks had just finished a meeting regarding their role if it was called for Florida. The clerk told me they decided they would respect the wishes of the county citizens and protect them at all costs. I was told that if my son was in school and the school officials/WHO came into his room, all he had to do was call 911 and they would protect him from getting one. (If he needed, he should break a window and flee.)

My sheriff also will NOT serve any foreclosures summons if the mortgage holder is not recorded mortgage holder in the county records. (MERS didn't bother to register and pay the recording fees each time the mortgage was sold.)

All sheriffs should be paulites

All the military folks, who are Ron Paul supporters, coming back from Iraq should run for sheriff. I mean who wouldn't want all those veterans to protect their county.

Sorry you are right

Sorry you are right my son brought the news and I was very exited to see this as I can see that we can use this precedent. I did not read it careful enough. In any case it is still a good news and we should see how we can get the mileage out of this.


..Sorry was meant in response to the post below

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Obama says he'll bypass congress

I believe this law is preperation for a New America, free of the USA Constitution and Bill of Rights and under UN.


I was listening to Obama giving his speach and I heard these words and my life changed, and so will yours:

Related News:Taxes .Obama Says He’ll Bypass Congress to Get Elements of Jobs Plan
By Kate Andersen Brower - Oct 26, 2011 9:41 AM PT .

Business ExchangeBuzz up!DiggPrint Email ...President Barack Obama accused Republicans in Congress of rejecting measures that would revive hiring in the U.S., saying “bold action” is needed to boost economic growth.

“There are some in Washington who don’t seem to share the same sense of urgency” about the economy, he told a crowd of mostly students at the University of Colorado’s Denver campus. “How can you say no to creating jobs when so many people are looking for work?”

Obama spoke at the last event on a three-day trip through Western states aimed at driving a message that he would sidestep an “increasingly dysfunctional” Congress and take administrative action to help create jobs.

The president is laying out measures he can take without congressional approval, including altering a program to help homeowners refinance underwater mortgages and the steps to help ease the burden of student loans.

To contact the reporter on this story: Kate Andersen Brower in Denver at kandersen7@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Joe Sobczyk at jsobczyk@bloomberg.net

Sent a plain speak email

Simply stating that allowing him to get by with an impeachable offense as such as he's proposing would be doing this country a great disservice. I asked them to do their jobs. Report it for what it is.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

reedr3v's picture



There's the October suprize

I wonder if there will even be an election? Not at this rate.

Printz, Mack v US - excerpts of importance


Nos. 95-1478 and 95-1503

on writs of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit
[June 27, 1997]

Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court.

Excerpts: The petitioners here object to being pressed into federal service, and contend that congressional action compelling state officers to execute federal laws is unconstitutional
For these reasons, we do not think the early statutes imposing obligations on state courts imply a power of Congress to impress the state executive into its service.
But none of these statements necessarily implies--what is the critical point here--that Congress could impose these responsibilities without the consent of the States.
"numerated and legitimate objects of its jurisdiction."
We have held, however, that state leglislatures are not subject to federal direction. New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144
If it was indeed Hamilton's view that the Federal Government could direct the officers of the States, that view has no clear support in Madison's writings, or as far as we are aware, in text, history, or early commentary elsewhere.
As Madison expressed it: "[T]he local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere." The Federalist No. 39, at 245.
"In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. 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." The Federalist No. 51, at 323.
The Supremacy Clause, however, makes "Law of the Land" only "Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance [of the Constitution]"; so the Supremacy Clause merely brings us back to the question discussed earlier, whether laws conscripting state officers violate state sovereignty and are thus not in accord with the Constitution.
Finally, and most conclusively in the present litigation, we turn to the prior jurisprudence of this Court. Federal commandeering of state governments is such a novel phenomenon that this Court's first experience with it did not occur until the 1970's, when the Environmental Protection Agency promulgated regulations requiring States to prescribe auto emissions testing, monitoring and retrofit programs, and to designate preferential bus and carpool lanes. The Courts of Appeals for the Fourth and Ninth Circuits invalidated the regulations on statutory grounds in order to avoid what they perceived to be grave constitutional issues, see Maryland v. EPA, 530 F. 2d 215, 226 (CA4 1975); Brown v. EPA, 521 F. 2d 827, 838-842 (CA9 1975); and the District of Columbia Circuit invalidated the regulations on both constitutional and statutory grounds, see District of Columbia v. Train, 521 F. 2d 971, 994 (CADC 1975). After we granted certiorari to review the statutory and constitutional validity of the regulations, the Government declined even to defend them, and instead rescinded some and conceded the invalidity of those that remained, leading us to vacate the opinions below and remand for consideration of mootness. EPA v. Brown, 431 U.S. 99 (1977).

Although we had no occasion to pass upon the subject in Brown, later opinions of ours have made clear that the Federal Government may not compel the States to implement, by legislation or executive action, federal regulatory programs.
We warned that "this Court never has sanctioned explicitly a federal command to the States to promulgate and enforce laws and regulations," id., at 761-762.
We concluded that Congress could constitutionally require the States to do neither. Id., at 176. "The Federal Government," we held, "may not compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program." Id., at 188.
[T]he constitutional line is crossed only when Congress compels the States to make law in their sovereign capacities."
It is an essential attribute of the States' retained sovereignty that they remain independent and autonomous within their proper sphere of authority. See Texas v. White, 7 Wall, at 725. It is no more compatible with this independence and autonomy that their officers be "dragooned" (as Judge Fernandez put it in his dissent below, 66 F. 3d, at 1035) into administering federal law, than it would be compatible with the independence and autonomy of the United States that its officers be impressed into service for the execution of state laws.
and required state administrative agencies to apply federal law while acting in a judicial capacity, in accord with Testa, See FERC, supra, at 759-771, and n. 24.
But where, as here, it is the whole object of the law to direct the functioning of the state executive, and hence to compromise the structural framework of dual sovereignty, such a "balancing" analysis is inappropriate. [n.17] It is the very principle of separate state sovereignty that such a law offends, and no comparative assessment of the various interests can overcome that fundamental defect.
"Much of the Constitution is concerned with setting forth the form of our government, and the courts have traditionally invalidated measures deviating from that form. The result may appear `formalistic' in a given case to partisans of the measure at issue, because such measures are typically the product of the era's perceived necessity. But the Constitution protects us from our own best intentions: It divides power among sovereigns and among branches of government precisely so that we may resist the temptation to concentrate power in one location as an expedient solution to the crisis of the day." Id., at 187.
We adhere to that principle today, and conclude categorically, as we concluded categorically in New York: "The Federal Government may not compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program." Id., at 188. The mandatory obligation imposed on CLEOs to perform background checks on prospective handgun purchasers plainly runs afoul of that rule.
the obligation to "make a reasonable effort to ascertain within 5 business days whether receipt or possession [of a handgun] would be in violation of the law, including research in whatever State and local record keeping systems are available and in a national system designated by the Attorney General," 18 U.S.C. § 922(s)(2)--is unconstitutional.
In Conclusion:We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the State's officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed.
It is so ordered.


Freedom is not: doing everything you want to.
Freedom is: not having to do what you don't want to do.
~ Joyce Meyer

"Sheriff MacK" DVD

Fans need to know about the "Sheriff Mack" DVD.

100 DVDs for 100 frns.

DollarDVDProjectLiberty.com needs patriot activists to distribute DVDs.
Do your friends and family know what you know?


Excellent post thank you!

Excellent post thank you!

"If you want something you've never had before, you have to do something you've never done before." Debra Medina

You're welcome!

I have dissected this thing eh? ;) It took me several days to ingest but is super important from what I read and makes the entire "Obamacare" debate moot from the git-go. So then you have to ask, "If 'they' know this already, whyfor they insist on something unconstitional?" and you come up with the answer that the healthcare issue is one giant distraction to keep us occupied while they steal everything not nailed down. It's plain as day. :|

Freedom is not: doing everything you want to.
Freedom is: not having to do what you don't want to do.
~ Joyce Meyer

If this reasoning holds up Obamacare must be doomed....

Of course a certain justice will have to recuse herself...

"If you want something you've never had before, you have to do something you've never done before." Debra Medina

Absolutely correct!

Constitutionally the Sheriff is the supreme law within his county. Check out what Sheriff Mack said about this very issue:


Read the whole article, helios...

The first section that you noted was "internet embellishment" the "how it really went down" section is what really happened. Although, I wish.....

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves." William Pitt in the House of Commons November 18, 1783
"I know major allies who fund them" Gen. Dempsey referring to ISIS

Run for Sheriff!

You can be a sheriff and precinct committeeman.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.