47 votes

California Sheriff Strips Federal Agents Of All Policing Powers For Stepping Over Constitutional Line

Sheriff John D’Agostini is taking the unusual step of pulling the police powers from the federal agency because he says he has received “numerous complaints.” “I take the service that we provide to the citizens of El Dorado County and the visitors to El Dorado County very seriously, and the style and manner of service we provide,” D’Agostini said.
SOURCE<<<

Complaints about the conduct of U.S. Forest Service law enforcement officers have led El Dorado County Sheriff John D'Agostini to suspend their authority to enforce state laws in the county effective next month.

Sheriff's spokesman Lt. Tim Becker said he could not elaborate on the specific complaints, saying that the sheriff was handling them as he would a personnel matter.

He said the sheriff had received multiple complaints from citizens regarding the actions of U.S. Forest Service law enforcement officers in El Dorado County.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/06/27/5530046/el-dorado-county-sh...




Comment viewing options

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

Federal Governing of Police is Limited to Washington DC

Federal Governing of Police is Limited to Washington DC

The Sheriffs Departments can do a lot more if they but "READ" the "RATIFYING CONVENTIONS" that define the Meaning of the Words, Phrases and Limitations set down by the Constitution.

The Question of Federal Departments, Policing powers, Limit to their AREA, and "WHAT LAWS" they could create, define and prosecute was raised, and answered 200 Years ago.

READ IT:

----

Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788:
In FULL: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/americanpatriotpartynewsl...

Mr. PATRICK HENRY replied (Warned) that, if Congress (Federal Legislature) were vested with supreme power of legislation, paramount to the Constitution and laws of the states, the dangers he had described might happen (Which They Have); for that Congress would not be confined to the ENUMERATED (i.e. DELEGATED) powers.

This construction was warranted, in his opinion, by the addition of the word "DEPARTMENT", at the end of the clause, and that they could make any laws which they might think necessary to execute the powers of any DEPARTMENT or officer of the government.

Mr. EDMUND PENDLETON. Mr. Chairman, this clause does "NOT" give Congress power to impede the operation of ANY PART of the Constitution,(N)or to make ANY REGULATION that may affect the interests of the citizens of the Union at large. But it gives them power over the "LOCAL POLICE" OF "THE PLACE" (10 miles square of Washington, DC), so as to be secured from any interruption in their proceedings.

Notwithstanding the violent attack upon it, I believe, sir, this is the "FAIR CONSTRUCTION OF THE CLAUSE". It gives them power of exclusive legislation in any case within "THAT DISTRICT" (WASHINGTON DC - ONLY).

What is the meaning of this? What is it opposed to? Is it opposed to the general powers of the federal legislature, or to those of the state legislatures? I understand it as opposed to the legislative power of that state "WHERE IT SHALL BE" (10 SQUARE MILES OF WASHINGTON DC).

What, then, is the power? It is, that Congress shall exclusively legislate "THERE", in order to preserve {440} serve "THE POLICE" OF THE "PLACE" (10 MILES SQUARE OF WASHINGTON, DC) and their "OWN" "PERSONAL" independence, that they may not be overawed or insulted, and of course to preserve them in opposition to any attempt by the state "WHERE IT SHALL BE" (ONLY WITHIN THE 10 MILES SQUARE OF WASHINGTON DC) this is the "FAIR CONSTRUCTION"."

----

Now let's look at George Mason and James Madison's understanding and intent of the Limit of Area - Same Day Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788.

----

Mr. GEORGE MASON then observed that he would willingly give them exclusive power, as far as respected the >>>"POLICE" AND GOOD GOVERNMENT OF "THE PLACE" (10 MILES SQUARE OF WASHINGTON D.C.); but he would give them "NO MORE", because he thought it UNNECESSARY...."

Mr. JAMES MADISON. "...I cannot comprehend that the power of legislating over a "SMALL DISTRICT", which "CANNOT EXCEED" "TEN MILES SQUARE", and "MAY NOT BE MORE" than "ONE MILE", will involve the dangers which he (Patrick Henry) apprehends.

If there be any knowledge in my mind of the nature of man, I should think it would be the last thing that would enter into the mind of any man to grant EXCLUSIVE ADVANTAGES, in a >>>"VERY CIRCUMSCRIBED DISTRICT" (of Departments), to the prejudice of the COMMUNITY AT LARGE...."

----

Think hard about that now. Let it sink in.

They cannot legislate over "10 miles square".

What was said about lands once the federal lands became states?

They answered that too.

First, let us look at the Concern they had on giving land to the control of the federal government - Same Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788:

----

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, one answer which has been given is, the improbability of the evil that it will never be attempted, and that it is "ALMOST" impossible. This will not satisfy us, when we consider the great attachments men have to a great and "magnificent capital" (i.e. Capitol of Washington DC).

It would be the interest of the citizens of "THAT DISTRICT" to "AGGRANDIZE THEMSELVES" by every possible means in their power, to the great injury of the other states (WHICH THEY HAVE).

If we travel all over the world, we shall find that people have aggrandized their own "capitals". Look at Russia and Prussia. Every step has been taken to "AGGRANDIZE THEIR CAPITOLS".

In what light are we to consider the "TEN MILES SQUARE"? It is not to be a fourteenth state. The inhabitants will in no respect whatever be amenable to the laws of any state. A clause in the 4th article, highly extolled for its wisdom, "will be rendered nugatory" by this "exclusive legislation". This clause runs thus: "No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such {434} service or labor, but shall be delivered up on the claim of the party to whom such labor or service may be due."

Unless you consider the ten miles square as a state, persons bound to labor, who shall escape thither, will not be given up; for they are only to be delivered up after they shall have escaped into a state. As my honorable friend mentioned, felons, who shall have fled from justice to the ten miles square, cannot be apprehended.

The executive of a state Is to apply to that of another for the delivery of a felon. He cannot apply to the TEN MILES SQUARE (Washington DC).

It was often in contemplation of Congress to have power of regulating "THE POLICE" of the SEAT of government;

>>>BUT THEY NEVER HAD AN IDEA OF EXCLUSIVE LEGISLATION IN ALL CASES".

The POWER of regulating "THE POLICE" and good government of it (THE PLACE - 10 MILES SQUARE OF WASHINGTON DC) will secure Congress against insults.

"What originated the IDEA" of the "exclusive legislation" was, some insurrection in Pennsylvania, whereby Congress was insulted, on account of which, "IT IS SUPPOSED", they left the state.

It is answered that the "CONSENT of the STATE" MUST be required, or else they cannot have such a district, OR places for the erecting of forts, (The Cause of the Civil War when they refused to leave the fort after the State refused them further CONSENT) &c.

But how much is already given them! Look at the great country to the north-west of the Ohio, extending to and commanding the lakes.

Look at the other end of the Ohio, towards South Carolina, extending to the Mississippi.

See what these, in "PROCESS OF TIME", may amount to. They may grant "EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGES"to any particular part of which they have the possession.

But it may be observed that those "extensive countries" will be formed into "independent states", and that their >>>"CONSENT will be NECESSARY" (VERY IMPORTANT INTENT - NOTE THIS).

To this I answer, that they may still grant such "PRIVILEGES" as, in that country, are already granted to Congress by the states.

The grants of Virginia, South Carolina, and other states, will be subservient to Congress in this respect. Of course, it results from the whole, that requiring the consent of the states will be >>>>>"NO GUARD" against this "ABUSE of POWER".

[A desultory conversation ensued.]

Mr. NICHOLAS insisted that as the state, within which the ten miles square might be, could prescribe the terms on which Congress should hold it, no danger could arise, as no state would CONSENT to injure itself: there was the same {435} security with respect to the places purchased for the erection of forts, magazines, &c.; and as to the territory of the United States, the power of Congress only extended to make needful rules and regulations concerning "IT", without prejudicing the claim of any particular state, the right of territory NOT BEING GIVEN UP; that the grant of those (particular) lands to the United States was for the general benefit of all the states, and >not to be perverted to "THEIR (the federal Government's) PREJUDICE" (THINK ABOUT THAT - Such as MANDATES etc.)>; that, consequently, whether that country were formed into new states or not, the danger apprehended could not take place; that the SEAT of government was to be STILL A PART OF THE STATE,

and, as to "GENERAL REGULATIONS",

was to be considered as SUCH. (i.e STATE REGULATED, NOT FEDERAL)

----

Need it Clearer?

Federal Lands within states are to be regulated by the STATES

It gets better - Lets Continue:

----

Same Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788:

Mr. GRAYSON, "...(warns) on the other hand, contended that the "TEN MILES SQUARE" (Washington DC) could not be viewed as a state; that the state within which it might be would have no power of legislating over it; that, consequently, persons bound to labor, and felons, might receive protection there; that "exclusive emoluments" might he granted to those residing within it;

that the TERRITORY(S) of the United States, being a part of no state or states, MIGHT be appropriated to what use Congress pleased, WITHOUT THE CONSENT of any state or states; and that, consequently, such "exclusive privileges and exemptions" (Which are Viral Today) might be granted, and such protection afforded to fugitives, within such places, as Congress should think proper; that, after mature consideration, he could not find that the "TEN MILES SQUARE" was to be looked upon even as a part of a state, but to be totally independent of all, and subject to the exclusive legislation of Congress.

Mr. LEE strongly expatiated on the impossibility of securing "any human institution from POSSIBLE ABUSE".

He thought the powers conceded in the paper on the table not so liable to be abused as the powers of the state governments. Gentlemen had suggested that the seat of government would become a sanctuary for state villains,

and that, in a short time, "TEN MILES SQUARE" WOULD SUBJUGATE A COUNTRY "EIGHT HUNDRED MILES SQUARE". This appeared to him a most improbable possibility; nay, he might call it impossibility.... "

----

Lee apparently wore Rose colored glasses - LOOK at What Area and states the 10 miles of Washington DC "SUBJUGATES" TODAY!

But what is important is the "intent and limits" on power they restricted the federal government, which is being ignored by the federal government of today, routinely stepping outside the LIMITED DELEGATED POWERS!

DELEGATED POWERS THEY CANNOT TAKE ONE STEP BEYOND WITHOUT VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTION:

----

Mr JAMES MADISON: "....The honorable member (Patrick Henry) asks, Why ask for this power, and if the subsequent clause be not fully competent for the same purpose. If so, what new terrors can arise from this particular clause? It is only a superfluity. If that "LATITUDE" of "CONSTRUCTION" which he contends for were to take place with respect to the "sweeping (SUPREMACY) clause", there "would" be room for those horrors.

BUT it gives NO supplementary power. It ONLY enables them to execute the "DELEGATED POWERS".

"If" the "DELEGATION" of their powers be "safe", no possible inconvenience can arise from this clause.

It is at most "but" explanatory.

For when any power is given, its delegation necessarily involves AUTHORITY (UNDER THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTIONAL COMPACT) to make laws to execute it...."

Mr. EDMUND PENDLETON: "...I understand that clause as NOT going a "SINGLE STEP BEYOND" the "DELEGATED powers". What can it act upon? Some power given by this Constitution. If they should be about to pass a law in consequence of this clause, they must pursue some of the "DELEGATED powers",but can by "NO MEANS" depart from them,

(N)OR "ARROGATE" "ANY NEW" powers; for the PLAIN LANGUAGE of the clause is, to give them power to pass laws in order to give "effect" to the "DELEGATED" powers"...."

----

So what laws can the federal government define and prosecute?

HERE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS LIMITED EVEN FURTHER:

----

GEORGE NICHOLAS - Same Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788:

"...Treason against the United States is defined in the Constitution, and the forfeiture limited to the life of the person attainted.

Congress have power to define and punish:

a.) piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and
b.) offenses against the laws of nations;

BUT THEY (APP: the federal government, legislature or supreme court) "CANNOT DEFINE or PRESCRIBE the PUNISHMENT" of "ANY OTHER CRIME WHATEVER", WITHOUT "VIOLATING the CONSTITUTION"...."

----

Think about that.

And this was repeated 10 years later:

----

Thomas Jefferson - Kentucky Resolutions
In FULL: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/candidates

#2. " Resolved, That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish:

a.) treason,
b.) counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States,
c.) piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and
d.) offenses against the law of nations,

and >>>> NO OTHER CRIMES >>>"WHATSOEVER";

and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, not prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,"

therefore the act of Congress, passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, and intituled "An Act in addition to the act intituled An Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States," as also the act passed by them on the — day of June, 1798, intituled "An Act to punish frauds committed on the bank of the United States," (>>>> and ALL their OTHER ACTS which assume to CREATE, DEFINE, or PUNISH crimes, OTHER than THOSE so "ENUMERATED" in the Constitution,) >>> are "ALTOGETHER" "VOID", and of "NO FORCE";

and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of right, appertains SOLELY and EXCLUSIVELY to the respective "STATES", each within its own territory..."

----

So now you know the limitations of the federal government.

There is nothing about regulations on forest or fish or animals or land or water or pollution or other environmental laws...etc.

In fact they EXPRESSLY PRESENT THAT CREATING ANY SUCH LAWS OR PROSECUTING SOMEONE WHO MIGHT BREAK THOSE LAWS WOULD BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

This means WITHOUT AUTHORITY;

i.e. CRIMINAL ACTS BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INITIATED UNDER THE "PRETENSE" OF AUTHORITY.

Mail this to your Sheriffs so they will know and act accordingly.

American Patriot Party.CC
http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc

Educate Yourself. Educate Others.

RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.

Misleading title

They are just stripped of their ability to enforce State laws not federal laws. They US Forest Service will still be harassing people. In the forest. Sheriff could have gone farther.

The title should be edited a bit.

peAce

Liberty = Responsibility

That is a thing of beauty

God bless America