Sheriff Richard Mack vs. Sheriff Joe Arpaio, on the Oath of Office

[ol' trucker]

If you want to know why things are getting as bad as they are so quickly. just refer to post#14. "It's not our job to figure out if they are constitutional or not" Lord have mercy. just think,this guy could be patrolling your or my neighborhood. funded by our government. I mean our tax dollars. pretty much a slap in the face of our forefathers. thanks for not upholding the constitution..THE ONLY LAW TO BE OBEYED!

 

[flagtag]

Isn't it funny that ignorance of the millions upon millions of laws is no excuse for the peasants but ignorance of the constitution is excusable for those enforcing the laws?

Amazing isn't it!

 

[flagtag]

If you want to know why things are getting as bad as they are so quickly. just refer to post#14. "It's not our job to figure out if they are constitutional or not" Lord have mercy. just think,this guy could be patrolling your or my neighborhood. funded by our government. I mean our tax dollars. pretty much a slap in the face of our forefathers. thanks for not upholding the constitution..THE ONLY LAW TO BE OBEYED!

But just try to point that out to them. "Hey, that's not Constitutional".
LEO: "Are you trying to tell me how to do my job?" (Yes? ) They do get "testy" don't they?.

 

[Duncan]

Sheriff Arpaio is a hero. We have the duty as law enforcers to obey all the laws. Its not our job to figure out if they are constitutional or not. If someone's rights are violated, let the courts figure it out.

Dear Jesus in heaven .. I hope you are saying this just to stir up some conversation .
If by chance you are not then I hope that you sit yourself down and have a long prayer with the Lord and ask him for some wisdom and guidance .

I can say this with all seriousness .
If I would have gotten elected Sheriff this last election , and I did not ... If I would have and you were under MY supervision WE would have been having classes on the history of this nation , the Constitution , US and Indiana and in particular how it was deemed that following orders is not defense in performing improper but " legal " actions .
As was decided in the Nuremberg trials .
The Nuremberg Defense , " ... I was just following orders ... " didn't cut it then and it don't now .
Superior Orders - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[edporch]

Has Sheriff Joe been shown to enforce laws that are considered by most of us to be unconstitutional?

 

[hornadylnl]

Has Sheriff Joe been shown to enforce laws that are considered by most of us to be unconstitutional?

I'm pretty sure the constitution isn't subject to majority opinion unless they use the amendment process. The majority supporting unconstitutional practices of a sheriff doesn't make it right. Otherwise, you can't complain when your minority view is being trampled on.

 

[edporch]

I'm pretty sure the constitution isn't subject to majority opinion unless they use the amendment process. The majority supporting unconstitutional practices of a sheriff doesn't make it right. Otherwise, you can't complain when your minority view is being trampled on.

The Constitution is clearly written and understandable by most any reasonably intelligent person who takes to time to learn the original intent of each part in it.
Just because a majority may say something that's unconstitutional is constitutional doesn't make it TRULY constitutional, it just translates into tyranny.
Of course it's not right to engage in unconstitutional practices as a sheriff just because a majority might say it's OK.

The question on this thread was one of Sheriff Joe saying he enforces all laws, yet is oath says he will defend the Constitution.
Some inferred from this that he wouldn't follow the Constitution because he said his job is to enforce all laws.

So this raised the question in my mind of whether his deeds followed his words?
Hence, my question.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I'm pretty sure the constitution isn't subject to majority opinion unless they use the amendment process. The majority supporting unconstitutional practices of a sheriff doesn't make it right. Otherwise, you can't complain when your minority view is being trampled on.

The Constitution is clearly written and understandable by most any reasonably intelligent person who takes to time to learn the original intent of each part in it.

Just because a majority may say something that's unconstitutional is constitutional doesn't make it TRULY constitutional, it just translates into tyranny.

Of course it's not right to engage in unconstitutional practices as a sheriff just because a majority might say it's OK.

The question on this thread was one of Sheriff Joe saying he enforces all laws, yet is oath says he will defend the Constitution.

Some inferred from this that he wouldn't follow the Constitution because he said his job is to enforce all laws.

So this raised the question in my mind of whether his deeds followed his words?
Hence, my question.

Here's the official oath of office for al peace officers, which include sheriffs, in the state of Arizona, from Arizona Revised Statute 38-231.

State of Arizona,
County of ________________

I, ____________________________________________do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the State of Arizona, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same and defend them against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge the duties of the office of _______________________________________ according to the best of my ability, so help me God (or so I do affirm).​

SIGNATURE OF OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE​

TYPE OR PRINT NAME​

NAME OF OFFICE​

I highlighted the words "and laws" for you in case you missed it.​

Could you please tell the class what laws Sheriff Joe has enforced that are unconstitutional?​

 

[Dredd]

Here's the official oath of office for al peace officers, which include sheriffs, in the state of Arizona, from Arizona Revised Statute 38-231.

I highlighted the words "and laws" for you in case you missed it.​

Could you please tell the class what laws Sheriff Joe has enforced that are unconstitutional?​

Good find. I agree with semprefi. Cops have to enforce every law on the books no matter what.

 

[Arthur Dent]

Actually they don't. They have to enforce the laws their superiors tell them to enforce.

Also from a practical standpoint there is no way any law enforcement officer could know every law on the books that they would need to enforce.

 

[Duncan]

Good find. I agree with semprefi. Cops have to enforce every law on the books no matter what.

Unfortunately that phrase , and laws of the State ... " that had been included in all oaths , I believe , has put law enforcement in the middle .
The presumption is that all the laws are Constitutional , and we know they aren't .

But the statement that " Cops have to enforce every law on the books no matter what. "
Is not correct .
Not every law has to be enforced ... why is is then that warnings are sometimes handed out .
That not every traffic infraction does not result in a pull over .
That some times a chief of police of sheriff will tear up a ticket .
No police have the discretion not to arrest also . Yes I understand that sometimes the legislature includes the phrase " shall arrest "

The danger and the fallacious assumption is that an LEO HAS to do it .
He can refuse . Yes it may cost him his job .

A example of enforcing unjust laws or orders is the gun roundup after Hurricane Katrina .

The belief or should I say sometimes the excuse that is used ... well you get your day in court ... let the courts decide what is right .
I just enforce the laws the " system " will sort it out .
Very dangerous attitude .

The gross example of the system or just following orders was decided in the last century .
It did not go over very well with the court ' system ".

The average court cost on a " good felony " is about 40k across the country .
Not an easy nut for the average guy to bust .

That must be of some concern to the LEO community also .
Since they have unionized with the FOP and part of the bennie package from them is legal representation .

Be careful of the beast you feed . Since it's adversarial when it gets hungry , it can have a tendency to eat the hand that feeds it .

Thanks
Duncan

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Good find. I agree with semprefi. Cops have to enforce every law on the books no matter what.

Not what I said troll.

Unfortunately that phrase , and laws of the State ... " that had been included in all oaths , I believe , has put law enforcement in the middle .
The presumption is that all the laws are Constitutional , and we know they aren't .

...

Thanks
Duncan

Again I ask:

Could you please tell the class what laws Sheriff Joe has enforced that are unconstitutional?​

 

[Duncan]

Not what I said troll.



Again I ask:

Could you please tell the class what laws Sheriff Joe has enforced that are unconstitutional?​

I am assuming that you are asking me this question as I remember someone else that posed that to me on a different thread .

I will repost that answer here again .
As clarification the most recent comment I gave dealing with enforcing all laws and LEO being put in the middle was not in reference to Joe A in AZ .

It was in reference to Dredd and his back an forth to you .

My assessment of Joe Arpaio :

#3
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...sheriff_joe_arpaio_on_the_oath_of_office.html

#13
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...ssion/105391-sheriff_arpaio_in_indiana-2.html

Thanks
Duncan

 

[flagtag]

LEOs might want to consider what happened to the Nazi death camp guards in court.
The excuse: "I was just following orders" didn't work for them.

The individual or group will be held accountable to the Constitutional laws.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I am assuming that you are asking me this question as I remember someone else that posed that to me on a different thread .

I will repost that answer here again .
As clarification the most recent comment I gave dealing with enforcing all laws and LEO being put in the middle was not in reference to Joe A in AZ .

It was in reference to Dredd and his back an forth to you .

My assessment of Joe Arpaio :

#3
https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/general_political_discussion/124328-sheriff_richard_mack_vs_sheriff_joe_arpaio_on_the_oath_of_office.html

#13
https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/general_political_discussion/105391-sheriff_arpaio_in_indiana-2.html

Thanks
Duncan

It's not up to the Sheriff or any other LEO to decide what the law should be. That's the legislature's and governor's job. It's not up to the Sheriff to decide if a law is constitutional or not. That's the judiciary's job. It is the Sheriff's job to enforce the law unless and until no longer the law.

That's our constitutional system in a nutshell.

Oh, and you asked what authorizes a national police force? Commerce clause. Inherent in the authority to regulate commerce is the authority to enforce the regulation of commerce. I'm not talking about whether the FBI, DEA, etc. exceeds their authority - they do on a regular basis. But there is nothing unconstitutional about their existance.

LEOs might want to consider what happened to the Nazi death camp guards in court.
The excuse: "I was just following orders" didn't work for them.

The individual or group will be held accountable to the Constitutional laws.

Yes, compare a Sheriff to Nazi death camp guards.

Again I ask:

Could you please tell the class what laws Sheriff Joe has enforced that are unconstitutional?​

 

[Duncan]

I find it interesting that I have posted my conversations and opinions of Sheriff Joe three times on two different threads and no one has acknowledged in the negative my conclusion of the conversation or that I even posted such as I in specific and in the general were asked about him .
Normally when a comment is made that is full of holes , absurd opinions or false hoods it is quickly debated or attacked .
Many times if it is reasonable or self evident it is ignored .
I will let a candid world decide which in this case .



Thanks
Duncan

PS What was that in UCMJ they talked about ... unlawful orders .
That can't be . How can it be unlawful if you're bound by your oath to follow all orders of Officers appointed over you ?
That's for the Officers and the Courts Marshall to decide .

 

[flagtag]

It's not up to the Sheriff or any other LEO to decide what the law should be. That's the legislature's and governor's job. It's not up to the Sheriff to decide if a law is constitutional or not. That's the judiciary's job. It is the Sheriff's job to enforce the law unless and until no longer the law.

That's our constitutional system in a nutshell.

Oh, and you asked what authorizes a national police force? Commerce clause. Inherent in the authority to regulate commerce is the authority to enforce the regulation of commerce. I'm not talking about whether the FBI, DEA, etc. exceeds their authority - they do on a regular basis. But there is nothing unconstitutional about their existance.


Yes, compare a Sheriff to Nazi death camp guards.

Again I ask:

Could you please tell the class what laws Sheriff Joe has enforced that are unconstitutional?​

Nope! Not comparing any LEO to Nazi guards. I'm just pointing out that any illegal act by "any" LEO (or any government agency) could lead to legal action against them and that the "just doing my job" excuse will not get them off the hook. They should ALL read the Constitution on a regular basis and ask themselves, does this "law" apply to the Constitution or does it overstep the limits of the Constitution?

If there is any question about a "law" then the ones expected to enforce it should question those who instituted the "law" and/or gave the order to enforce it. You know that the "higher ups" will pass on the blame for illegal actions to the "lower" levels if caught.

Each person is responsible for his/her actions - no excuses.

 

[Duncan]

It's not up to the Sheriff or any other LEO to decide what the law should be. That's the legislature's and governor's job. It's not up to the Sheriff to decide if a law is constitutional or not. That's the judiciary's job. It is the Sheriff's job to enforce the law unless and until no longer the law.

That's our constitutional system in a nutshell.

Oh, and you asked what authorizes a national police force? Commerce clause. Inherent in the authority to regulate commerce is the authority to enforce the regulation of commerce. I'm not talking about whether the FBI, DEA, etc. exceeds their authority - they do on a regular basis. But there is nothing unconstitutional about their existance.



Yes, compare a Sheriff to Nazi death camp guards.

Again I ask:

Could you please tell the class what laws Sheriff Joe has enforced that are unconstitutional?​

I believe that your assertion that the Commerce clause gives a wider latitude than it has been use for or that is stated by for the propriety of a national police force .

" "In giving to the President and Senate a power to make treaties, the Constitution meant only to authorize them to carry into effect, by way of treaty, any powers they might constitutionally exercise." --Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793. ME 1:408 "

"I say... to the opinion of those who consider the grant of the treaty-making power as boundless: If it is, then we have no Constitution. If it has bounds, they can be no others than the definitions of the powers which that instrument gives." --Thomas Jefferson to Wilson Nicholas, 1803. ME 10:419

Yes he is talking about treaties here .. but the overall point is that the Constitution has specific granting powers that are finite .
If such is true for the Treaty Clause logic demands that it is also for the commerce clause .

"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:449

From the above quote . Is it reasonable to believe that broad undefined powers were not the intent of the Commerce clause as you would infer with a national police force.
The founders just came out of an 8 year war . With a heavy unregulated hand of government that was largely unfair and violent toward the people with in the LAWS that parliament had written and approved .

Also a look into history will show that the FBI originally did not have police powers .. in fact if memory serves they were not even issued weapons .
They were involved with investigations . If the suspect were to be arrested or questioned the Agent had to contact the local constable and then he would act on the Agents information accordingly .
There is an argument that they have a legitimate right to exist . But in no way to the extent and scope that they do now and not as a national police force .


Thanks
Duncan

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I believe that your assertion that the Commerce clause gives a wider latitude than it has been use for or that is stated by for the propriety of a national police force .

" "In giving to the President and Senate a power to make treaties, the Constitution meant only to authorize them to carry into effect, by way of treaty, any powers they might constitutionally exercise." --Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793. ME 1:408 "

"I say... to the opinion of those who consider the grant of the treaty-making power as boundless: If it is, then we have no Constitution. If it has bounds, they can be no others than the definitions of the powers which that instrument gives." --Thomas Jefferson to Wilson Nicholas, 1803. ME 10:419

Yes he is talking about treaties here .. but the overall point is that the Constitution has specific granting powers that are finite .
If such is true for the Treaty Clause logic demands that it is also for the commerce clause .

"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:449

From the above quote . Is it reasonable to believe that broad undefined powers were not the intent of the Commerce clause as you would infer with a national police force.
The founders just came out of an 8 year war . With a heavy unregulated hand of government that was largely unfair and violent toward the people with in the LAWS that parliament had written and approved .

Also a look into history will show that the FBI originally did not have police powers .. in fact if memory serves they were not even issued weapons .
They were involved with investigations . If the suspect were to be arrested or questioned the Agent had to contact the local constable and then he would act on the Agents information accordingly .
There is an argument that they have a legitimate right to exist . But in no way to the extent and scope that they do now and not as a national police force .


Thanks
Duncan

14th Amendment. This is not your (founding) Father's Constitution anymore. I'm all for getting rid of it. How?

On the bolded part we agree, except I think you are parsing words with the national police force thing, or I just don't understand your point.

 

[Prometheus]

It's not up to the Sheriff or any other LEO to decide what the law should be.

Basically, or at least to say it is not the job of any LEO to make up the law.

It's not up to the Sheriff to decide if a law is constitutional or not.

False. Laws repugnant to the constitutions are null and void.

You simply cannot pass the buck along to some lawyers in dresses (judges) and try to stay "above it". In doing so, the references to death camp guards are reasonable.

Blatantly unconstitutional laws should never be enforced. The supreme laws (the US and State Constitutions) override the lessor laws.

I think that is where the problem lies. LEOs are ignorant to the structure of the law and where the power to make law flows.

Let's say Podunk city council passed saying "Podunk city council members shall have the right to have sex with anyone they choose, whenever they choose it in the city limits of Podunk, provided they use a condom and it's between the hours of 8pm and 3am. Anyone resisting such a sexual encounter shall be guilty of a 1st degreee misdemeanor and subject to fine of up to $2,500 and 30 days in jail."

Would that not be blatantly unconstitutional? Would you enforce that law because it is "the law"?

Duncan brought up a great point about the UCMJ and unlawful orders to illustrate the absurdity of your position.

Do I expect every cop to try and judge every single law every single shift? Of course not.

Do I expect a Chief LEO to understand the law, how it works and to use their brain and understand the constitutions? Absolutely.