Log in  
Sign up

Play online chess!

Pages:  1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »
From	Message
thumper 15-Jan-13, 23:04	State's Rights Oregon joins Texas and Wyoming: Refuse to comply with Obama and the progs' anti-constitutional gambit. More to come... Oregon Sheriff: Exec. Orders that Offend Constitution Will Not Be Enforced by AWR Hawkins 15 Jan 2013, 6:38 PM PDT Linn County Oregon Sheriff Tim Mueller cut right to the chase in an open letter to Vice President Biden on January 14: "Any federal regulation enacted by Congress or executive order...offending the constitutional rights of my citizens will not be enforced by me or my deputies." Elsewhere in the letter, Mueller touched on the key problem American citizens are now facing, as gun-grabbers use the crimes of a few to justify taking away the liberties of many: We are Americans. We must not allow, nor will we tolerate, the actions of criminals, no matter how heinous the crimes, to prompt politicians to enact laws that will infringe upon the liberties of responsible citizens who have broken no laws. Muller closed his letter thus: "In summary, it is the position of this Sheriff that I refuse to participate, or stand idly by, while my citizens are turned into criminals due to the unconstitutional actions of misguided politicians." Ladies and Gentlemen, we've found another patriot. And his name is Sheriff Tim Mueller. www.breitbart.com
changeling 16-Jan-13, 00:56	As far as anyone is aware there hasn't been any regulation enacted by congress or in fact any executive order as yet, constitutional or otherwise, has there?
thumper 16-Jan-13, 01:44	From what I understand, we'll see about the EOs today. They were claiming/threatening? to impose as many as 18 anti-2A EOs and numerous other anti Second Amendment legislative attempts. They've been putting out their feelers for weeks now trying to see how much they think they can get away with. It's not looking too good for them so far, even though they've had the press running an around-the-clock propaganda campaign trying to grease the wheels.
dmaestro 16-Jan-13, 05:23	The county Sheriff has no authority to determine what is constitutionall under the constitution he claims to enforce. If the Supreme Court were to rule something unconstitutional that would be different. We are a very divided country facing rebellion. The rebellion has been stoked for a long time by talkers. The question is now long will it be before the rebels carry out their threats to unilaterally act to fight the federal government extra judicially based on individual whims. If they decide to rebel they will rue the day.
thumper 16-Jan-13, 12:52	Police Officer Asks Colleagues: 'What Are You Gonna' Do?' If Obama Issues Unlawful Gun Order cnsnews.com
dmaestro 16-Jan-13, 13:11	He better obey the law or he will be fired.
proginoskes 16-Jan-13, 18:44	Actually DM is very wrong here. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this: Printz v. United States The Federal government cannot force local law enforcement to carry out it's edicts or laws. I'm also very sure, DM is quite supportive of this particular, and Constitutional, tactic when local law enforcement isn't arresting illegal aliens.
dmaestro 16-Jan-13, 18:55	That is inaccurate. The issue was a very narrow aspect of the Brady bill, not as you state. Don't bet your farm on it!
proginoskes 16-Jan-13, 19:03	Sorry DM - it's exactly as I state. At issue was wether local law enforcement had to carry out the Federal Brady Bill background checks. The Supremes said, "No". This set the precedent that local law enforcement does not have to carry out federal laws. Check and mate, son. Sheriffs are completely within their Constitutional rights to refuse to comply with federal laws or edicts. You want to get your hands dirty? Then go and do it . . . yourself. And good luck.
changeling 16-Jan-13, 19:39	A question: Can the state Sheriff's legally stop federal agencies from carrying out federal laws and edicts, either by injunction or by physical means?
proginoskes 16-Jan-13, 19:53	changeling If you look at the Printz v. US decision by Scalia he addresses some of this, in that the jurisdiction for Federal action is extremely narrow and generally relates to international affairs and cross-state interactions, and they simply do not have jurisdiction within the states themselves to to act to coerce the states or locales into doing anything anymore than the US has the jurisdiction to make Australia do something. It's a sovereign state within a larger sovereign state system, that allows for checks upon the other. As to wether local law enforcement can arrest or detain federal law enforcement? Of course they can do so. It remains to be seen if they would do so and what the Federal response would be.
proginoskes 16-Jan-13, 20:12	www.youtube.com first hour
thumper 16-Jan-13, 20:51	JD, what do I call you now, Prog?
dmaestro 16-Jan-13, 21:18	My point is that your claim that "...Sheriffs are completely within their Constitutional rights to refuse to comply with federal laws or edicts..." based on the Printz case is misleading. The federal government may not nationalize state and local law enforcement. The correct interpretation is that Congress cannot require local law enforcement to "execute" federal laws, as execution is an executive branch responsibility, and there are limits to the use of the commerce clause and necessary and proper clause in matters under state jurisdiction without interstate or international implications. It is true that the Sheriff cannot be forced to for example enter homes to seize guns illegal under federal law. But local law enforcement cannot simply refuse to "comply" with laws based on their own interpretation that they are unconstitutional, for example, police departments keeping illegal guns under federal law, or actively interfering with federal law enforcement which is where these Sheriffs will cross the line, without consequences. The scope of the ruling is much narrower than you propose, and also at 5-4 all it would take is one liberal judge to change the ruling. These guys may be extreme right wing, but their caution about the scope of Printz beyond the narrow issue at hand is well considered. www.freedomfirstsociety.org
thumper 17-Jan-13, 01:29	Molon Labe About the video I posted above... January 14th, 2013 Video: Oath Keeper Officer Calls on Brother Cops to Refuse to Enforce Gun Bans or Registration In this video, Oathkeeper151, a New Jersey Police Officer who has been a member of Oath Keepers since 2009, makes it clear that he will not obey orders that violate the Bill of Rights. In particular, he says he will not be used as a tool of oppression against the American people who resist and refuse to comply with infringement on their right to bear arms, such as legislation or executive orders that decree they must register, get finger printed and photographed, like a criminal. He asks his fellow officers what they are going to do if that happens. Will they keep their oaths? Here is his own description of his video: "In this video I ask my fellow Police Officers what they would do, if they were given an unlawful order. I also touch on the Assault Weapons Ban introduced by Senator Feinstein, and how this bill has the potential of putting us Police Officers in a very bad/even fatal predicament." I spoke to him on the phone and he made it clear that he is not afraid to take this public stand because this is what needs to happen. He says the peace officers across America need to stand up and let the people know that they are on the side of the Bill of Rights, and that they will protect the rights of the people. In one of the comments on his video, another officer had this to say: "I’ll lay my badge down, stop doing what I love if someone tries to make me do something immoral or unconstitutional. Good video, take care." Oathkeeper151 agrees. He told me that if there were door to door raids for guns against Americans who refused to comply with registration or bans, he would either defend the people with his badge on, stepping between them and the oath breakers doing the raids, or he would lay his badge down on the table and then go join the people in resisting. He loves his work as a police officer, but his oath, and his responsibility to protect the people of his community, is more important than his job. His oath comes first. The rights of the people come first…. and he is not alone. Molon Labe, Stewart Rhodes Founder of Oath Keepers oathkeepers.org This is an organization of men and women who have 'taken the oath' (current and former law enforcement, current and former military) and will not break it.
thumper 17-Jan-13, 02:40	www.youtube.com
dmaestro 17-Jan-13, 07:21	When the Feds raid, these "officers" should be treated like ordinary criminals. If they resist and are armed and dangerous, killing them is an option. Let them complain to st peter.
softaire 17-Jan-13, 07:24	Do you think it is it the civilian army that will be coming to confiscate the weapons?
proginoskes 17-Jan-13, 07:56	Thump You can call me prog. Just don't call me "progressive".
dmaestro 17-Jan-13, 09:20	Police should obey the law like everyone else, or they are criminals. Most police will enforce the law voluntarily. Printz simply said there were limits on congress compelling involuntary enforcement by local authorities. The police still have to comply with laws. How the federal government enforces the law where local authorities refuse to help by for example nationalizing the guard, imposing martial law or hiring more agents is at federal agents is discretionary. There is no mass confiscation effort.
dmaestro 17-Jan-13, 09:26	No one would confuse you with a progressive. We are reasonable and open to change.
softaire 17-Jan-13, 09:51	dm You say "police" must enforce the laws. First of all, they must NOT enforce illegal or immoral laws, just as the military must NOT follow illegal or immoral commands given by higher ranking people. Secondly, the President does not follow the laws. He chose NOT to enforce DOMA and he has executed some unconstitutional Executive Orders, such as recinding DADT for the military.
thumper 17-Jan-13, 10:39	Softie He means they HAVE TO enforce any 'laws', no matter how constitutionally repugnant, that best serve HIS goals. He hopes to trick/use LE and military as a sword against his political enemies. He thinks them nothing more than stupid hired muscle that jumps at his command. Coincidentally enough, many of his 'enemies' are current and former LE and military... go figure. Think of a scrawny little metrosexual dude in tights with a whip and a chair hopping into the cage with 5 African lions and 3 Bengal tigers, thinking he's the apex alpha in the cage yet not noticing the glances and head nods passing between the cats...
dmaestro 17-Jan-13, 10:49	Who ultimately decides what is illegal and unlawful? The justice system, either UCMJ for military or the Federal court system for civilians. Civil disobedience is permissible but implies willingness to accept the consequences. What you claim is unlawful and unconstitutional is just your opinion.
proginoskes 17-Jan-13, 11:09	I'm reasonable and I'm open to change . . . *reasonable* change.
thumper 17-Jan-13, 11:12	Who? The man with a round chambered and safety off. That's who. The political poges can all agree but if he doesn't, it's not.
chaz5 17-Jan-13, 11:15	... there is always a place for dissent, of course. Dissent tends to force others to reassess their positions ... to reaffirm them perhaps in an even stronger position, or to revise them into more palatable choices. Isn't this the way it's supposed to work?
dmaestro 17-Jan-13, 11:33	The one with the gun makes decides? How modern...
dmaestro 17-Jan-13, 11:39	Protest, civil disobedience, American as apple pie. Not everyone deciding which laws or orders they will follow.
thumper 17-Jan-13, 12:02	Would you rather otherwise? Would you rather blind obedience, shooting and abusing anyone they're pointed at without thought? Yes, I believe you do. The Nuremberg trials had something to say about that I think.
Pages:  1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »

GameKnot: play chess online, monthly chess tournaments, chess teams, Internet chess league, chess clubs, online chess puzzles, free online chess games database and more.