Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by etc-hosts | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

etc-hosts

I posted this one because it's a tiny bit more family friendly than the one you mentioned.

This scandal makes me think the Constitutional Sheriff movement might be very bad.

https://www.themarshallproject.org/records/2587-constitution...

View on HN

For those new to the term "Constitutional Sheriff"

> The Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA) is a political organization of local police officials in the United States who contend that federal and state government authorities are subordinate to the local authority of county sheriffs. Self-described constitutional sheriffs assert that they are the supreme legal authority with the power and duty to defy or disregard laws they regard as unconstitutional. As a result, they may sometimes be referred to as sovereign sheriffs.

via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Sheriffs_and_Pe...

Terrifying.

Time to get that EU passport kids.

Please don't. It's....er....full of terrorists here, portions are only half, there's a war 24 hours drive away, our politicians are not our representatives [apparently], we speak different languages and even dialects, clothing sizes are really fucked up - your XXXL might be hard to find - amazon is delivered by disabled people only, one part of Europe uses different money and a new part of Europe just got the same money as the rest of us, putting a big flag of 'your' country outside your house is seen as a bit odd (dickmove) unless the world cup is on, 'world' usually means just that when it comes to sports, our paper money denominations are different sizes so we can't fuck over the blind, we use the metric system (mostly), Piers Morgan and John Oliver come from over here, we have kings and queens -still, no 2nd amendment rights, pay is shit and we're all communists because a doctor will treat you after a more urgent case even with a gold AE card, but you don't have to pay much in the end so that's communism, too. In Holland, if you don't have a bicycle they fine you, in Finland you have to buy moose-knuckle-fish and in Spain if you're awake you absolutely have to report to work at least once a month unless you're french and then you can just set fire to it, unless you're italian and then everything is debatable, anyway. Until it comes to the Germans. Their vehicles, though technically 'superior', are indicator-free and, much like an actual Panzer, are free to go where they want, unless an Audi is involved. No-one cares for VW anymore, which is ironic, but real Europeans don't really get irony, like yourselves oh crap now I'm starting to sell the damn place. Er.....no guns!

No guns? How are you gonna defend your constitution against a treasonous dictator?

Oh I see, Belarusian friend tells me you just get tortured and flee to another country by thousands then.

That's nothing more than a fantasy, it's not 18th century anymore with a group farmers being qualitatively not too far from a military.

If you escalate from peaceful protests to armed conflict, then a modern military will win over a bunch of farmers on any given day, provided that rules of engagement are loose enough. What good is your AR-15 covered in patriotic Eagle stickers against A-10 Thunderbolt?

Actually, I have a little experience on that. The main thing is that it's pretty hard to convince "modern military" to kill their own families or neighbors. So, in case like Belarus, if you order your military to fight like 90% of population, you have very high risk of them turning the arms the other way.

But if those 90% of population can be silenced by a very small filtered force (personal guards, but better call them "riot police"), and keep the real "military" in barracks fed by propaganda 24/7, preventing talking to people -- then they would learn the truth anyway, but when it's too late, when all the leaders are already dead/jailed/exiled.

The whole point of legitimacy rests on public approval. What approval are we talking about if it needs "A-10 Thunderbolt" against your own people. If an american city, say, Portland, would start armed resistance, no President would ever order airstrikes against it, that would be the last day of their presidency. But they won't start it, because the whole system already accommodates Portland wishes into non-violent resolution.

A side note: Napoleon military genius rests a lot on the La Grande Armée, the largest army by far in Europe. But why other countries didn't have their own armies of the same size? Because only democracy can keep such a big army to turn the arms against its government, otherwise at some point giant army wishes may not align with its government (although it may take time of course). Democracy at least persuades people that they have a voice. So, in some sense, the Napoleonic wars made "democracy -> large army size -> democratic neighbors" transition.

Going back to Belarus example, if the "riot police" would have to deal with armed protestors, they would have it like million times harder, and I'm not sure of the outcome.

> As a result, they may sometimes be referred to as sovereign sheriffs.

I'm sure that'll work about as well as that "sovereign citizen" thing that some people try.

Technically, under Constitution Article VI most (all?) Sheriffs would be bound by oath and Constitutional Law (Articles III, IV, VI) to defy or disregard laws they regard as unconstitutional. This is because unconstitutional laws are treasonous (an opinion reinforced in the Supreme Court in 1803 by Chief Justice John Marshall).

Per Marbury v. Madison (5 U.S. 137): "It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what The Law is." and "A Law repugnant to the Constitution is void." (Opinion of the court via Chief Justice John Marshall).

As legally authorized officers of the Judiciary, Sheriffs and their deputies are obliged to interpret and act upon the law.

Not terrifying at all: this has been the status quo since 1803.

If you find this terrifying, do not become a Judicial Officer. These people handle treason on a daily basis.

P.S. I sympathize with Afroman, and support and appreciate his music. As intelligent citizens, I think he knows the law as I do, perhaps even better than me (because he's a celebrity).

What is the connection between this incident and the Constitutional Sheriff movement?

no direct connection

I think the Constitutional Sheriff movement and idolization of local sheriffs is troubling.

>The connection is I wish there was one

Okay lol.

Very few sheriffs had the guts to publicly state they would not enforce unconstitutional covid mandates.

They were unconstitutional. That has been proven.

It was illegal for officers of the law to enforce them.

I don't think the primary law enforcement problem in the US is Sheriffs. Say what you will about police. These are not the same organizations.

Are you talking about mask mandates or vaccine mandates?

Executive orders issued by the Biden administration

https://www.swfinstitute.org/news/90658/supreme-court-rules-...

The OHSA mandate never went into effect as far as I know. Besides even if it did go into effect it wouldn't be something a sheriff would enforce, as it is up to OHSA to enforce its mandates.

The administration used news outlets to pump the mandate and companies preemptively executed the order.

OSHA does not yet have any policing powers, this was an attempt to generate them.

So what does this have to do with your original claim of police enforcing unconstitutional mandates? Nothing? I'm losing the thread here...

What specific mandates were proven unconstitutional?

Hahahhha

What!? The revisionist history begins

https://eppc.org/publication/bidens-covid-vaccine-mandates-a...

Am I missing something? A 300 word piece by a think tanker?

Honestly, I don't blame you. A genuine news release from a .gov site was not on the first couple pages of search results. However, that is by design.

https://gov.alaska.gov/supreme-court-decision-forces-biden-a...

That political press release doesn't support your earlier point that it was proven "unconstitutional." In fact review of the SCOTUS opinion shows that they (6-3) found that OSHA exceeded their congressional authority, not violated the US Constitution.

> “Although Congress has indisputably given OSHA the power to regulate occupational dangers, it has not given that agency the power to regulate public health more broadly,” the court wrote

If you want to show how this was unconstitutional then you'll need to show something else entirely. This SCOTUS opinion isn't proof of that, no matter if it is from a ".gov" site or not.

It does dawn on you that this is expressly written in a manner which entices the idea such congressional authority exists. And yet does not mean that the authority exists. One cannot grant what it does not have.

Indeed, the mandates began under the previous president.

Sorry, I'm not a team player.

But, please feel free to provide additional information

I’m not a team player either. I’m not sure what information you’re seeking.

Guy, you need to get over the covid thing.

Get over the fact that a third of people in the country will go along with anything they're told and another third are so craven and cowardly they'll accept any answer at all to assuage their own fears?

Oh, alright.

https://gov.alaska.gov/supreme-court-decision-forces-biden-a...

The Supreme Court didn't find that the employer vaccine mandate was unconstitutional, they found that it was outside of OSHA's Congressionally-approved powers. Statutory law, not constitutional.

Can you please stop making everything about COVID. There haven't been new mandates and there isn't a new world order and we're not all dying from the vaccine. Just please stop making everything about COVID. Please.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com