.

No Such Thing As Constitutional Rights

Find out about the true nature and authority of the County Sheriff; one of the checks and balances embedded in our Constitutional Republic.

“Constitutional Rights” is a fiction and misleading.  Our Rights are Natural Rights and are unalienable.  The Constitution is a document which defines the government.  It is a document of creation and it is a strict limit on the powers and authority of government.  It does not limit Citizens.  The Rights of Citizens specifically enumerated for protection in the Constitution were those deemed most important for the continuance of Liberty and Freedom.  It was not a complete list, nor could it be.

Our government was created by the people, for the people.  After the American Revolution, the Citizens became the sovereigns.  As Sovereign Citizens, We The People created local and state governments to ensure peace and prosperity.  The state governments then created the federal government to further ensure those goals.  Nowhere in the formation documents (constitution) is there authority for the creature to direct – or control – its master.  Also, the federal government was
never intended to have any direct contact with Citizens.

The Office of the County Sheriff dates back to at least 900 AD in England.  The Sheriff had always been charged with protecting the rights and property of the sovereign.  After the American Revolution, the Office of County Sheriff remained.  At that point, it became the duty and authority of the Sheriff to protect the Rights and property of the Sovereign Citizens – from any unlawful action.

Historical documents and court cases confirm that the Sheriff is the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in the county and has no superior.  The Sheriff is elected by the people and is answerable to them alone.  No federal or state agency has authority in the county unless the Sheriff permits it.  If, in the Sheriff’s opinion, a proposed action is unconstitutional, the Sheriff is duty-bound, and authorized, to block it.

County Sheriffs across the country are beginning to re-affirm their role in the
checks-and-balances embedded in our Constitutional  Republic.  In some western states, water rights are paramount.  The federal Bureau of Land Management has informed some farmers that they must let their crops die; as they may no longer use their own water.  Some County  Sheriffs have evicted BLM agents from their county, thereby protecting the lives and property of the Citizens.

Find out more about the power of the County  Sheriff at www.SzaboForSheriff.com.  Feel free to contact Frank at Frank@SzaboForSheriff.com.

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Super Fun Size August 09, 2012 at 11:49 AM
Fort New Hampshire, start building the walls.
JIM August 09, 2012 at 12:29 PM
more meaningless mumbo jumbo from comrade healey , do a little research comrade everything Mr. Sazbo stated was factual.
Steve From NH August 09, 2012 at 03:03 PM
YEAH! Let's bring back the feudal system! Is this guy for real? Sounds like he thinks he's running for Baron or Duke. BTW, the rights of the "sovereign" protected by the Shire Reeve (sherriff) in Merry Olde England were the rights of the king to take most of what was produced by the vassals that worked the land, and to keep anyone from hunting in the Kings Forest, upon pain of death. JIM, court Jester position is open, yours if you want it ;)
Gary G. Krupp August 10, 2012 at 02:51 AM
Isn't that the exact point Mr. Sazbo makes in the 3rd paragraph? His point is that in this country, the people are the Sovereign.
Richard C Barnes August 10, 2012 at 11:52 AM
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed
jrmetalman August 10, 2012 at 12:21 PM
What's wrong with that DUDE!!! That's so OLD SCHOOL!!! He must be a FOUNDING MEMBER OF THE FLAT EARTH SOCIETY!!! Seriously, we now live in the time of Government for the governing party, by the party in power, and as always for their own self centered interests!!! That government of the people thing died off with OBAMACARE!!! Keep up the good work Barry, Harry and Nancy are still with you.
Steve From NH August 10, 2012 at 12:52 PM
I get it - of the people, by the people, for the people. Do we really need to transfer so much power to the office of Sheriff? I've lived in places where towns had little in the say of government, schools, fire, law enforcement was centered at the county seat. There, it made sense to have a large Sheriffs Dept. Since those functions are provided by the town here, and overseen by an elected council with lots and lots of input by the citizens, I'd have to say that this guy is just looking to grab power and be like Joe Arapaio in Arizona, who is definitely running his own fiefdom. But I don't have to guess, he says as much in his article - You folks who are quoting the constitution - did you read the title of this piece? This guy believes in"natural rights", apparently adjudicated and enforced by a sheriff. Is that really what you want? He says " No federal or state agency has authority in the county unless the Sheriff permits it." He put it in bold letters. Could you please read that a few times? Or "If, in the Sheriff’s opinion, a proposed action is unconstitutional" - so the Sheriffs opinion is authoritative? Opinion? Once elected, the sheriff is no longer answerable to anyone? That, my friends, is a King.
Steve From NH August 10, 2012 at 01:17 PM
Funny, more than half of the people support Obamacare. You don't want government for the people, you want government for the loudest people. Frank Szabo wants government to be whatever he says it is.
News Flash August 10, 2012 at 01:42 PM
The majority of people do not support ObamaCare.
Steve From NH August 10, 2012 at 02:27 PM
Yes, I'm sorry, you're right. Way more than half support what's in Obamacare, but not Obamacare. I'm confused too. I'm not confused about Frank Szabo for Sheriff though. Anyone who thinks the law is no more than the opinion of the Sheriff should definitely NOT be the Sheriff.
Super Fun Size August 10, 2012 at 08:00 PM
Yes, I agree. Whats at question is the Ex Limo drivers in BOLD threat that "No federal or state agency has authority in the county unless the (he) permits it" Sounds like someone looking to cause trouble all on his own and dragging the rest of us into to it just for his own enjoyment. We don't need a Sheriff who is looking for trouble.
Jan Schmidt August 14, 2012 at 02:48 PM
Spitbrook Rd has a campaign sign for this gent ... It's placed on public property... This illegal... A man who wants to carry out the law for the citizens of NH... Huh?
Gary G. Krupp August 14, 2012 at 03:08 PM
I can't begin to count the number of people who violate the law you are referencing. I am not excusing the candidate but it seems to me that most towns have looked the other way during election season unless sign placements cause safety concerns or have driven complaints. I know that Merrimack at least operates this way.
Frank W. Szabo August 15, 2012 at 01:14 PM
First. My apologies for being silent. Patch tech. issues - I had/have not been able to access my account and finally just opened a new one. Second. To all of the trolls. Do not waste my time! If you are an American who cares about the state of our Republic and want to help, I will take all of the time you need to help you understand the true nature and authority of the County Sheriff. Read the actual words I wrote. The Sheriff is not a feudal lord. Nor do they have authority to direct Citizens from outside of the law. The Sheriff is duty-bound and fully authorized to protect the Citizens from any unlawful action. My greatest concerns are centered around the grossly unconstitutional acts and edicts of the federal and state governments. The Sheriff is supposed to be protecting the people from government overreach. There is some great information on my website, www.SzaboForSheriff.com and the campaign FaceBook page, https://www.facebook.com/pages/Frank-W-Szabo-For-Sheriff-of-Hillsborough-County/277456675653327. Here is a link to an interview I did with Kathy Benuck for Bedford TV; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8i9cLhEgpP4&feature=player_embedded#!. Any questions can be sent to me directly at Frank@SzaboForSheriff.com.
Beartooth Bronsky August 28, 2012 at 12:17 AM
This is a STAGGERING misreading of the Constitution. Article I defines the rights and restrictions of the Legislative Branch of the Federal Government. Article II does the same for the Executive Branch. Article III addresses the federal Judicial system. Article IV is about states, but it is primarily an assertion that states can not override the laws of other states. Article V defines the process of amending the constitution. Article VI asserts that all prior debts must be honored, orders that "NO RELIGIOUS TEST SHALL EVER BE REQUIRED AS A QUALIFICATION TO ANY OFFICE OR PUBLIC TRUST UNDER THE UNITED STATES," provides that non-religious people who have objections to the religious connotations of "swearing" an oath, may alternately "affirm" the oath. Also, Article VI states that all ratified foreign treaties shall have the same force of law "shall be the Supreme Law of the Land," and, along with all federal laws, shal OVERRIDE state laws. "AND THE JUDGES IN EVERY STATE SHALL BE BOUND THEREBY, ANY THING IN THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF ANY STATE TO THE CONTRARY NOTWITHSTANDING." This provides that NO state law may override or nullify federal law or international treaty. Article VII describes the process by which the constitution shall be ratified. End of story.
Beartooth Bronsky August 28, 2012 at 12:18 AM
It is, however, interesting to note that few Americans realize that the Founding Fathers tried States Rights first, when they ratified the Articles of Confederation in 1776/7, which left the major power in each state's hands, and defined a weak and small federal government. This led to spiraling chaos between states, and the Union was in imminent danger of collapse. The threat to the brand new Union of States Rights was so dire that the Founding Fathers quietly reassembled in 1787, 11 years after the Articles of Confederation was implemented, tossed it (and States' Rights) into the waste-bin, and wrote a new Constitution that took the opposite approach, defining a strong federal government, making the states subordinate to the federal government, and assigning to the states AND to the people ONLY those rights not already given to the federal government. BTW, the only mechanism to determine the constitutionality of any law, be it local, state, or federal, is to appeal the law through the federal appeals courts until, finally, the Supreme Court rules on its constitutionality (the only court with the full authority to rule on constitutionality).
Beartooth Bronsky August 28, 2012 at 12:27 AM
Our society would collapse into thousands of local fiefdoms if every local lawman, sheriff or otherwise, felt he or she had the authority to pick and choose which state or federal laws are constitutional or not. I doubt you'd find two districts in the entire country that would agree 100% - that's why only the Supreme Court has the authority and power to declare a law or edict unconstitutional. That's also why the oath you took requires you to UPHOLD all state and federal statutes until and unless they are declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS. Any attempt to pick and choose which laws you would obey or ignore is a violation of your oath - and clear grounds for impeachment. For God's sake, man. Don't pay attention to all of the lunatic theories that float around the internet about legal nullification, "sovereign citizens," and so on. Sit down and read the Constitution and, if you get through that, read the Federalist Papers in which James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and, to a lesser extent, John Jay lay out all of the debates and rationales behind the Constitution of the United States of America. Geez, louise... if you want to carry a badge and gun, and enforce the law, you should understand that you can't cherry-pick the laws according to one ideology or another. If so, we'd regress back to isolated and armed hunter-gatherer family clans in a decade.
Frank W. Szabo August 28, 2012 at 02:03 AM
Beartooth: As a demonstration of your Constitutional scholarly prowess, please quote the Oath of Office which states a requirement "to UPHOLD all state and federal statutes".
Beartooth Bronsky August 28, 2012 at 06:53 PM
If you don't UPHOLD all state and federal statutes (the federal ones having precedence over state ones - see Article VI of the Constitution), you are by definition violating your oath to uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution. All sworn public officials serve under and subject to that requirement. In Article II of the Constitution, the oath of office for the President, the highest office of the land, is spelled out clearly: 'Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."' All other oaths of office carry this same responsibility. You fail to preserve, protect, or defend the Constitution of the United States when you substitute your own personal interpretation (or ideologically driven misinterpretation) of the Constitution for the actual document and 223 years of stare decisis as determined by litigation and the accumulated rulings of the Supreme Court (I am assuming that an eminent scholar of the Constitution, such as yourself, doesn't need me to define the Constitutional concept of stare decisis <grin>).
Beartooth Bronsky August 28, 2012 at 07:19 PM
JIM, Mr. Szabo cites in his original post: "Historical documents and court cases confirm that the Sheriff is the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in the county and has no superior. The Sheriff is elected by the people and is answerable to them alone. No federal or state agency has authority in the county unless the Sheriff permits it. If, in the Sheriff’s opinion, a proposed action is unconstitutional, the Sheriff is duty-bound, and authorized, to block it." Aside from Mr. Szabo's (and your) claim that the Sheriff is the dictator of his jurisdiction (an idea dating back to the Middle Ages when his power devolved from his local Lord of the Manor), he refers to "historical documents and court cases" and you refer to "research." Perhaps either or both of you would care to enlighten the rest of us by citing the statutory U.S. law that so empowers any local yokel with a tin star to declare himself answerable to nobody, with all other "sovereign" citizens answerable ultimately to his majesty? BTW, that gratuitous use of the word 'comrade' to somebody just because he doesn't agree with your own beliefs is a schoolyard example of the logical fallacy known as "argumentum ad hominem abusive," meaning the false attempt to discredit somebody's ideas, not by rationally debating and countering the ideas, but by imputing some insulting characteristic to the person expressing those ideas. Thomas Jefferson once remarked, "Resort is had to ridicule only when reason is against us."
Beartooth Bronsky August 28, 2012 at 07:42 PM
The idea for the "hated" Individual Mandate in "Obamacare" originated a paper put out in 1989 by the Heritage Foundation. It found immediate support throughout the GOP, particularly its main cheerleader, Newt Gingrich. It was the core of two healthcare laws the GOP offered in the early 90s as an alternative to the Clinton proposal. It remained the core of GOP healthcare policy for 20 years and has been included in every Republican health bill ever since. In the middle of the debate over "Obamacare," Mitt Romney wrote an op-ed in USA Today on July 29, 2009, calling on Obama to implement a nationwide version of Romney's Individual Mandate. In Romney's own words: "First, we established incentives for those who were uninsured to buy insurance. Using TAX PENALTIES [my emphasis], as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages "free riders" to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others. Obama preferred the 'public option,' which would provide an alternative to the for-profit companies' lock on healthcare, but was unable to get the needed GOP votes to break the filibuster. So, he compromised by dropping support for the public option and accepting the GOP's Individual Mandate in its place. He got his GOP votes and we got Obamacare. After 20 years of GOP support, the IM was magically morphed into totalitarian federal interference as soon as Obama also went along. Effin' hypocrites, IMHO.
Beartooth Bronsky August 28, 2012 at 07:57 PM
News Flash, two-thirds of the people DID support Obamacare when it still had a public mandate (or, if you prefer, Medicare-for-All). The majority of Americans STILL support a single-payer, government-managed, tax-funded insurance system and much of the rejection of Obamacare came from the liberals and progressives who were, and still are, outraged that Obama let the GOP coerce him into dropping ANY public option to the vulturous for-profit healthcare industry. All else in Obamacare is merely bandaids trying to rein in the most egregious misdeeds of the for-pay industry. The only way we will ever reform our dysfunctional healthcare system is to remove an essential social need from a market commodity. Whether we do this by single-payer or by returning to the days of non-profit insurers prior to Nixon's 1973 introduction of HMOs, we need an insurance industry that does not have as its overriding fiduciary responsibility, maximizing returns for investors. By law, when there is a conflict between paying out for health treatment and maximizing the investors' dividends, our treatment will ALWAYS come in second.
Beartooth Bronsky August 28, 2012 at 08:31 PM
I have long noted the irony that all but a handful of Americans can offer up an accurate definition of democracy, capitalism, socialism, libertarianism, marxism, fascism, and so on. Yet, this ignorance doesn't keep them from tossing around, even worshiping or hating some of the words. Perhaps our discussion should go back to basics. Lets start with democracy, a system in which ultimate sovereignty resides in the hands of the entire community - each person entitled to an equal measure. A "pure" democracy (often called a "Jeffersonian Town Hall" democracy), in which every adult in the community has equal "sovereignty," only is practical in a community small enough for every adult (at least everybody who cares enough) to gather periodically in a single room to discuss issues relevant to the community. Anybody who desires is free to address the entire meeting, defining what s/he believes is a problem and what s/he believes is the best solution. The issue is freely debated and, if there is no consensus or clear majority, a vote can be taken. Democracy requires that all participants agree to a "social contract" (google it) that says that, barring a "tyranny of the majority," all members agree to abide by the outcome of the Town Hall decision. This is a workable utopian form of self-government as long as the community it governs is small enough for every sovereign citizen to participate on an equal footing. Next - how democracy is implemented in larger communities.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something