.

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Historical documents and court cases confirm that the Sheriff is the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in the county and has no superior.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.

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
See more »