Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,209 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 1,508,395
Pageviews Today: 2,051,041Threads Today: 516Posts Today: 9,794
04:52 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Sheriff of Idaho's largest county sides with Feds

 
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 28636149
United States
01/29/2013 01:09 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sheriff of Idaho's largest county sides with Feds
No, the way I see it, and I'm no lawyer, the sheriff in question who's siding with the Feds is wrong.

The supremacy clause only hold specifically:
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

The states are only bound if the law is constitutional. If it isn't, then no matter if the Federal law is written, it's illegal, and hence doesn't have to be followed.
[link to constitution.org]
" The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it....."
 Quoting: Don'tBeAfraid


True enough, but the clause also states specifically that only Federal Judges can determine if a law is unconstitutional. If both the House and Senate pass a law, and the president signs it, it is law. Unless a Federal Judge and ultimately the Supreme Court rule otherwise. A Federal Judge can also issue an injunction preventing the law from being enforced until it is ultimately ruled upon.
Don'tBeAfraid

User ID: 32113282
United States
01/29/2013 01:11 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sheriff of Idaho's largest county sides with Feds
No, the way I see it, and I'm no lawyer, the sheriff in question who's siding with the Feds is wrong.

The supremacy clause only hold specifically:
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

The states are only bound if the law is constitutional. If it isn't, then no matter if the Federal law is written, it's illegal, and hence doesn't have to be followed.
[link to constitution.org]
" The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it....."
 Quoting: Don'tBeAfraid


True enough, but the clause also states specifically that only Federal Judges can determine if a law is unconstitutional. If both the House and Senate pass a law, and the president signs it, it is law. Unless a Federal Judge and ultimately the Supreme Court rule otherwise. A Federal Judge can also issue an injunction preventing the law from being enforced until it is ultimately ruled upon.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 28636149


You all see that it's coming to a crisis point, don't you?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 23203784
United States
01/29/2013 01:13 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sheriff of Idaho's largest county sides with Feds
No, the way I see it, and I'm no lawyer, the sheriff in question who's siding with the Feds is wrong.

The supremacy clause only hold specifically:
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

The states are only bound if the law is constitutional. If it isn't, then no matter if the Federal law is written, it's illegal, and hence doesn't have to be followed.
[link to constitution.org]
" The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it....."

The legal basis is state nullification:
[link to www.libertyclassroom.com]
"Says Who?

Says Thomas Jefferson, among other distinguished Americans. His draft of the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 first introduced the word “nullification” into American political life, and follow-up resolutions in 1799 employed Jefferson’s formulation that “nullification…is the rightful remedy” when the federal government reaches beyond its constitutional powers. In the Virginia Resolutions of 1798, James Madison said the states were “duty bound to resist” when the federal government violated the Constitution."

More about State Nullification here:
[link to tenthamendmentcenter.com]
 Quoting: Don'tBeAfraid


^^^THIS^^^

Troll has no clue what he's talking about.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 30981074
United States
01/29/2013 01:13 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sheriff of Idaho's largest county sides with Feds
Somebody should pin this, the sheriff is way out of line here....I'm not a resident of his county but close enough. Ada county is starting to ruin our good state, in many ways.
 Quoting: Sig Sauer


Out of line for telling the truth?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 14727741




No out of line for going AGAINST the constitution!

skull_fing
 Quoting: Sig Sauer


Are you claiming the supremacy clause doesn't exist?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 14727741


We're claiming the supremacy clause does NOT give any government, federal, state or local the right to violate our constitutional rights. The legislature may NOT pass laws that violate our constitutional rights.

This has nothing to do with the supremacy clause. This has everything to do with whether unconstitutional laws will be enforced by law enforcement.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 19004483
United States
01/29/2013 01:25 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sheriff of Idaho's largest county sides with Feds
Well, at least that sheriff is honest about why he is a traitor and will be a willing contributor to tyranny. Way to make a target out of yourself dipstick.

In keeping with that sheriff's line of thought, he should be booted out of office the next time he's up for election.
 Quoting: Resister


i rather like the fact they are so brazen and confident. takes guess work out of the equation for some.
Don'tBeAfraid

User ID: 32113282
United States
01/29/2013 01:34 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sheriff of Idaho's largest county sides with Feds
Here's the terrible quandry that a law enforcement officer has. In their minds, they cannot risk trying to interpret laws. They are law enforcers not lawyers not judges. MOST of them will follow the law unless LED to not follow illegal laws. That takes extreme courage!

I doubt most people have that much courage. In history, many soldiers followed orders and failed their people by doing illegal acts themselves.

This is why those who now chose to speak up are BRAVE SOULS. They are Heroes!

Last Edited by Don'tBeAfraid on 01/29/2013 01:35 PM
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 33222235
United States
01/29/2013 01:35 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sheriff of Idaho's largest county sides with Feds
Somebody should pin this, the sheriff is way out of line here....I'm not a resident of his county but close enough. Ada county is starting to ruin our good state, in many ways.
 Quoting: Sig Sauer


Out of line for telling the truth?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 14727741




No out of line for going AGAINST the constitution!

skull_fing
 Quoting: Sig Sauer


Are you claiming the supremacy clause doesn't exist?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 14727741


The Supremacy Clause also requires state legislatures to take into account policies adopted by the federal government. Two issues arise when State Action is in apparent conflict with federal law. The first is whether the congressional action falls within the powers granted to Congress. If Congress exceeded its authority, the congressional act is invalid and, despite the Supremacy Clause, has no priority over state action. The second issue is whether Congress intended its policy to supersede state policy. Congress often acts without intent to preempt state policy making or with an intent to preempt state policy on a limited set of issues. Congress may intend state and federal policies to coexist.

Any "LAW" that is passed, that interferes with the 2nd Amendment is null and void. The Constitution "trumps"(its own Supremacy clause), all Congressional laws passed after its inception.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1010412
United States
01/29/2013 02:25 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sheriff of Idaho's largest county sides with Feds
Somebody should pin this, the sheriff is way out of line here....I'm not a resident of his county but close enough. Ada county is starting to ruin our good state, in many ways.
 Quoting: Sig Sauer


Out of line for telling the truth?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 14727741




No out of line for going AGAINST the constitution!

skull_fing
 Quoting: Sig Sauer


Are you claiming the supremacy clause doesn't exist?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 14727741


The supremacy clause only applies to laws passed by Congress that are constitutional

Laws passed by Congress that are unconstitutional would not be covered in the supremacy clause

Most constitutional scholars interpret Article 6, Clause 2 (supremacy clause) to be different than what many pro-federal government people claim it means. The similarity to the 14th Amendment further justifies their skepticism in A6, C2's purpose.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 33162514
Canada
01/29/2013 02:31 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sheriff of Idaho's largest county sides with Feds
Somebody should pin this, the sheriff is way out of line here....I'm not a resident of his county but close enough. Ada county is starting to ruin our good state, in many ways.
 Quoting: Sig Sauer


Out of line for telling the truth?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 14727741


Telling the truth? I'm in Canada and I know more about the supremacy clause then this chucklefuck sheriff.

This sheriff is dumb fucking twat and doesn't deserve a badge!

The “supremacy clause” requires that every law in the land must comply with the Constitution, or it is invalid.

This includes international treaties. Thus both the UN Small Arms Treaty and the NY State “Assault Weapons Ban” are unconstitutional and therefore null, void, and without power or effect.

The pathetic, brainwashed, sheep outlook is the only construct which causes you to believe that “every federal law has supremacy”.

THE CONSTITUTION IS SUPREME – not the president, or anything else.

Someone in that Sheriff's county needs to tell him to wake the fuck up!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 33162514
Canada
01/29/2013 02:39 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sheriff of Idaho's largest county sides with Feds
Somebody should pin this, the sheriff is way out of line here....I'm not a resident of his county but close enough. Ada county is starting to ruin our good state, in many ways.
 Quoting: Sig Sauer


Out of line for telling the truth?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 14727741


Telling the truth? I'm in Canada and I know more about the supremacy clause then this chucklefuck sheriff.

This sheriff is dumb fucking twat and doesn't deserve a badge!

The “supremacy clause” requires that every law in the land must comply with the Constitution, or it is invalid.

This includes international treaties. Thus both the UN Small Arms Treaty and the NY State “Assault Weapons Ban” are unconstitutional and therefore null, void, and without power or effect.

The pathetic, brainwashed, sheep outlook is the only construct which causes you to believe that “every federal law has supremacy”.

THE CONSTITUTION IS SUPREME – not the president, or anything else.

Someone in that Sheriff's county needs to tell him to wake the fuck up!
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 33162514

Think I will go on over and post this comment on that article. Bet it don't make the cut.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 29138849
United States
01/29/2013 02:41 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sheriff of Idaho's largest county sides with Feds
Little faggot troll shills are out today. FUCK YOU, shithead gov shills. Your day is coming.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 17890370
United States
01/29/2013 02:49 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sheriff of Idaho's largest county sides with Feds
Little faggot troll shills are out today. FUCK YOU, shithead gov shills. Your day is coming.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29138849




clappa
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 31961261
United States
01/29/2013 02:51 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sheriff of Idaho's largest county sides with Feds
Sheriffy doesn't want to lose his federal tite money i guess?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 31027403
United States
01/29/2013 02:54 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sheriff of Idaho's largest county sides with Feds
I may be confused, but as far as I can tell they are not taking away our second amendment right, no where does it say we have the right to owning military grade assault rifles. Also, Bush had already passed a law banning assault rifles and it has lapsed, which is why they were once again available for sale. I live in Ada county, and I for one am glad the Sheriff isn't stupid enough to get caught up in all the fear mongering. We were without assault rifles for YEARS, nothing happened, except for maybe a few less mass shootings.
Nuatuan
User ID: 30486947
United States
01/29/2013 02:55 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sheriff of Idaho's largest county sides with Feds


Watch his other recent videos as well.
Don'tBeAfraid

User ID: 32113282
United States
01/29/2013 02:56 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sheriff of Idaho's largest county sides with Feds
I may be confused, but as far as I can tell they are not taking away our second amendment right, no where does it say we have the right to owning military grade assault rifles. Also, Bush had already passed a law banning assault rifles and it has lapsed, which is why they were once again available for sale. I live in Ada county, and I for one am glad the Sheriff isn't stupid enough to get caught up in all the fear mongering. We were without assault rifles for YEARS, nothing happened, except for maybe a few less mass shootings.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 31027403


you obviously don't understand the 2nd Amendment.
casseopeia

User ID: 20373817
United States
01/29/2013 02:57 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sheriff of Idaho's largest county sides with Feds
I have been asked many times in the past couple of weeks whether I will uphold my oath to defend the Constitution and proclaim an intolerance of federal action against the Second Amendment.

Many others have indulged that pressure and now we see Oregon sheriffs, Wyoming legislators and others making hollow promises to protect you from the intrusions of the federal government. Let me respectfully remind you that we are the federal government, the state government and the local government.

I did not swear to uphold just part of the Constitution. Our Constitution includes the right to keep and bear arms, but it also includes the “supremacy clause” that says that every state shall abide by the laws passed by our Congress.

Read more here: [link to www.idahostatesman.com]
 Quoting: Sig Sauer


Thank God I live in Bonneville county. Boise is becoming way too progressive/liberal.
"The government is like a baby's alimentary canal, with a happy appetite at one end, and no responsibility at the other." ~Ronald Reagan
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 858876
United States
01/29/2013 02:59 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sheriff of Idaho's largest county sides with Feds
Supremacy? Congress has not yet passed a gun law, but if and when they do, "supremacy" will not matter because the law will be unconstitutional and unconstitutional laws do not have to be obeyed!
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 33228148


^^^THIS^^^

(Unless they figure out an unconstitutional way around it)
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 33162514
Canada
01/29/2013 03:00 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sheriff of Idaho's largest county sides with Feds
I AMconfused
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 31027403


FIXED
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 858876
United States
01/29/2013 03:01 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sheriff of Idaho's largest county sides with Feds
I have been asked many times in the past couple of weeks whether I will uphold my oath to defend the Constitution and proclaim an intolerance of federal action against the Second Amendment.

Many others have indulged that pressure and now we see Oregon sheriffs, Wyoming legislators and others making hollow promises to protect you from the intrusions of the federal government. Let me respectfully remind you that we are the federal government, the state government and the local government.

I did not swear to uphold just part of the Constitution. Our Constitution includes the right to keep and bear arms, but it also includes the “supremacy clause” that says that every state shall abide by the laws passed by our Congress.

Read more here: [link to www.idahostatesman.com]
 Quoting: Sig Sauer


Thank God I live in Bonneville county. Boise is becoming way too progressive/liberal.
 Quoting: casseopeia


Salt Lake City, too.

Must be something about city life...
Sig Sauer (OP)

User ID: 18243411
United States
01/29/2013 03:01 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sheriff of Idaho's largest county sides with Feds
I may be confused, but as far as I can tell they are not taking away our second amendment right, no where does it say we have the right to owning military grade assault rifles. Also, Bush had already passed a law banning assault rifles and it has lapsed, which is why they were once again available for sale. I live in Ada county, and I for one am glad the Sheriff isn't stupid enough to get caught up in all the fear mongering. We were without assault rifles for YEARS, nothing happened, except for maybe a few less mass shootings.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 31027403




Yea, well hello there neighbor. I live in 2C, and would you mind defining "a military grade assault rifle" for me?

Lets start with that.
Don'tBeAfraid

User ID: 32113282
United States
01/29/2013 03:02 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sheriff of Idaho's largest county sides with Feds
If you read these, you will have a basis for understanding the vital role of the 2nd Amendment and see that no limits were the goal. NO LIMITATIONS. See just how much a militia might carry including swords, rifles, and cannon.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Who were the militia during the American Revolution?
Thread: Who were the militia during the American Revolution?

Biblical exegesis of Self-Defense:
Thread: What God's Word Says About Self Defense (Page 4)

What weapons were milita NOT RESTRICTED about:
Thread: What the Framers said about our Second Amendment Rights to Keep and Bear Arms

A freaking arsenal, and that's history.

Last Edited by Don'tBeAfraid on 01/29/2013 03:19 PM
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 430442
United States
01/29/2013 03:06 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sheriff of Idaho's largest county sides with Feds
It doesn’t matter if its federal or not, it will start a major rise in civil disobedience. that is all I can ask for.
Sig Sauer (OP)

User ID: 18243411
United States
01/29/2013 03:08 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sheriff of Idaho's largest county sides with Feds
Thank God I live in Bonneville county. Boise is becoming way too progressive/liberal.
 Quoting: casseopeia




Tell me about it, it's becoming a cesspool. I live in the county next door and Boise is no different than any city that has been ruined by the mental disorder called liberalism, it radiates out from the Universities.

As soon as the kids are out, we're flying north towards the middle of the state.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1306067
United States
01/29/2013 03:09 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sheriff of Idaho's largest county sides with Feds
Somebody should pin this, the sheriff is way out of line here....I'm not a resident of his county but close enough. Ada county is starting to ruin our good state, in many ways.
 Quoting: Sig Sauer


Out of line for telling the truth?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 14727741


No, out of line for having NO BALLS, sucking up to the fed tit, not upholding his sworn oath to the Constitution, and confusing the 'Supremacy Clause', as an over riding factor to the 2nd Amendment, which states "Shall NOT be infringed".

You are entitled to your opinion, but not to your own version of the facts.

SCOTUS has ruled on this, time and again
Don'tBeAfraid

User ID: 32113282
United States
01/29/2013 03:10 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sheriff of Idaho's largest county sides with Feds
What the militia carried:
Example: arms could definitely be both guns and swords and daggers. I'm completely serious. What would a militaman carry?
[link to ncpedia.org]
"A militia rifleman carried his rifle, knife, tomahawk—a light ax, water bottle, a powderhorn for his black powder, and a hunting pouch that held other shooting supplies. Sometimes a patch knife, used to cut a patch of cloth, and a loading block, which held patched bullets enabling the rifleman to load quicker, were attached to the strap of the hunting pouch. In addition, a charger measured the amount of powder to put into the rifle when loading."

Some carried muskets and rifles and all of that above and below.

Some carried spontoons. It's a pole arm, sometimes a pike or a halberd.
[link to www.nps.gov]

Milita had artillery like cannons, howitzers, and mortars.

The 2nd Amendment doesn't limit it whatsoever.

And these were not professional soldiers either, so any gun control folks, a milita has nothing to do with a real Army. They walked around carrying all of that. Can you imagine doing that now? Would there be any crime? I doubt it.

I think if any gun control folks read this, you'll see that a lot of your ideas about the militia are false. Some would argue, that we should limit the guns by allowing only what a militiaman would be able to shoot. Looking at the list above, you can the presence of all kinds of weapons, multiple ranged weapons, some of tremndous power, so that kind of limitation would be false and against the spirit of the 2nd Amendment.

Rather most gun owners don't try to carry anything close to what a militiaman would carry. They're law abiding pragmatic people who simply wish the government (federal, state, and local) not restrict them, but don't go around packing a ton of "arms".
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 33275870
United States
01/29/2013 03:13 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sheriff of Idaho's largest county sides with Feds
Dude is right, your thread history is atrocious! cruise
Don'tBeAfraid

User ID: 32113282
United States
01/29/2013 03:20 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sheriff of Idaho's largest county sides with Feds
Remember, the right to bear "arms" is not about carrying a musket. Arms are all of the things a militia could carry. We should be able to strap a sword at our side if we so wished it!

Last Edited by Don'tBeAfraid on 01/29/2013 03:21 PM
Green Shoots

User ID: 31759258
United States
01/29/2013 03:23 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sheriff of Idaho's largest county sides with Feds
.
... WOW! ... Idaho citizens ... maybe RUN for the boarders? ...
.
... "WE"??? ...
.
 Quoting: Wisconsin





No, this guy and all of the other's that think like him including a couple of trolls here are nothing compared to the law abiding gun owners....especially here in this state. We're all strapped!
 Quoting: Sig Sauer


Thread fail.

lmao

Still looking for that link, eh?

Nothing?

You don't know what you're talking about so you hide behind the other idiots in this thread who don't know what they're talking about?

Comedy gold I tell ya! loosa
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 14727741


Zazz is that you? Little communist prick
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 30075865
United States
01/29/2013 03:34 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Sheriff of Idaho's largest county sides with Feds
I have been asked many times in the past couple of weeks whether I will uphold my oath to defend the Constitution and proclaim an intolerance of federal action against the Second Amendment.

Many others have indulged that pressure and now we see Oregon sheriffs, Wyoming legislators and others making hollow promises to protect you from the intrusions of the federal government. Let me respectfully remind you that we are the federal government, the state government and the local government.

I did not swear to uphold just part of the Constitution. Our Constitution includes the right to keep and bear arms, but it also includes the “supremacy clause” that says that every state shall abide by the laws passed by our Congress.

Read more here: [link to www.idahostatesman.com]
 Quoting: Sig Sauer


If the county is pro Second Amendment, then I would say the Sheriff is serving his last term!

A new candidate needs to come forward!

News