'Constitutional sheriffs' movement promotes defiance of federal laws

[struggle4progress]

August 03, 2016

... “These men and women are being told by extremist leaders that they have the right to decide what laws they want to enforce and can keep federal law enforcement agents out of their counties. That is utterly untrue, the very opposite of constitutional, and it in fact encourages sheriffs and their deputies to defy the law of the land.”

The Intelligence Report interviewed dozens of sheriffs who appeared on a list, compiled by the CSPOA, of almost 500 sheriffs who purportedly had “vowed to uphold and defend the Constitution against Obama’s unconstitutional gun measures.” Overall, it appears the movement is successfully exploiting concerns about gun, environmental and land-use regulations to bring law enforcement officers into the fold ...

https://www.splcenter.org/news/2016/08/03/intelligence-report-constitutional-sheriffs-movement-spreads-promotes-defiance-federal-laws

[struggle4progress]

1. Line in the sand

Mark Potok and Ryan Lenz
June 13, 2016

In the minutes before he was killed as he apparently tried to draw a 9mm pistol on law enforcement officials attempting to arrest him at an Oregon roadblock early this year, antigovernment militant Robert “LaVoy” Finicum repeatedly shouted out to officers that he was on his way to meet with “the sheriff.”

And, indeed, Grant County Sheriff Glenn Palmer was in John Day, Ore., waiting for a town hall meeting 90 minutes later featuring principals of the then 24-day-old occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, including Finicum and occupation leader Ammon Bundy. Both Palmer and Bundy were expected to speak at the gathering that had been organized by occupation sympathizers.

But Palmer, whose county adjoins Harney County, where the occupation took place, had been told nothing of the Jan. 26 roadblock — for very good reasons.

He had already met twice with leaders of the occupation, and witnesses described how he had them autograph his pocket copy of the Constitution. He had referred to the occupiers as “patriots” and endorsed their demands for the release of two ranchers imprisoned for arson on public lands and the departure of the FBI. He boasted about his refusal to enforce laws that he believed were unconstitutional, and he was known for picking fights with land use officials. Unlike the sheriffs of the four other adjoining counties, he had sent no deputies to help out in Harney County. Glenn Palmer was not trusted in law enforcement circles ...

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2016/line-sand

[TeddyR]

2. State actors, including sheriffs, are not required to enforce federal law

Here's the best link I could find on the issue.

http://volokh.com/2013/05/07/a-constitutional-law-lesson-for-steve-benen/

[struggle4progress]

3. We very definitely have a system of divided government in the US -- but

that does not extend in any way to an authority of local officials to obstruct federal officials in their official acts

[TeddyR]

4. Agree 100%

A state agent cannot interfere with federal agents enforcing federal law.

[SCantiGOP]

5. The Supremacy Clause

Federal law overrules state law, and state law overrules local law. Very simple and every Sheriff knows that.
That is why the Governor of Alabama could stand in the doorway of a school and try to block black children from coming in - as Alabama State law required - but as soon as the federal troops showed up Gov Wallace moved out of the way.

[Nitram]

7. State officials are not allowed to enforce federal law, but they do have to obey it.

[Nitram]

6. All based on an ideosyncratic and distorted right wing reading of our Constitution.

Conservatives should just go ahead and publish their version of the constitution and start claiming that it is the original. It will leave out "well-trained militia" in the 2nd amendment and dispose of the 13th, 15th, 16th, 19th and 24th Amendments. It will revise the 1st Amendment to establish Christianity as a state religion.

[TeddyR]

8. But this isn't a "right wing" reading of the Constitution

For example, sanctuary cities are based on the same concepts -- federal authorities cannot force state/city agents to enforce federal immigration laws. I'm pretty sure that the notion that the feds cannot require states to enforce federal law has been around for a long time.

[Nitram]

9. There's a difference between 'enforcing' federal law and 'defying' federal law.

[TeddyR]

10. I completely agree

But a state agent isn't "defying" federal law by refusing to enforce it. So the Feds can no more force a state to run backgrounds checks than it can force a state to enforce immigration laws. If a sheriff tried to prevent the Feds from enforcing federal law that would be wrong.

[Nitram]

12. The OP says they can think they "can keep federal law enforcement agents out of their counties."

I'm afraid the Constitution doesn't agree.

[TeddyR]

14. And I agree with you there too

In fact, I think we are largely in agreement. I should clarify that I don't support the idea that states can "nullify" federal laws in the sense that they are no longer the law, I just think it is clear that state agents don't have to enforce federal laws. And the idea that a sheriff can ban federal law enforcement from a county or from enforcing federal law is a right-wing (probably far right-wing) pipe dream that is at odds with the Constitution.

On edit, so that it is clear, I was only making the point from the beginning that a state agent doesn't have to enforce certain federal laws (I confess to being unclear if they can decide not to enforce any federal law). I wasn't agreeing with any of the other nonsense that was being proposed.

[SwankyXomb]

11. This is the same thing as the souvenir citizen dipshittery

Except with badges.

[Nitram]

13. Souvenir citizens? Like, "I went to the Malheur Refuge and all I got was this stupid

set of manacles."

[SwankyXomb]

15. Exactly