BIZARRE AND THREATENING LEGAL CONSTRUCTIONS OF GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY IN THE WEST AND SOUTH
BY LUCY M WARNER
OCTOBER 12, 2016


For a County Sheriff to be the highest authority, or even the only authority, is an idea as strange to me as it is unconstitutional. The Tea Party grows out of this very concept. The very irregular “legal authority” upon which groups like the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association*1, Sovereign Citizens, and various militia groups base their actions and views is the Posse Comitatus Act. That law was part of a compromise package enacted in order to pacify the Southern states after the Civil War, and bring more social order about, while at the same time allowing the federal troops to be withdrawn. This time period was also the source of the Jim Crow laws which, enforced by KKK activity, were enacted state by state as soon as the Northern troops were no longer forcibly requiring the inclusion of Blacks under the new system as full citizens rather than as slaves.

The scorched earth policy of the North under General Sherman is considered to be a large part of why the South today is such an embittered group of people, because the life there was essentially crushed and destroyed. As in our military policy today, the destruction of societies in order to achieve regime change tends to dismantle all social order, and radical groups emerge as a result. See the fairly detailed discussion of Posse Comitatus in Wikipedia below. The modern group called “Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association” is one such radical organization which is openly trying to attack the federal government and, above all, liberal thought, from higher education for all to civil rights.

“Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association” is part of a largely Southern and Western cultural mixture which have pooled energies, at least loosely, in order to restore the old States Rights and White Supremacy mantras of the South as federal law. Every hate group has its own cheering section or organizational tool on the Internet. CSPOA is based on, believe it or not, the view that the County is the highest legitimate governmental unit, and the County Sheriff, the highest legitimate official, a Common Law theory they say which is more ancient and valid than the Constitution.

There are other groups among this populist movement, and they are all frightening to those of us who have lived in peace and relative sanity, due to our protections under the Federal system that unites us. To allow a society this size to break up into such tiny units as a county, would be to initiate again a system of serfdom with Blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans undoubtedly clustered together on the bottom, if they were allowed to continue to exist at all. Hitler, after all, decided to eliminate Jews and other “inferior” groups entirely, and some among the outspoken White Supremacists are advocating the same outcome here today, happily looking forward to “the Race War.” The amount of sheer venom in such a thought is as despicable as it is dangerous.

That, after all was the nature of the social order under the control of large land owners in the South, whose fingers have reached upward in time to the modern times in one way or another. In the 1600s and 1700s it was considered normal, but it is not acceptable at all today except to this essentially insane minority of angry white people—not all men and not all old.

“Conservative” politicians are trying to limit the Black and Hispanic vote, so that White power will again reign supreme. This is indeed a new Civil War, in which the Tea Party has taken over virtual control of Congress and the Senate. We relatively comfortable, self-satisfied Democrats let that happen by “going with the flow,” rather than noticing where the tide was moving. We town dwelling Middle Class whites failed to see the health of our society as being our responsibility to control and improve – a task which takes constant attention and care. We continued going to our posh cocktail parties and bridge clubs. I hope it isn’t too late to change the situation, and that there will be no “race war” after all. I hope that Good will conquer Evil.

It is for reasons like this that I keep saying Democrats have given up the sacred fight for a fair governmental system. Big money interests, have been controlling the strings from the top level, and a menacing rabble has emerged from below, egged on by cynical and better educated Rightists. The Koch Brothers have been mentioned most frequently lately as being directly in league with populist “conservative” movements, including the growing Dominionist movement; but it’s really the overall effect of too much money in Federal and State elections and legislatures that has polluted the system. The organization called ALEC is a David Koch brainchild, a very creative and bold tool for initiating Ultraconservative legislation all over the country at the state government level by means of model laws. They are producing laws that limit the rights of women and minorities, union action, a good education for all, and much more.

So where are we as a country today? Fragmented in every way, compared to the 1950s and ‘60s of my youth, when we were much more united under the rule of law – federal law. In those days the Republicans didn’t give these hate filled people the kind of influence over their platforms as they have today, even though the party members were classist and racist even then. I fear that what we are witnessing today is actually a bloodless revolution, at least up to this time. Perhaps the severely and aggressive behavior of the police forces is a sign that the bloodier times are coming soon.

The emergence of a charismatic leader in the form of the semi-barbaric Donald Trump may have made the crucial difference, I’m afraid. Rightists of all stamps are popping up on the Internet as Trump actively encourages them, in their active opposition to BLM demonstrations, on the school boards, and more; their mass anger erupts more daily as a primitive form of political theory and philosophy rather than merely as mob violence. That makes it harder for a democratically constructed government to counter, but the time is probably coming when that must happen.

Can we Democrats and Progressives of all kinds marshal out forces well enough to stop this sooner rather than too late? I certainly intend to try. I do have hope that the good people will get off their couches and go vote him down, even if it means voting for the almost equally unpopular Hillary Clinton. Some of her lack of popularity isn’t because she’s “bad,” but because she is an outspoken feminist and a generally free thinker. She, like Trump, does at least sometimes, pop off in anger, which she then regrets and has to apologize or explain her way out of it. That isn’t popular on the Right. Such people are hard to control, after all.

For an interesting comparison to our time today, I would suggest that you read and accurately portrayed, slice of life novel of the 1950s called “Peyton Place,” by Grace Metalious; her life and work are given in the following biographical and critical web article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Metalious. That story portrays black/white, feminist, rich and poor in a small New England town. It was often considered at the time as a “dirty” novel because of the sexual content. I admit I picked it up partly for that reason because I was curious; but, on the verge of womanhood as I was, I found it genuinely illuminating emotionally. The characters were well delineated, and the story very realistic and moving.

Partly because I was young then, and partly because those were peaceful times, mainly, I was largely happy. The people I knew in that period believed in the righteous authority of the federal government for the most part, possibly because we had recently been in WWII and the Korean War and our bulwark of patriotism was still highly aroused, causing us to stress the whole over the parts. Unfortunately, that wisdom has proven temporary.

As our country became more prosperous in the next three decades, and a greater mood of individualism allowed us to move toward taking more separate positions on issues; the left and the right groups of thought diverged more strongly from the whole. By the 1960s the racial issues began to be prominent in the news; and the various free thought groups such as the Beats and Hippies did so as well, bringing new conflict. Protest marches and police attempts at outright suppression became street warfare. Martin Luther King was assassinated and cities all over the country erupted in extreme and frightening violence. The rural parts of the nation objected strongly to those “sinful” free thought influences, while cities became ever more liberal as they swelled in population.

The South has always been dominated by rural life and greater conservatism, while the North produced large cities with heavy industry as the main source of income, large numbers of differing ethnic influences, and a higher level of education in the population as a whole. That has not only changed the cultural views in most cities, but added to the difference in wealth between city and country people, which produces a sense of having gotten the short straw in life, leading to group anger. The South produces more militia groups, etc., mainly because they feel cheated. Anger tends to produce scapegoating in both racial and religious communities.

Religion even in small towns in the ‘50s and ‘60s, was viewed as a more private matter, rather than any group literally taking over the local to state governments and social culture as some groups of Evangelical Christians are trying to do today. It’s not the first time it has occurred. The Puritans in the 1600s and the Mormons in the 1800s have done the same thing. In my youth and young adulthood, the strong separation between church and state was the shared common belief. In the Northern cities, the mainstreaming of all groups was more profound; Catholics, Jews and Protestants lived in nearby but separate neighborhoods, with some conflicts, but it was not the very warlike turn of mind which is emerging culturally and politically today.

The term “culture wars” is sad, but it’s a perfect description of our situation. Religion in the ‘50s was not yet a part of the radical right. It was a kinder and gentler religious climate, more like Jesus would approve, I believe. It was more a matter of Christians keeping their antisemitism and hatred of other sects to themselves if they felt it. I personally am a believer in some “political correctness.” Catholics tended to be Irish, Italian or Hispanic, Greeks and Islamic people also came to New York and other such havens, and Protestants were Scots Irish or German. There is even, in nearly all older cities, a “Chinatown,” in which most of the Chinese population lived. Our nation then was mainly secular, whereas now one of the most Rightward trending groups in our country is that of the Evangelical Protestants, many of whom are calling out against the separation of church and state that I grew up believing in firmly as one of the most crucial bedrocks of American life and government.

I am fascinated but horrified with this growing possibility of the US Constitution and legal system becoming one of mandated religious views or the walking backward of our progress in racial and cultural matters in general. I am worried, but not without hope, as the Constitution itself is a strong structure as long as we have the Supreme Court to enforce it and a population of citizens to support laws that are fair and just. This is one of the place that I fear we are dangerously weak now. Many of our poor white groups are hostile to the very things that I value most.

Of course that’s what these wild eyed Westerners hate most. A mass fear of “the gummint” is one of their primary group mythologies, along with hatred of “the Other,” Black Helicopters and other wilder stories. Those people are literally antigovernment in their views, and that simply cannot prevail. Still, I am not secure in the belief that we will not end up with a sort of warfare in the streets of our cities over these issues or certain parts of the country literally declaring themselves as a separate nation. That’s why I keep writing these defenses of Progressive thought and respectful human interactions. I believe we have to fight the diminishing of our democratic structure. Let’s all go read Emerson again and do some civil disobedience. Let’s build the Green Party and Sanders’ new OurRevolution group. In the meantime, go down to the polls and vote for Clinton.

See the following articles on this movement toward darkness which is occurring in our country.




http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/feds-pursue-contempt-charges-against-sheriff-joe-arpaio-n664666?cid=eml_nnn_20161011

NEWS OCT 11 2016, 6:15 PM ET
Feds to Pursue Contempt Charges Against Sheriff Joe Arpaio
by THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Video -- Feds Will Pursue Contempt Charges Against Arizona Sheriff For Immigration Patrols 1:16
Photograph -- Protesters display an effigy of Maricopa Country Sheriff Joe Arpaio wearing prison clothes in front of U.S. District Court as prosecutors announce they will charge Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio with criminal contempt-of-court Tuesday, Oct. 11, in Phoenix. Ross D. Franklin / AP


PHOENIX — Prosecutors said Tuesday they will charge Sheriff Joe Arpaio with criminal contempt-of-court for defying a judge's orders to end his signature immigration patrols in Arizona, exposing the 84-year-old lawman to the possibility of jail time and clouding his political future as he seeks a seventh term.

The announcement in federal court sets in motion criminal proceedings against the sheriff less than a month before Election Day and comes as he has taken on a prominent role on the national political stage in 2016, appearing alongside Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump on several occasions.

Arpaio has acknowledged violating the order to stop the immigration patrols but insists his disobedience wasn't intentional.

U.S. District Judge Murray Snow previously recommended criminal contempt charges against Arpaio but left it up to federal prosecutors to actually bring the case.

Arpaio
In this Jan. 9, 2013, file photo, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio speaks to reporters in Phoenix, Ariz. AP

Prosecutor John Keller said in court that the government will bring a misdemeanor contempt charge, with the next step being a court filing, possibly in the next day, that's akin to a criminal complaint.

Arpaio could face up to six months in jail if convicted of misdemeanor contempt.

Arpaio lawyer Mel McDonald said the sheriff will not be arrested and no mugshot will be taken. He will plead not guilty by court filing and hopes to prevail before a jury. Arpaio did not attend Tuesday's court hearing.

"We believe the sheriff, being an elected official, should be judged by his peers," McDonald said.

Authorities were still considering a possible obstruction of justice charge against Arpaio that could result in more severe punishments, including losing his job.

The contempt case also focused on Arpaio's actions in carrying out what critics said was a secret investigation of Judge Snow in the case. Snow demanded Arpaio and the aide turn over 50 hard drives that were part of the probe, but they ignored the order.

Keller said the Justice Department cannot prosecute those allegations within the criminal contempt case because the one-year statute of limitations had run its course. But federal authorities will investigate the allegation as a possible obstruction of justice charge, Keller said.

Obstruction of justice is a felony that carries a punishment of 15 months to 37 months in prison and would bar Arpaio from office if he is convicted. Prosecutors did not give a timetable on when they would decide whether to bring an obstruction charge.

Prosecutors are also considering a possible obstruction charge against two Arpaio aides and a former attorney suspected of concealing nearly 1,500 IDs in an investigation into whether officers pocketed items during traffic stops.

The criminal contempt charge involving the immigration patrols will mark yet another defeat for the sheriff who became a national political figure over the past decade by aggressively carrying out immigration patrols and attention-getting endeavors. Among other things, he made prisoners wear pink underwear, put them on chain gangs and confined them in tents in stifling desert heat.

Following complaints by Latino drivers about racial profiling, a judge demanded that Arpaio stop the enforcement efforts. He was later found to have violated the order for 17 months, causing it to turn into a contempt of court case.

County taxpayers have shelled out $48 million so far in the profiling case, and the costs are expected to reach $72 million by next summer. The expenses and Arpaio's legal woes have become a centerpiece of his Democratic opponent's campaign, but they have not stopped Arpaio from amassing $12 million in campaign cash, most of it coming from out-of-state donors.

"No one is above the law, and today's announcement in court epitomizes the strength of the judicial system," Democratic opponent Paul Penzone said.




http://www.hcn.org/issues/48.2/the-rise-of-the-sagebrush-sheriffs

SAGEBRUSH REBELLION
The rise of the Sagebrush Sheriffs
How rural ‘constitutional’ peace officers are joining the war against the feds.

Jonathan Thompson
Image credit: Brooke Warren/High Country News
Feb. 2, 2016 From the print edition

n the morning of May 10, 2014, San Juan County Sheriff Rick Eldredge waited on horseback in the sagebrush of Recapture Canyon in southeastern Utah. In his faded jeans, boots and white cowboy hat, he looked as if he were out for a casual ride in the cool spring air. But what appeared to be a bulletproof vest underneath his shirt and the 30-odd deputies scattered amid the canyon’s scrub oak and sandstone hinted at a different story.

Eldredge and his deputies were braced for a mass act of motorized civil disobedience. Frustrated by “unconscionable acts by the Bureau of Land Management,” including the 2007 closure to motorized vehicles of the trail down Recapture Canyon, San Juan County Commissioner Phil Lyman and 40 to 50 followers were driving their ATVs toward the closed section of the canyon. They were there to defy federal regulations to protest what they consider the BLM’s heavy-handed management of the public lands that comprise so much of their county.

In promoting the ride, Lyman, soft-spoken with a boyish face and salt-and-pepper hair, invoked one of America’s favorite civil disobeyers, Henry David Thoreau. Thoreau, however, seemed an unlikely role model: Several of the protesters carried firearms, including a clean-cut guy with a “Regulator” neck tattoo and a semi-automatic Glock on his hip. A young man wearing an “American Venom” T-shirt had an assault rifle in one hand, his finger never leaving the trigger, while he piloted his four-wheeler with the other. Others carried signs: “Tranfer (sic) Federal Lands to Western States” and “Stop BLM Agenda 21 Road Closings.” Ryan Bundy, the son of scofflaw rancher Cliven Bundy, rode a four-wheeler down the canyon, as did a handful of self-professed militiamen who, just weeks earlier, had supported Bundy in his heavily armed standoff with BLM [Bureau of Land Management] agents in Clark County, Nevada.

As the roar of the ATVs echoed up the canyon, Eldredge and his men stood ready. With a herd of determined lawbreakers heading toward them, another standoff seemed imminent. But as the caravan of protesters rode past the closure line, kicking up a billow of exhaust and red dust, the deputies did nothing, and Eldredge merely nodded a stoic greeting from atop his steed. That’s because he wasn’t actually there to police the protest, but to “keep the peace.” For the protesters, at least, that meant he was there to protect them from the plainclothes BLM officers roaming the canyon and collecting evidence — officers that Eldredge kicked out of the canyon before the ride was finished.

“There’s a big difference (between the Bundys and me),” Lyman told reporters prior to the ride. “I’ve got a sheriff standing next to me.”

Colorado sheriffs flank Weld County, Colorado, Sheriff John Cooke in 2013 as he announces that 54 Colorado sheriffs had filed a federal lawsuit challenging two gun control bills passed by the Colorado Legislature.
Brennan Linsley/AP

The Recapture ride was just another skirmish in the Sagebrush Rebellion, an anti-federal land-management movement with roots here in San Juan County. The first uprising, led in part by then-County Commissioner Calvin Black in the 1970s, was a reaction to what some saw as the federal occupation of the West by way of new environmental laws that impacted federal lands. It was also part of a region-wide effort to transfer federal lands in the West to the states.

The second iteration unfolded in the mid-1990s, provoked by former President Bill Clinton’s conservationist approach to federal land. While that rebellion became violent and coincided with a nationwide surge in anti-federal extremism, the land-use folks rarely crossed paths with the so-called “Patriot” groups. Today, though, the barriers are down. Now, a single event like Recapture, the 2014 Bundy Ranch standoff or the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge occupation, broadcast globally and instantly via social media, draws supporters from across the extreme right, from other Sagebrush Rebels to pro-gun militiamen to local politicians who have no qualms about standing cheek-by-jowl with people aiming rifles at federal agents.

Among those officials are a growing cadre of county sheriffs, many of them from the rural West, who believe themselves above the reach of federal government, constitutionally empowered as the supreme law of the land. Some have chosen to become part of this movement, while others have joined unwittingly, by taking strong political stances or acting on the behalf of local anti-government movements. Eldredge, who refused to be interviewed for this story, openly allied himself with Lyman and company. These self-proclaimed “constitutional sheriffs” use their assumed position as the ultimate law enforcement authority to fight environmental regulation, run federal officials out of their counties, and, in some cases, break the law themselves.

Richard Mack as Graham County, Arizona, sheriff in 1994, sued the federal government over the background check provision of the Brady Act. Today, Mack (shown here at a 2010 anti-gun control rally in Washington, D.C.) pushes for local control and tries to get candidates with “constitutional” leanings elected.

Jim West/Alamy

The constitutional sheriffs’ seminal moment was in 1994, when Richard Mack, then-sheriff of Graham County, Arizona, and a handful of other sheriffs sued the federal government over a provision in the 1993 Brady Act that required local law enforcement to handle background checks on gun sales. In 1997, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 for the sheriffs, deeming it unconstitutional for the feds to force the state or its officers to execute the regulation.

Mack’s defiance made him a folk hero to the then-burgeoning Patriot movement, which is centered around the belief that the federal government is taking away individual liberties. Mack became a speaker at Patriot gatherings, railing at Clinton and his attorney general, Janet Reno. In 1996, Mack lost his bid for re-election, but he still spoke for libertarian causes, and he co-wrote a book with Randy Weaver, the man at the center of the 1992 Ruby Ridge shootout with federal agents, the event that catalyzed the militia movement.

But it was Mack’s “complete discouragement and feelings of hopelessness” at the 2008 election of Barack Obama that propelled him back into the political spotlight. In reaction, Mack wrote a 50-page screed denouncing the federal government and its intrusion into individual and state rights. The County Sheriff: America’s Last Hope, published in 2009, argues that the sheriff is the ultimate law enforcement authority and thus the “last line of defense” shielding individual liberties from out-of-control federal bureaucrats. The manifesto cemented his cause and made him one of the prime movers of the ad hoc reactionary movement that would come to be known as the Tea Party.

With his clear blue eyes, sweeping black hair and easy smile, Mack looks like central casting’s idea of the perfect sheriff. He shared his philosophy at dozens of Tea Party rallies as well as gatherings of the Oath Keepers, a quasi-militia organization founded in 2009. Had there been a true constitutional sheriff in Montgomery, Alabama, back in 1955, Mack told his audiences, that sheriff would have defied the segregation laws and protected Rosa Parks. “Today, that constitutional sheriff does the same for Rosa Parks the gun owner,” Mack says, “or Rosa Parks the rancher, or Rosa Parks the landowner, or Rosa Parks the homeschooler, or Rosa Parks the tax protester.”

By refusing to enforce federal and state laws that they deem unconstitutional, whether they involve BLM road closures, gun control, drug laws or bans against selling unpasteurized milk, Mack says sheriffs can lead the fight to rescue America from the “cesspool of corruption” that Washington, D.C., has become. If need be, he says, sheriffs even have the power to prevent federal and state agents from enforcing those laws, thereby nullifying federal authority. If a particular sheriff doesn’t rally to the cause, then the voters should kick him out of office. And Mack and his organization have been quietly fielding opposition candidates in many counties. In fact, he is one of the forces behind the Constitutional County Project, which aims, this year, to elect a whole slate of “constitutional” candidates to office in Navajo County, Arizona, in what amounts to a nonviolent coup d’état. “There is no solution in Washington, D.C.,” Mack told me. “If we’re going to take America back it’s going to be at the local level.”

Some Western sheriffs didn’t need Mack’s encouragement. Back in 2000, Eldredge’s predecessor, Mike Lacy, forcibly opened a road in Utah’s Canyonlands that the National Park Service had closed to protect cultural resources. A few years later, his Kane County counterpart, Sheriff Lamont Smith, went on a countywide escapade, removing more than two dozen BLM signs that indicated road closures and other restrictions on motorized travel. Mack’s movement gave these lone-wolf sheriffs a collective sense of empowerment and a rallying point.

By 2011, when Mack formally created the Constitutional Sheriffs and Police Officers Association, or CSPOA, his creed was already infiltrating Western sheriffs’ offices. That year, Josephine County, Oregon, Sheriff Gil Gilbertson started making headlines for defying (and allegedly harassing) federal land managers. Montezuma County, Colorado, Sheriff Dennis Spruell appeared on the right-wing radio show, The Political Cesspool, where he threatened to arrest federal officials who closed roads, citing his duty to defend his county “against enemies, foreign and domestic,” part of an oath undertaken by members of the U.S. armed services and now a favorite catchphrase of constitutional sheriffs.

Then-Montezuma County, Colorado, Sheriff Dennis Spruell, left, sits with constitutionalists Bob Sanders and Mike Gaddy in 2011. The sheriff had threatened to arrest any Forest Service workers he deemed to be breaking laws by closing certain roads. Spruell lost his bid for re-election in 2014.
Helen H. Richardson/The Denver Post via Getty Images

In October 2011, seven sheriffs from Northern California and one from southern Oregon gathered for an event in Yreka, California, called “Sheriffs Stand TALL for the Constitution.” If any of the predominantly white, older audience believed that sheriffs are, or ought to be, apolitical, objective enforcers of the law, they were quickly disabused of the notion. One sheriff after another stood up and spoke proudly about his involvement in the Tea Party and the “assault being perpetrated against our community by our own government” by way of travel management plans and dam removals. Tellingly, Karen Budd-Falen, a Wyoming-based property rights attorney who is well-known for representing Sagebrush Rebels against the federal government, was also on the panel.

“We’re challenging the status quo, and we are challenging some federal and state agencies and some special interest groups who are using money, influence, politics, regulations and lies to literally destroy rural America and our way of life,” the event’s host, Siskiyou County Sheriff Jon Lopey, said, summing up the sentiments of his colleagues. “Some of your federal and state agencies care more about fish, frogs, trees and birds than (they) do about the human race. And one more thing: We’re broke. Why don’t you let the people work?” His message was clear: Environmental regulations wreck the economy, and a bad economy leads to crime, so the interests of sheriffs everywhere are best served by fighting environmental regulations.

Four months later, in January 2012, the CSPOA held its first gathering in Las Vegas, followed by a second event that September. By then, Obama was on his way to being re-elected and Tea Partiers had triumphed in a number of Republican primaries. Mack’s attendance rosters read like a Who’s Who of Tea Party politics. They included Oath Keepers’ founder Stewart Rhodes and Sagebrush Sheriffs such as Spruell and Lopey. Also speaking was Tom DeWeese, president of the American Policy Center, known for spreading fears that the United Nations, under Agenda 21, is taking over the world via bike paths and public transit, and Joe Arpaio, the notorious sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, whom Mack praised for launching an investigation into the validity of Obama’s birth certificate. Ken Ivory, president of the American Lands Council and champion of the federal land-transfer movement, gave a rousing speech at the September gathering about the “revolution of ideologies” he and the sheriffs were engaged in.

The larger movement really gelled, though, after the December 2012 shooting massacre of 20 children and six adults in Newtown, Connecticut, when it seemed as if Congress might pass modest gun control measures. Hundreds of the 3,000-odd county sheriffs nationwide revolted against the specter of such regulations, vowing not to enforce any new gun laws and to prevent federal officials from doing so. The West led the charge, with a majority of the region’s 300 rural sheriffs, Republicans and Democrats alike, signing on to oppose new state or federal gun laws. Sheriffs who did not join the charge were added to a list of “red coats” on the CSPOA website, and risked the wrath of their gun-loving constituents.

Mack told me he is especially proud of the letter to Obama from 28 of Utah’s 29 county sheriffs, Eldredge included, which read, in part: “No federal official will be permitted to descend upon our constituents and take from them what the Bill of Rights — in particular Amendment II — has given them. We, like you, swore a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and we are prepared to trade our lives for the preservation of its traditional interpretation.”

Then-Josephine County, Oregon, Sheriff Gil Gilbertson, who questioned the federal government’s authority on federal land, lost his bid for re-election in 2014.
Bob Pennell/Mail Tribune via AP

Mack’s organization is not unique in believing in sheriff supremacy. The notion was critical to the ideology of the ultraconservative John Birch Society, founded in 1958, as well as the racist, anti-tax Posse Comitatus group of the 1970s. Now, organizations like the Oath Keepers have embraced it as well. The idea acts as a kind of glue that binds many of these libertarian and right-wing movements together; Sagebrush Rebels, Second Amendment advocates, county- and states’-rights groups and border security activists have increasingly looked to sheriffs to use their clout on their behalf.

This power, says Mack, derives mostly from the fact that the sheriff is the only elected law enforcement official, elevating him above his bureaucratic counterparts. Added to that is the 1997 Supreme Court decision on the Brady Bill’s proposed background checks. The majority opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, is in Mack’s favor: “The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.” That interpretation could be used to justify Eldredge’s refusal to stop the illegal Recapture Canyon ride, as well as the sheriffs who threaten to ignore federal gun laws.

Yet the court decision does not empower those sheriffs to stop or impede federal officers from enforcing federal laws or regulations. Nor does it require federal officers to get the local sheriff’s permission before doing their jobs. Mack’s rhetoric, says Casey LaFrance, an associate professor of political science at Western Illinois University and author of Targeting Discretion, a police-training manual, is driven more by historical context than legal precedent. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, for example, prohibited the U.S. military from enforcing laws or invoking “posse comitatus” — that is, enlisting citizens to fight crime or repel outside invaders, a right sheriffs possessed in colonial America. According to some, this puts sheriffs at the top of the law enforcement food chain.

State legislatures, including those in Montana, Arizona and Washington, have tried to pass legislation giving sheriffs more power, usually by undercutting federal law enforcement. They’re rarely successful, but in 2013, Eldredge attended the Utah Legislature’s session to help Rep. Mike Noel, a well-known Sagebrush Rebel from Kane County, introduce a bill to limit the ability of federal officials to enforce state and local laws on public lands in the state. The “sheriff’s bill” passed, but was later repealed after the courts stopped it from taking effect.

Which isn’t to say sheriffs aren’t already extremely powerful, says LaFrance. As elected officials, sheriffs are accountable only to the voters. County commissioners have no control over them and can’t remove a sheriff, even if he or she is convicted of a crime. Though commissioners typically control the budget, they are usually prohibited from cutting off the sheriff altogether. In most states, only the governor can remove a sheriff from office, and that is only in cases of extreme malfeasance.

It’s often tough even for the voters to boot a sitting sheriff. In rural counties, among the only people qualified to replace a sheriff are the deputies, who risk losing their job by taking on their boss. “Honestly, the sheriff is rarely challenged,” says LaFrance; in fact, the average sheriff’s term is about 24 years. This apparent invulnerability makes some sheriffs feel free of the necessity of enforcing laws to which they are ideologically opposed, and that, say critics, can have dangerous consequences.

“When law enforcement refuses to enforce the laws, it sends a dangerous signal to extremists,” says Jessica Goad of the Center for Western Priorities. “It serves to embolden those who tend towards violence. This rhetoric and stance has an extremely chilling effect on the people who are doing their jobs — from park rangers to environmental activists. The thought that the sheriff doesn’t enforce the law is scary.”

It goes even further. U.S. Attorney S. Amanda Marshall chastised then-Josephine County Sheriff Gilbertson after he riled up a meeting of miners in 2012 and even promised to arrest federal law enforcement officers for “impersonating” police. “You do the miners a disservice by promoting, under color of the office of Josephine County Sheriff, a clearly erroneous interpretation of federal law,” she wrote him in a letter. “As a result, miners are becoming increasingly confrontational with federal officers. … Your continued misguided crusade will only increase the safety risks to our federal officers and members of the public.”

Rose Chilcoat, executive director of Great Old Broads for Wilderness, the longtime bête noir of Lyman and other San Juan County conservatives, says when elected officials side with lawbreakers, “it hugely undermines a civil society. It makes it that much harder for the feds to make a case. They can say: ‘Yeah, I rode my ATV on that closed trail because the sheriff said it’s OK.’” The feds made a strong case against Lyman, however, and ultimately succeeded in getting him convicted of two federal misdemeanors for organizing and participating in the ride. Lyman was sentenced to 10 days in jail, and he and a collaborator were ordered to pay $96,000 in restitution for damage done. (He is appealing the verdict.)

Sheriffs have used their authority to weigh in on all manner of issues. Mack was a leading figure at the Bundy Ranch standoff in 2014, excoriating the local sheriff for not running the BLM out of there, and last year, he urged constitutional sheriffs to refuse to enforce the Supreme Court’s decision to permit gay marriage. In Idaho, Bonner County Sheriff Daryl Wheeler wrote to the state’s governor, Butch Otter, exhorting him not to resettle Syrian refugees. Mack was on hand in Burns, Oregon, in early January to demonstrate in support of ranchers Dwight and Steven Hammond, who were sentenced to five years in prison for arson on federal land. Even though he is close to the Bundys, however, Mack questioned their subsequent occupation of the nearby wildlife refuge. While the local Harney County Sheriff, David Ward, has taken a strong stance against the occupation, Sheriff Glenn Palmer, from Grant County, Oregon expressed limited support for Bundy and friends, saying the federal government should give in to some of their demands. Palmer was the 2011 CSPOA Sheriff of the Year, and made his name by pushing back against federal land agency travel-management plans.

Mack says the CSPOA has about 4,500 dues-paying members, some 200 of whom are sheriffs, and he says his group has “trained” (taught their principles to) hundreds more. But the tentacles of the constitutional sheriff philosophy clearly reach far beyond the group’s membership rolls. Shortly after the Recapture ride, the conservative media outlet Breitbart Texas interviewed Eldredge, who in 2010 had run as a Democrat against then-incumbent Mike Lacy, promising to open more doors to federal agencies. Four years later, he was a Republican, running on a record of standing against federal overreach. In the interview, the sheriff blamed environmental regulations for transforming San Juan County from one of the richest counties to one of the poorest in the state, and he said he’d love to see federal land transferred to the state. When asked if he considered himself a constitutional sheriff, Eldredge replied, “I do.

“I thought every sheriff was supposed to be a constitutional sheriff,” he added. “That’s our job.


Senior editor Jonathan Thompson writes from Durango, Colorado. @jonnypeace




http://www.denverpost.com/2012/02/11/emerging-movement-encourages-sheriffs-to-act-as-shield-against-federal-tyranny/

Emerging movement encourages sheriffs to act as shield against federal tyranny
By Nancy Lofholm

PUBLISHED: February 11, 2012 at 1:22 pm | UPDATED: June 9, 2016 at 11:15 am

The 100 or so sheriffs gathered in a Las Vegas hotel ballroom two weeks ago learned that some weighty titles have been attached to the stars they wear on their chests.

“Ultimate enforcers of the Constitution.” “Protectors against government tyranny.” “America’s last hope.” “Brave oath keepers.”

And the sheriffs, including eight from Colorado, learned that they need to protect their citizenry from much more than local lawbreakers. In today’s world, public enemy No. 1 just might be the federal government — or the “out-of-control federal bureaucracy,” as organizers of the convention like to refer to it.

The person who will “stand tall against federal tyranny,” even if it means armed resistance, according to organizers, is the county sheriff.

The Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association’s inaugural convention was designed to be the national coming-out for this idea and the start of an educational movement that its founder hopes will sweep the country. Its sponsors included the John Birch Society, the Gun Owners of America and the Front Sight Firearms Training Institute. Advertisers included survivalist businesses, anti-IRS proponents, purveyors of gold-buying secrets and one company that sells a guide, “How to Turn Your Home into a Fortress.”

“We have a large group of people in my county who agree with these principles,” said Weld County Sheriff John Cook, explaining why he attended the conference. “I agree with a lot of it. But I don’t advocate, obviously, violence against other law enforcement offices.”

The conference was organized by former Graham County, Ariz., Sheriff Richard Mack. Mack gained fame in the 1990s and became a Tea Party darling when he and six other sheriffs challenged the constitutionality of the gun-control measure commonly known as the Brady Bill. In a case that went to the Supreme Court, Mack’s attorneys successfully argued that local law enforcement jurisdictions can’t be compelled to carry out federally mandated background checks. It was seen as a huge victory for the sovereignty of local jurisdictions.

Three years ago, Mack wrote a book, “The County Sheriff: America’s Last Hope.” In it, he asserted that sheriffs have the supreme law enforcement power in their counties under the Constitution and the 10th Amendment. Much of what federal agents are doing in counties is unconstitutional, he wrote. Federal agents have no authority beyond policing treason, piracy, treaty violations and counterfeiting.

Thus, the scofflaws that sheriffs might encounter today — and who should be run out of town by a SWAT team, if that’s what it takes — include agents for the U.S. Forest Service; the Bureau of Land Management; the IRS; the FBI; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; the Environmental Protection Agency; and even the Food and Drug Administration.

Online Constitutional Sheriffs materials state, “The sheriff’s position overrides any federal agents or even the arrogant FBI agents who attempt to assume jurisdiction in our cases.”

Colorado had the largest representation at this convention, along with California and Utah.

“I think sheriffs went because they just wanted to be informed about what is expected of a sheriff,” said Montezuma County Sheriff Dennis Spruell. “I know I want to make sure the federal government does what it’s supposed to do and doesn’t encroach on the rights of my citizens.

“As for that making us radicals, I don’t see that.”

Some Colorado sheriffs, like Spruell, said they went because they believe in much of what the Constitutional Sheriffs group espouses. They stressed that, at the same time, they have mostly good working relations with law enforcement officers from federal agencies that operate in their counties.

“I have good cooperation with federal agents. I have no problems with them,” said Montrose County Sheriff Rick Dunlap. “The feds always contact me when they are doing something in my county.”

Some sheriffs were simply curious about Mack’s teachings and hoped to learn something about the group. Others said they felt they should go because they have a lot of conservative, right-wing constituents who believe in what was taught in Las Vegas.

In some cases, those constituents donated the money to send their sheriffs. Some pestered the sheriffs about going — something that doesn’t happen when the meeting is, say, a mainstream gathering of the County Sheriffs of Colorado.

“It was odd. Two people came to the window out front to ask if I was going,” Weld County’s Cook said.

Mesa County Sheriff Stan Hilkey was one sheriff who didn’t receive an invitation to the convention and was a little uncomfortable with the idea of constituents raising money to send sheriffs to it. He also was unhappy with the impression some sheriffs had that if they didn’t go, their conservative voters would try to oust them in the next election.

“I have a lot of respect for the Constitution and for its framework of keeping our people safe,” he said. “But sheriffs should not be strong-armed into going to something like this.”

Chris Olson, executive director of the County Sheriffs of Colorado, said of the convention: “We didn’t endorse it or authorize it. It was an individual sheriff’s decision.”

Mack, who still refers to himself as “Sheriff Mack” and is currently running as a Republican for a congressional seat in Texas, said his organization didn’t pressure any sheriffs. In a phone interview, he also said that his movement may come across sounding bellicose, but he is really promoting peace.

“The potential for violence is always there. But I pray it won’t come to that. We don’t want that,” Mack said.

Some of the speakers at the convention did tell of confrontations that involved the threat of officers for different agencies trying to arrest each other. The use of force was not ruled out.

Elkhart County, Ind., Sheriff Brad Rogers told of chasing federal regulators out of his county after they repeatedly did inspections at an Amish dairy farm that was selling raw milk. He threatened to arrest the regulators if they tried to come back.

Sheriff Tony DeMeo of Nye County, Nev., recounted how he had to threaten to bring out his SWAT team to go up against a federal government SWAT team when federal agents were seizing cattle from a local rancher.

Sheriff Dave Mattis of Big Horn County, Wyo., told the conference about the edict he has issued in his county. Federal agents are forbidden to enter his territory without his approval.

El Paso County Commissioner Peggy Littleton, who attended with El Paso County Sheriff Terry Maketa, gave a presentation that took another tack. She told how her county recently passed a resolution to nullify the National Defense Authorization Act. She urged other counties to do the same.

Fear that this act gives the federal government the power to arrest and detain citizens without filing charges or seeking convictions is another issue that garners a lot of attention on websites associated with the Constitutional Sheriffs group.

It also became a convention flash point when a speaker repeatedly called Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain, a former prisoner of war, a “traitor” for supporting the Defense Authorization Act.

Montrose County’s Dunlap said he and several other sheriffs “were ready to walk out at that point.”

Many of the presentations at the convention revolved around more common land-use disputes over road closures and hunting restrictions. Those were the stories that resonated most with Colorado sheriffs who attended and who believe the federal government is overstepping its bounds on these issues.

Steven Hall, a spokesman for the BLM, said he doesn’t want to argue with sheriffs about interpretations of the Constitution and federal jurisdiction on federal lands. He said that for the most part, his agency has good working relationships with sheriffs, especially when it comes to issues such as fighting wildfires and eradicating marijuana.

“There has been some heated rhetoric but no serious incidents. I hope it remains that way,” he said.

Steve Segin, a spokesman for the Forest Service, issued a statement saying his agency has had “excellent working relationships” with sheriffs in Colorado.

Several representatives for the FBI at the state and national level said they had not heard of the Constitutional Sheriffs movement. They declined to comment.

Mack said he is already planning a second convention for this summer, when he will continue to promote the idea that “the greatest threat to our freedom now is the federal government.”

“There is nothing subversive about any of this,” he said. “It’s as American as apple pie.”




http://www.rightwingwatch.org/organizations/constitutional-sheriffs-and-peace-officers-association/

All Posts About Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association


AUGUST 26, 2016 1:31 PM
‘Constitutional County’ Project Moves Forward In Arizona, As Candidate Hopes To Create ‘Barrier’ Against Federal Government

AUGUST 01, 2016 12:50 PM
Trump Gives Interview To Extremist Sheriff David Clarke

JULY 14, 2016 11:39 AM
Trump Invites Anti-Government Extremist Sheriff To Speak At GOP Convention

MAY 02, 2016 3:40 PM
Fox News’ Favorite Sheriff Will Speak To Radical Anti-Government Oath Keepers

JULY 13, 2015 11:18 AM
‘Constitutional Sheriff’ Urges Elected Officials To Defy Supreme Court On Marriage

JUNE 25, 2015 5:18 PM
Walker Signs New Gun Laws In Office Of Extremist Sheriff Who Wanted To Add Semi-Automatic Rifle To Great Seal

MAY 13, 2015 10:38 AM
Arizona Senate President Says First Amendment Stopped Him From Rebuking Call For McCain’s Hanging

MAY 11, 2015 4:03 PM
Richard Mack Suggests States ‘Nullify Federal Income Tax,’ Hopes Process Will Remain ‘Peaceful’

DECEMBER 16, 2014 1:42 PM
Far-Right Anti-Government Group Plans Political Takeover Of Arizona County

AUGUST 28, 2014 1:00 PM
Where Was The Anti-Government Right In Ferguson?

AUGUST 05, 2014 3:57 PM
Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne Hobnobs With Radical Nullificationists

JUNE 03, 2013 1:04 PM
Larry Pratt Presents ‘Nullifier of the Year’ Award to Sheriff Who Warned of Gun Control ‘Bloodbath’



ARGUMENTS FOR SHERIFF AS SOLE LEGITIMATE SOURCE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT --


https://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/countysheriff

The Power Of The Sheriff

OPEN LETTER TO THE SHERIFF 09-07-15

QUESTIONS? JOIN OUR MONDAY NIGHT OPEN FORUM


Power and Authority of the County Sheriff pdf

The purpose of this page is to empower the County Sheriff and U.S. Marshal through knowledge of the Supreme Law of the Land and history; in order that they may serve the People and save/preserve America. There is no elected or appointed official that can remove the Sheriff or Marshal from office. The Sheriff is elected by the People of their county and the Marshal is appointed by the President who was vested with that power by We the People through the United States Constitution. In the case Marbury v Madison in 1803 the Court made it clear that the Constitution gave the power to the president to appoint but not the power to remove, that is reserved to the People alone through indictment for bad behavior.

There are only two Law Enforcement officers in America; The County Sheriff and the US Marshal. The sheriff is the only elected law enforcer whose duty it is to protect the unalienable rights of the People both in the court room and within the county. While the U.S. Marshal is responsible for protecting the unalienable rights of the People in the Federal Court room.

The Sheriff is the only person able to call for the posse comitatus (Latin, Power of the county) Referred at Common Law to all males over the age of fifteen on whom a sheriff could call for assistance in preventing any type of civil disorder. Today, under a national emergency the Sheriff is both the first and last line of defense should our government go rouge [sic]; since congress has been derelict of duty in the providing for the militia.

U.S. Constitution Article I Section 8 clauses 15 and 16: "The Congress shall have power to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

The Bill of Rights makes clear two (2) things (1) A well regulated militia is an unalienable right and (2) a well regulated militia is necessary to our security.

Amendment II "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."

Today all seats of government have unlawfully incorporated and therefore all police forces (city, town, village, state, etc.) work for corporations and owe their allegiance to the corporation, therein “code enforcement officers”; whereas Sheriffs and Marshals are “constitutional officers” owing allegiance to the People. There exists no Constitutional authority for police forces.

U.S. Constitution Article VI clause 2: "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 Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights are founded under common law, a/k/a the Supreme Law of the Land. ALL CASES AT LAW: Black's Law 4th, "within constitutional guaranty of jury trial, refers to common law actions as distinguished from causes in equity and certain other proceedings." Breimhorst v. Beck-man, 227 Minn. 409, 35 N.W.2d 719, 734.

The Sheriff and the U.S. Marshal just like We the People have lost their way. We have forgotten who we are and by what authority we act upon and therefore our servants rule over us. The purpose of this site is to help us find our way back to the Liberties our founding fathers discovered and pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to establish for themselves and their posterity. It is now our turn, our duty, to re-discover our roots for ourselves and our posterity. There are forces within our government that are doing everything they can to prevent that from happening. These people are called progressives and over the years they have taken control of both major parties and thereby methodically removed civics, God and constitutional studies from our education and through the media, entertainment and education have demoralized us.

What We the People and our Sheriffs need to know is that:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Preamble to the U.S. Constitution.

When we the People ordained Common Law, U.S. Constitution Article VI, the Supreme Law of the Land We the People took control of all decision making within the courts through Grand and Trial Juries and the Common Law Sheriff became the only Law Enforcer of the court and the county. The common law court is well established and defined in history, Blacks Law and Bouviers Law.

“The Sheriff is the “Chief Executive and Administrative Officer” of a county chosen by popular election. His principal duties are in aid of the criminal and civil courts of record [common law courts]; such as serving process, summoning juries, executing judgments, holding judicial sales and the like. He is also the chief conservator of the peace within his territorial jurisdiction.” Harston v. Langston, Tex.Civ. App., 292 S.W. 648, 650.

The word "Sheriff" is a contraction of the term "shire reeve", meaning a royal official responsible for keeping the peace throughout a shire or county on behalf of the king(s). We the People “Ordained” the Constitution for the United States of America which puts the People as the said kings above the Constitution and our elected servants under the Constitution, therein the great American experiment. Our servants have no more power than that which We the People gave them and any law they write to the contrary is null and void as if it has never been passed; as we read:

"All laws, rules and practices which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury v. Madison, 5th US (2 Cranch) 137, 180

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491

SHERIFFS TERM OF OFFICE AND
REMOVAL FROM OFFICE

State Constitutions require the election of the Sheriff for a two or four year term. His full authority is defined in common law history and cannot be altered. The Sheriff can only be removed from power at the ballot box or by the People for bad behaviour through indictment. Not upholding his oath would be bad behavior.

GOOD BEHAVIOR: "The term 'good behavior' means conduct that is authorized by law, and 'bad behavior' means conduct such as the law will punish." State v. Hardin, 183 N.C. 815, 112 S.E. 593, 594. "Orderly and lawful conduct;" Huyser v. Com., 25 Ky.L. Rep. 608, 76 S.W. 175; In re Spenser, 22 Fed.Cas. 921. "'Good behavior,' means merely conduct conformable to law, or to the particular law theretofore breached." Ex parte Hamm, 24 N.M. 33, 172 P. 190, 191, L.R. A.1918D, 694; Baker v. Commonwealth, 181 Ky. 437, 205 S.W. 399, 401.

SHERIFF AND THE JURY

Although many states write statutes on how the state, usually through the prosecutor, calls the Grand Jury; such statutes have no control over the Sheriff or the People. History recalls that the Sheriff is usually the one who calls for the Grand Jury after or before he makes an arrest and the state calls for the Grand Jury if the state wants to accuse someone of a crime.

In all cases it is the People through the Grand Jury who will decide if a crime was committed or not by indictment. The administration for the Grand Jury also known as the investigative body for the Grand Jury is made up of four People who are “not” elected or appointed but rise out from among the People. We find this process has been established since at least 1215AD and is described in the Magna Carta. Most states have statutory Commissioner of Jurors that are political appointments and therefore are an abomination to common law.

THE POWER OF THE PEOPLE

In the 1992 court case United States v Williams Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, confirmed that the American grand jury is neither part of the judicial, executive nor legislative branches of government, but instead belongs to the people. It is in effect a fourth branch of government "governed" and administered to directly by and on behalf of the American people, and its authority emanates from the Bill of Rights. Thus, citizens have the unbridled right to empanel their own grand juries and present "True Bills" of indictment to a court, which is then required to commence a criminal proceeding. Our Founding Fathers presciently thereby created a "buffer" the people may rely upon for justice, when public officials, including judges, criminally violate the law.

We the people have been providentially provided legal recourse to address the criminal conduct of persons themselves entrusted to dispense justice. In the Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, 112 S.Ct. 1735, 504 U.S. 36, 118 L.Ed.2d 352 (1992), whereas the Court said: "Because the grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside, we think it clear that, as a general matter at least, no such "supervisory" judicial authority exists, "[R]ooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history," Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420, 490, 80 S.Ct. 1502, 1544, 4 L.Ed.2d 1307 (1960) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in result), "the grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It " 'is a constitutional fixture in its own right.'" United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1312 (CA9 1977) (quoting Nixon v. Sirica, 159 U.S.App.D.C. 58, 70, n. 54, 487 F.2d 700, 712, n. 54 (1973)), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825, 98 S.Ct. 72, 54 L.Ed.2d 83 (1977). "In fact the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people." Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 218, 80 S.Ct. 270, 273, 4 L.Ed.2d 252 (1960); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 61, 26 S.Ct. 370, 373, 50 L.Ed. 652 (1906); G. Edwards, The Grand Jury 28-32 (1906). "Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the judicial branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm's length. Judges' direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office." United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343, 94 S.Ct. 613, 617, 38 L.Ed.2d 561 (1974); Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 6(a).

"The grand jury's functional independence from the judicial branch is evident both in the scope of its power to investigate criminal wrongdoing, and in the manner in which that power is exercised. "Unlike [a] [c]ourt, whose jurisdiction is predicated upon a specific case or controversy, the grand jury 'can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even because it wants assurance that it is not.'" United States v. R. Enterprises, 498 U.S. ----, ---- , 111 S.Ct. 722, 726, 112 L.Ed.2d 795 (1991) (quoting United States v. Morton Salt Co., 338 U.S. 632, 642-643, 70 S.Ct. 357, 364, 94 L.Ed. 401 (1950)). "It need not identify the offender it suspects, or even "the precise nature of the offense" it is investigating." Blair v. United States, 250 U.S. 273, 282, 39 S.Ct. 468, 471, 63 L.Ed. 979 (1919). "The grand jury requires no authorization from its constituting court to initiate an investigation," see Hale, supra, 201 U.S., at 59-60, 65, 26 S.Ct., at 373, 375, "nor does the prosecutor require leave of court to seek a grand jury indictment. And in its day-to-day functioning, the grand jury generally operates without the interference of a presiding judge." See Calandra, supra, 414 U.S., at 343, 94 S.Ct., at 617. "It swears in its own witnesses, Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 6(c), and deliberates in total secrecy," see United States v. Sells Engineering, Inc., 463 U.S., at 424-425, 103 S.Ct., at 3138. "we have insisted that the grand jury remain "free to pursue its investigations unhindered by external influence or supervision so long as it does not trench upon the legitimate rights of any witness called before it." United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1, 17-18, 93 S.Ct. 764, 773, 35 L.Ed.2d 67 (1973). "Recognizing this tradition of independence, we have said that the Fifth Amendment's "constitutional guarantee presupposes an investigative body 'acting independently of either prosecuting attorney or judge '. . . ." Id., at 16, 93 S.Ct., at 773 (emphasis added) (quoting Stirone, supra, 361 U.S., at 218, 80 S.Ct., at 273).

"Given the grand jury's operational separateness from its constituting court, it should come as no surprise that we have been reluctant to invoke the judicial supervisory power as a basis for prescribing modes of grand jury procedure. Over the years, we have received many requests to exercise supervision over the grand jury's evidence-taking process, but we have refused them all, including some more appealing than the one presented today. In Calandra v. United States, supra, a grand jury witness faced questions that were allegedly based upon physical evidence the Government had obtained through a violation of the Fourth Amendment; we rejected the proposal that the exclusionary rule be extended to grand jury proceedings, because of "the potential injury to the historic role and functions of the grand jury." 414 U.S., at 349, 94 S.Ct., at 620. Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 76 S.Ct. 406, 100 L.Ed. 397 (1956), "we declined to enforce the hearsay rule in grand jury proceedings, since that "would run counter to the whole history of the grand jury institution, in which laymen conduct their inquiries unfettered by technical rules." Id., at 364, 76 S.Ct., at 409.

JUDGES AND PROSECUTORS
ACT ABOVE THE LAW

A common complaint from Sheriffs is, “I cannot arrest a judge without first getting the prosecutor to agree otherwise the prosecutor may refuse to prosecute.” The question that begs answering is where did the prosecutor get such power? Certainly We the People did not give it to them in the Constitution and certainly congress can make no Law that we did not give them the power to make. We the People did not ordain the prosecutor “Chief Law Enforcer”, but the Sheriff! Solution: if the prosecutor refuses to prosecute they should be arrested for “felony rescue”.

The Sheriff is not to go begging the prosecutor for an indictment, he shouldn’t even be going to the prosecutor at all, but to the Grand Jury directly and ask them for an indictment. The problem is that the Judge and the prosecutor deny Sheriffs and the People access to the Grand Jury. After six years of practicing law without a BAR degree we found out that many judges and prosecutors have something to hide so they protect each other by blocking access to the Grand Jury, they fear what you may ask of the Grand Jury.

So, if the Sheriff needs to ask permission, he’s not the Chief and he passes his duties to others, and any Sheriff that does that is in “Bad Behavior”. If the Sheriff cannot get access to the Jury Administrators (a/k/a Commissioners of Jurors) directly he has the power and authority to summons 25 People, out of any pool (phone book, etc.) to the courthouse jury room and ask for an indictment.

We the People did not give prosecutors power to negotiate deals with People under indictment. Prosecutors may propose the deal to the Grand Jury for decision; but the arrangement must offer a plan for restitution acceptable to the injured party or due process, trial by jury, must run its course.

GUN CONTROL

Alaska, Arizona, Vermont and Wyoming have no law requiring pistol owners to have a permit to carry. Colorado, Iowa, Georgia, Kentucky, Maine, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota and Virginia, according to the NRA are considering bills in current legislative sessions to end permit requirements. The United States Supreme Court quoting the rules of criminal and civil procedure said: “The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace.” Wharton’s Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197

The Bill of Rights Amendment II states “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.” This Amendment protects two unalienable rights, both of which articulate the right of self-defense, one personal, the right to protect your-self from another individual shall not be infringed and the other to protect our-self from a rouge government, shall not be infringed. Some may say the right to keep and bear Arms is for the militia; this makes no sense because We the People are the militia, nor are We the People willing to give up an unalienable right.

Conclusion: if the Sheriff does not protect the right of the People to keep and bear arms he is in violation of his oath and thereby in bad behavior and subject to removal from office by the People through indictment. The real test of the Sheriffs Constitutional fortitude in states that require permits is; is he going to protect the People from rogue statutes and bureaucrats or compromise the Law?

ARREST OR SEIZURE WARRANTS

All arrest or seizure warrants must have a wet ink signature of a Federal or State Judge (not city, town or village) supported by an affidavit.

IRS seizure requires a wet ink signature of a Federal Judge and two form affidavits they are (1) IRS Form 56 Fiduciary relationship and (2) IRS Form 4490 Proof of claim; both must be signed under notary/magistrate.

Bill of Rights Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Sheriffs must refuse warrant execution without signatures and affidavits, to proceed without would be a vilation [sic] of their oath and therefore in bad behavior.

SWAT: Any time any police force including federal agents uses SWAT and raid attacks, usually in the middle of the night, against one of the People because they “allegedly” owe money is an assault upon Liberty and the Sheriff is obligated by oath to stop it and make arrests if necessary.

RIGHT TO TRAVEL

The right to travel canot [sic] be licensed "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v Smith, 154 SE 579.

"Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience "Regulated" here means stop lights, signs, etc. NOT a privilege that requires permission or unconstitutional taxation; i.e. - licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc., requiring financial consideration, which are more illegal taxes." Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago, 169 NE 22

Blacks 2nd, "License: In the law of contracts, is a permission, accorded by a competent authority, conferring the right to do some act which without such authorization would be illegal, or would be a trespass or tort."

RIGHTS

The claim and exercise of a constitution right cannot be converted into a crime4. Miller v. U.S.,

INALIENABLE (Blacks 4th) Not subject to alienation (separation); the characteristic of those things which cannot be bought or sold or transferred from one person to another, such as rivers and public highways, and certain personal rights; e. g., liberty. Inalienable; incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred.

RIGHT (Blacks 4th) "Rights" are defined generally as "powers of free action." And the primal rights pertaining to men are undoubtedly enjoyed by human beings purely as such, being grounded in personality, and existing antecedently to their recognition by positive law. FREE. Not subject to legal constraint of another. Unconstrained; having power to follow the dictates of his own will. Not subject to the dominion of another. Not compelled to involuntary servitude. Used in this sense as opposed to "slave."

Rights are not a crime We the People have right to exercise rights, right to practice law, right to proceed in courts without cost, right to travel, right of privacy, right to be let alone and right to defend just to name a few. In conclusion I have a right to do anything I please as long as I do not injure another or currupt the morals of a minor.

DUE PROCESS

Bill of Rights Amendment V: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

The question is what is an Infamous crime: Blacks Law 4th states: "A crime which entails infamy (state of dishonor) upon one who has committed it. Butler v. Wentworth, 84 Me. 25, 24 A. 456, 17 L.R.A. 764. The term "infamous" e., without fame or good report—was applied at common law to certain crimes, upon the conviction of which a person became incompetent to testify as a witness. A crime punishable by imprisonment."

Conclusion: Anybody that is facing jail time "MUST" be indcited and tried in a Court of Law, a summons or a police report is not sufficient. Additionally there is a common law maxim that states “in order for there to be a crime there must be a sworn affidavit by an injured party and the state cannot be that injured party.”

Any Sheriffs finding that he inherited the housing of prisoners in the County Jail that did not get due process, is housing political prisoners and would be guilty of conspiracy if he did not do the right thing as soon as he awakened and realized it.

Any court that does not necessitate due process, would not be a Court of Law; city courts, town courts and village courts do not necessitate due process but statutes. So, what is the solution? The answer is to petition the Grand Jury in a Federal Court for a Habeas Corpus and the court will demand proof of due process and if they fail to prove due process the Court will order their release. If you cannot find a Common Law Grand Jury in your Federal District we already have jury pools nation-wide in all ninety-four (94) Federal Districts in America and our Administrators can help initiate the paper work and court process. Call M - F > Pacific: Kathrine > 831-272-3286 or Malissa Phillips > 573-631-5062.

JURISDICTION

Only Courts of Record, a/k/a Common Law Courts have jurisdiction over the People. All courts of record proceed with a tribunal a/k/a Jury under the rules of Common Law. All city, town, criminal, and village courts are not courts of record because they proceed according to the rules of chancery and not law and therefore have no jurisdiction over the People. If a Judge refuses to answer the accused by what authority they act then they do not have jurisdiction. The only answer is “Common Law”, U.S. Constitution article VI.

"Trial court acts without jurisdiction when it acts without inherent or common law authority, ..." State v. Rodriguez, 725 A.2d 635, 125 Md.App 428, cert den 731 A.2d 971,354 Md. 573 (1999)

Any court that proceeds with summary judgments are not common law courts and have no jurisdiction over the People.

Summary proceeding: Blacks 4th "Any proceeding by which a controversy is settled, case disposed of, or trial conducted, in a prompt and simple manner, without the aid of a jury, without presentment or indictment, or in other respects out of the regular course of the common law. In procedure, proceedings are said to be summary 'when they are short and simple in comparison with regular proceedings; ie., in comparison with the proceedings which alone would have been applicable, either in the same or analogous cases, if summary proceedings had not been available." Sweet. See Phillips v. Phillips, 8 N.J.L. 122.

"As to the construction, with reference to Common Law, an important cannon of construction is that constitutions must be construed to reference to the Common Law. The Common Law, so permitted destruction of the abatement of nuisances by summary proceedings1 and is was never supposed that a constitutional provision was intended to interfere with this established principle and although there is no common law of the United States in a sense of a national customary law as distinguished from the common law of England, adopted in the several states. In interpreting the Federal Constitution, recourse may still be had to the aid of the Common Law of England. It has been said that without reference to the common law, the language of the Federal Constitution could not be understood." - 16American Jurisprudence 2d., Sec. 114:

"If there is no sworn affidavit by an injured party there is no crime, there can be no case: No more than an affidavit is necessary to make the prima facie case." United States v. Kis, 658 F.2d 526, 536 (7th Cir. 1981); Cert. Denied, 50 U.S. L. W. 2169; S. Ct. March 22, 1982

"Allegations in an affidavit in support of a motion (action) must be considered as true in absence of counter-affidavit." Group v Finletter, Group v Finletter, 108 F. Supp. 327

"Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading." U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299. See also U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, 1032; Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932.

"The appropriate party to attest to the facts is the plaintiff himself, not the plaintiff's attorney, an attorney's affidavit that is not based upon personal knowledge is without value and is insufficient as an affidavit." Romel v. Reale, 155 A.D.2d 747, 547 N.Y.S.2d 691 (3d Dep't 1989)

Any court that proceed against the People with statutes and not the law of the land are not common law courts and have no jurisdiction over the People.

"All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not human/Creators in accordance with God's laws. All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process…" Rodriques v. Ray Donavan (U.S. Department of Labor) 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985).

"All laws, rules and practices which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void" Marbury v. Madison, 5th US (2 Cranch) 137, 180

"For a crime to exist, there must be an injured party. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights."- Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945.

"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 its unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment... In legal contemplation, it is as inoperative as if it had never been passed... Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no right, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it... A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing law. Indeed insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, (the Constitution) it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." [Bonnett v. Vallier, 116 N.W. 885, 136 Wis. 193 (1908); NORTON v. SHELBY COUNTY, 118 U.S. 425 (1886)]

"There, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowman without his consent." [Cruden v. Neale, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E.]

"Under our system of government upon the individuality and intelligence of the citizen, the state does not claim to control him/her, except as his/her conduct to others, leaving him/her the sole judge as to all that affects himself/herself." Mugler v. Kansas 123 U.S. 623, 659-60.

Sheriffs are not to carry out the decisions of courts not of record and have a duty to arrest judges and prosecutors who continue to precede under the color of law to prosecute We the People.

THE COMMON LAW COURT STRUCTURE

"The Tribunal (grand or trial jury) A judicial tribunal having attributes and exercising functions independently of the person of the magistrate designated generally to hold it." Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Metc. Mass., 171, per Shaw, C.J. See, also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688, 689][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426
Magistrate (maintains order has no power to judge)
Coroner (usually in murder cases and can perform the duties of a magistrate)
Prosecutor (district attorney or U.S. attorney)
Bailiff (Sheriffs’ or Marshalls’ Deputies) without a Sheriff or a Marshal there can be no common law court because there would be no one to enforce the law (Constitution). The Sheriff and the Marshal has a duty to arrest any elected or appointed court officer if they violate the Peoples unalienable rights and this includes the Magistrate (Judge) and the prosecutor.
LAW v STATUTES

Laws are created by God (common law) and written in the hearts of all men thou shall not kill, thou shall not steal and simply put thou shall do no harm. Statutes are written by men to control society. Lawful statutes that become law are governed by two documents the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Constitutions are written and initiated by the People to give government limited but necessary powers. U.S. legislative power is limited to eighteen (18) powers see U.S. Constitution Article I Section 8, and Quo Warranto from We the People, filed in all 94 Federal District Courts, served upon all State and U.S. Governments reminding them of their limited powers. All state constitutions are restricted by the U.S. Constitution.

U.S. Constitution Article VI "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."

"Rights" are defined generally as "powers of free action." And the primal rights pertaining to men are undoubtedly enjoyed by human beings purely as such, being grounded in personality and existing antecedently to their recognition by positive law. Being free is to be not subject to legal constraint of another. Being unconstrained is having power to follow the dictates of one’s own will; not subject to the dominion of another; not compelled to involuntary servitude as opposed to "slave." [Black's Law 4th edition]

"Rights are not a crime; the claim and exercise of a constitution right cannot be converted into a crime." [Miller v. U.S. 230 F 486 at 489].

There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitution rights." [Sherar vs. Cullen 481 F 2D 946, (1973)].

We find it intolerable that one constitutional right should have to be surrendered in order to assert another." [Simmons vs. U.S. 390, U.S. 389(1968)].

The claim and exercise of a constitution right cannot be converted into a crime." [Miller v. U.S. 230 F 486 at 489].

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them" [Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491]

Governments use statutes to control the will of society and the individuals. This kind of statutory control dates back to Babylon and as a government ratchets down the control of the People, they become more and more authoritarian, whereas egotistical power hungry people fill the positions, that lord over the People to the point that just challenging these People will find them in jail, whether they are guilty of a crime or not. A Society will be as just as its courts. The American People do not need government to control their will and punish ttheir every action, thats what totalitarian governments do.

Under common law We the People are responsible for our own actions, this is written in the hearts of men and if we injure another just courts require restitution not punishment, whereas crimes often require both restitution and punishment that actually restores people back into society. Clearly our out of control judiciary does not, will not and cannot accomplish this goal because they rule by status quo, statutes and vindictiveness and not just laws. The following videos prove the point.


John Stossel Spontaneous Order
Traffic control the road to nowhere
v Spontaneous Order
OREGON - GROUND ZERO -- Malheur Wildlife Refuge Update
NEWS - FEDERAL COURT FILINGS - The line in the sand

DOCUMENTS

15-09-07 Open Letter to the Sheriff
Memo 001-Due Process
Memo 002-Common Law
Memo 003-Chief Law Enforcer
Memo 004-Soverign
Memo 005 Summary Proceedings
Power and Authority of The County Sheriff
The following documents can and will restore America to the America our founding fathers envisioned if We the People and our Sheriffs work together to restore Law and Order again. Thomas Jefferson said: "If a People expect to be ignorant and free; they expect what never was and never will be."

More powerful documents

Bill of Rights
Confirmatio Cartarum
Declaration of Independence
Form 4490
Form 56
MIRANDA v. ARIZONA
Marbury v Madison
Spontaneous Order
U.S. v. Mersky
US Constitution
US v Williams
Great Quotes by Great men.

Franklin Quotes
Jefferson Quotes
NWO Quotes
Ron Paul Quotes
Various quotes
Washington Quotes
NLA Papers

COMMON LAW IS STILL LAW
Court of Law
DE FACTO -v- DE JURE
Extraordinary Remedies
Judicial Immunity
Jurisprudence
Memorandum Authorities
Prima facie case
Principals of Law and the Kings Bench
Requisite to justice essay
Right to Practice Law
Right to travel
Rights
Summary proceedings null and void
Title 26 is not law
US district Courts are Article III courts
When an Oath becomes a Crime
We offer a FREE CIVICS COURSE for all our members all Grand Jury Adminstrators are requied to take the course before serving the People and their Juries. We welcome all Sheriffs, their deputies and other elected servants to take our free course. Our 120 hour course covers American History, Constitution, Common Law lectures and how America lost her way.

ATTENTION SHERIFFS: For free Constitutional and Sheriffs pocket handbooks simply send an email to us@uclgj.org Please include your title, name, address and how many handbooks for yourself and deputies we should send.

Click here for instructions on how to join our Monday Night Tela-Conference Call.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

Posse Comitatus Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about the Posse Comitatus Act in the United States. For other uses of posse comitatus, see Posse comitatus.


The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) signed on June 18, 1878 by President Rutherford B. Hayes. The purpose of the act – in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807 – is to limit the powers of the federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce domestic policies within the United States. It was passed as an amendment to an army appropriation bill following the end of Reconstruction, and was subsequently updated in 1956 and 1981.

The Act only specifically applies to the United States Army and, as amended in 1956, the United States Air Force. While the Act does not explicitly mention the United States Navy and the United States Marine Corps, due to their being naval services, the Department of the Navy has prescribed regulations that are generally construed to give the Act force with respect to those services as well. The Act does not apply to the Army and Air National Guard under state authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within its home state or in an adjacent state if invited by that state's governor. The United States Coast Guard, which operates under the Department of Homeland Security, is not covered by the Posse Comitatus Act either, primarily because although the Coast Guard is an armed service, it also has both a maritime law enforcement mission and a federal regulatory agency mission.

History[edit]
The Act, 15 of the appropriations bill for the Army for 1879, found at 20 Stat. 152, was a response to, and subsequent prohibition of, the military occupation of the former Confederate States by the United States Army during the ten years of Reconstruction (1867–1877) following the American Civil War (1861–1865). The president withdrew federal troops from the Southern States as a result of a compromise in one of the most disputed national elections in American history, the 1876 U.S. presidential election. Samuel J. Tilden of New York, the Democratic candidate, defeated Republican candidate Rutherford B. Hayes of Ohio in the popular vote. Tilden garnered 184 electoral votes to Hayes' 165; 20 disputed electoral votes remained uncounted. After a bitter fight, Congress struck a deal resolving the dispute and awarded the presidency to Hayes.

In return for Southern acquiescence regarding Hayes, Republicans agreed to support the withdrawal of federal troops from the former Confederate states, formally ending Reconstruction. Known as the Compromise of 1877, South Carolina, Florida and Louisiana agreed to certify Rutherford B. Hayes as the President in exchange for the removal of Federal troops from the South.[1]

The U.S. Constitution places primary responsibility for the holding of elections in the hands of the individual states. The maintenance of peace, conduct of orderly elections, and prosecution of unlawful actions are all state responsibilities, pursuant of any state's role of exercising police power and maintaining law and order, whether part of a wider federation or a unitary state. During the local, state, and federal elections of 1874 and 1876 in the former Confederate states, all levels of government chose not to exercise their police powers to maintain law and order.[1] Some historians have concluded most Reconstruction governments did not have the power to suppress the violence.

The violence and fraud related to elections had been increasing since 1868, with disruption of Republican meetings, killing and intimidation of many blacks, and a suppression of the black vote by paramilitary groups such as the Red Shirts in Mississippi and the Carolinas, and the White League in Louisiana, in addition to armed white men of what were called rifle clubs. The scale of these is suggested by the fact that in North Carolina, 20,000 white men belonged to rifle clubs, and many others to the Red Shirts. These groups have been described as the "military arm of the Democratic Party" at that time in the South.[2] White Democrats regained control of all Southern state legislatures by 1876. They also elected Democratic U.S. congressmen from the South; together, these politicians halted and reversed political reforms related to the inclusion of freedmen in the political system in the American South,[1] and worked to restore white supremacy.

When the U.S. Representatives and Senators from the former Confederate states reached Washington, they set as a priority legislation to prohibit any future President or Congress from directing, by military order or federal legislation, the imposition of federal troops in any U.S. state. By the 1878 election, Congress was dominated by the Democratic Party, and they passed the Posse Comitatus Act in 1878.

In the mid-20th century, the administration of President Dwight D. Eisenhower used an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, derived from the Enforcement Acts, to send federal troops into Little Rock, Arkansas, during the 1957 school desegregation crisis. The Arkansas governor had opposed desegregation after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1954 in the Brown v. Board of Education that segregated public schools were unconstitutional. The Enforcement Acts, among other powers, allow the President to call up military forces when state authorities are either unable or unwilling to suppress violence that is in opposition to the constitutional rights of the people.[3]

The original Posse Comitatus Act referred essentially to the United States Army. The United States Air Force was added in 1956. This law is often relied upon to prevent the Department of Defense from interfering in domestic law enforcement.[4] The United States Coast Guard is not included in the Act even though it is one of the five armed services because it is not a part of the Department of Defense. At the time the Act became law, the Coast Guard was part of the United States Department of the Treasury, and was thus exempt.[5]