• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you support the Sheriffs first bill?

Do you support the Sheriffs first bill? (please read first before voting)

  • Total voters
    13
jamesrage

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
36,705
Reaction score
17,867
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Do you support the Sheriffs first bill? In other words should federal law enforcement first get the permission of the highest county elected law enforcement official(Sheriff) before making an arrest,search or seizure?

Sheriffs First
This "Sheriffs First" bill would make it a state crime for a federal officer to arrest, search, or seize in the state (Montana in this example) without first getting the advanced, written permission of the elected county sheriff of the county in which the event is to take place. Locally-elected sheriffs are accountable to the people and are supposed to the the chief law enforcement officer of the county, bar none. This bill puts teeth into the expectation that federal agents must operate with the approval of the sheriff, or not at all. It also gives the local sheriff tools necessary to protect the people of his county, and their constitutional rights. There are exceptions in the legislation for "hot pursuit", U.S. customs and border patrol, corrupt sheriffs, and more.





In Montana, a plan to empower local sheriffs - CharlotteObserver.com

HELENA, Mont. The line of people stretched out the door of the committee room, all waiting for their turn to condemn or express their fears about the federal government.

Most identified themselves as ordinary Montana citizens or tea party supporters united by the belief that the government is chipping away at their rights and abusing the constitutions of the state and the nation.

They'd arrived for a public hearing on the so-called "Sheriffs First Act," a Montana senator's proposal to make sheriffs the supreme authorities in their counties. Federal agents would be required to obtain written permission from a sheriff before conducting a search, seizure or arrest in a county.

"I've come to the point where I don't trust the federal government to protect us," Helena resident Lisa Wamsley told the panel Friday. "I urge you to support this bill to regain what is rightfully ours as citizens of Montana."

Whether the worries of Wamsley or others at the hearing would be quelled even if the bill is approved is murky territory. It would still need to survive likely intense legal scrutiny over whether it violates the U.S. Constitution.

Jessica Fehr, spokeswoman for the U.S. attorney in Montana, declined to comment on whether such a bill is enforceable or how it might affect federal operations in Montana. But, prompted by a lawmaker's question, Gallatin County attorney Marty Lambert suggested there are questions over whether the bill violates the supremacy clause, which says the Constitution and federal law is "the supreme law of the land."

Read more: In Montana, a plan to empower local sheriffs - CharlotteObserver.com
 
No. You can't restore state sovereignty piecemeal; it is neither constitutional nor practical to do so. First, you need a plan on how to effect the reform over a long period of time, to prevent economic collapse, and then you need to pass it via constitutional amendment, so that it will be legally and morally legitimate.
 
Last edited:
This was the sentence I found the most curious.

"I've come to the point where I don't trust the federal government to protect us," Helena resident Lisa Wamsley told the panel Friday. "I urge you to support this bill to regain what is rightfully ours as citizens of Montana."
Click to expand...

whaaa? Don't trust the federal gov't to protect you? What does she expect, did she previously think that the FBI and US Marshals should be patrolling the street near her house? It's always been local law enforcement that protects people. Federal law enforcement is only there when it's their jurisdiction. It's not federal law enforcement's job to keep the peace in localities to begin with. I'm confused as to her thought process here.
 
Fifty years ago, local police were known to be corrupt, to ignore hate crimes in the southern states, IMO, no state is free from this corruption , I do not trust them..
Today, has this changed ?
Its logical, common sense that police work together, if not, then those who refuse should be weeded out..
If this bill is supported by tea baggers, then it is suspect...
These is more to this than is being divulged, I suspect.
 
earthworm said:
If this bill is supported by tea baggers partiers , then it is suspect...
These is more to this than is being divulged, I suspect.
Click to expand...

If a bill is good then who gives a **** who wrote it. I would support this bill even if Jane Fonda wrote it.
 
Last edited:
I dislike the DEA messing around with local law enforcement as much as the next guy, but passing an absurd unconstitutional bill is not the way to handle the problem. The better option is go to Washington and put limits on when the Feds can claim jurisdiction.
 
I guess the murderers in the infamous Mississippi Burning case would have not been charged for any crimes under this supposed legislation. Sheriffs, as well as other law enforcement individuals can, at times, be the most crooked people in society. The KKK operates law enforcement south of here, in the Hill Country. Want to give them free reign?
 
Mickey Shane said:
I guess the murderers in the infamous Mississippi Burning case would have not been charged for any crimes under this supposed legislation. Sheriffs, as well as other law enforcement individuals can, at times, be the most crooked people in society. The KKK operates law enforcement south of here, in the Hill Country. Want to give them free reign?
Click to expand...

What makes the feds any more trustworthy and less corrupt?
 
Just to clarify...is this saying that the FBI couldn't arrest people for federal crimes without the consent of the sheriff? If so, then I oppose this. Federal crimes are none of the sheriff's business. I suspect that it would quickly devolve into sheriffs blocking the feds from enforcing any federal law that the sheriff didn't agree with...and there's no way that that passes constitutional muster.
 
Federal laws are still laws, and they must be enforced.
 
Supremacy clause. Federal crime, federal jurisduction.

If you want to go back to a State rights v. Fed Rights...read up on the Civil War--the Fed's win.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom