View Full Version : We can work togeather
05-15-2003, 10:57 AM
check out this link. Seems we all like freedom and have some issues with the patriot act.
05-15-2003, 11:57 AM
Thanks for the post Rb,
let's hope more communities, towns and cities become more involved.
05-16-2003, 12:02 AM
All they will do is, "chose not to assist?"
Not going to help us much there.
At least not everyone has their eyes closed.
05-16-2003, 07:32 AM
pickenup, that's about all they can do without becoming an enemy of the state.
Keep in mind that without local assistance, the Federal government can't do a whole lot. It's not like they can put Federal troops in every city in America to do their dirty work. If the cities don't support them, then their power is very limited.
I think this is a good start.
05-16-2003, 07:44 AM
In fact, Federal Law Enforcement agencies frequently rely on assistance from State and Local Law Enforcement.
However, State and Local Law Enforcement are not, in any way, required to render such assistance. Any such assistance is entirely voluntary, since Federal Law is outside their jurisdiction
05-16-2003, 08:09 AM
You know, the more I think about this, the more it raises Constitutional questions. Not only the illegality of the whole program, but the issue of using local/state forces to "assist" in federal programs.
The Constitution is quite clear about the powers of the federal government being separate from state powers. We threw a lot of that in the trash bin during the Civil War, and the States lost a lot of their power. So it's all muddled up now. It would take one hell of a lot of legal research to determine just exactly how much power the federal government has over the states in matters such as this.
Granted, the "war on terror" crosses state lines and international lines. So it is clearly a federal issue. But what happens when you get an intrusive federal government trying to bully the states into complying with a law that is unconstitutional? Will they deploy federal troops to mandate compliance? I mean, let's say Texas refused to cooperate with the parameters of the Patriot Act. Do you think the power-hungry federal government is going to sit idly by?
I foresee some real problems here. With enough support (or, more correctly, lack of support) from the states, the federal government might actually have to back down. Something tells me that that's a pill they don't want to swallow.
This could get interesting.
05-16-2003, 04:57 PM
Don't know if you fellers recall Sheriff Buck of Greenlee County of Eastern Arizona. A few years back he made national headlines and the talk show circuit for refusing to use his local offices for enforcement of the Federal background checks on potential firearms purchasers, saying he wasn't mandated to do the checks using county funds with no reimbursement from the fed's.
Turns out, the courts ruled that he did, indeed, have to perform the checks at local taxpayer expense to comply with a federal requirement.
05-16-2003, 09:46 PM
I'm going to have to get back into my research, but I recall that federal agents have to have permission from the chief law enforcement officer of a local area (Sheriff) in order to perform certain operations.
Anybody know anything about that?
05-17-2003, 08:08 AM
You are RIGHT, A&S.
I can't put my finger on the cite right now, but that issue came before me many times. Its been over ten years and access to my old notes is not on the computer at home.
05-17-2003, 08:54 AM
It comes to mind about another Sherriff in Arizona,
his name is Richard Mack he sued the feds on the
same issue, but he won his case.
As far as I know a Sherriff can hold back any federal
agency from entering into his jurisdiction because
the Fed's do not have the jurisdiction outside of
Washington DC, the 10 square miles it talks about
in the Constitution. But most Sherriff's don't know
this. We need to inform them of this.
I think I am in the ballpark on this one, not sure.
If not let me know. :)
THER IS A WAR ON FOR YOUR MIND!
Real talk radio: www.gcnlive.com
05-17-2003, 09:13 PM
The Feds would probably simply do what they always do to get their way concerning states...withhold "Federal" funding to various projects.
Hummmm...isn't that considered extortion?
05-17-2003, 10:32 PM
If it is extortion when they withhold it, does it become bribery when they pay it? :D
Marlin, what is it called when someone breaks an agreed contract because they don't like something outside the bounds covered by the contract? :confused:
05-18-2003, 06:24 AM
Default! - -
which would apply whether failure to act on a required provision or a demand outside the contract!
The remedy for your set of facts is to go to the legal system for redress or to have the contract terminated do to improper or illegal actions on the part of the opposite party. In any case it would have to be the legal system UNLESS there is a specific provision on subject w/i the contraltual document. AND THEN, it still might require legal system assistance.....
If you are talking about a governmental entity, many times disagreements are handled in the Administrative Law area which, in many respects, is a different ball game. Of particular note would be relaxed rules of evidence and requirements of proof, unless the specific area of interest is subject to more stringent rules equal to the court system rules.
05-18-2003, 12:34 PM
So....A State could have taken the Feds to court for withholding educational funds when the State didn't adhere to the (now repealed) 55mph law?
Do you see where I'm going with this? :rolleyes:
05-19-2003, 01:35 AM
I was thinking more along these lines.
Say the feds have already used the “patriot act” to unconstitutionally spy on a person. They know who the person is, where they live, work, drink, play, whatever. Why would they need any help from the locals, to come in like the jack booted thugs that they are, and haul someone off, never to be seen again? Don’t they do that now?
05-19-2003, 07:42 AM
pickenup, in that case, they probably don't need local assistance. I'm unclear on how the warrant process works though... if a Federal judge can provide the warrant or if it has to be a local judge. Hell, they probably don't need a stinking warrant any more. :mad:
In general, though, I think the Feds are relying on state/local entities to provide them with initial information so the Feds can locate suspected terror cells and other "suspicious" people. They cannot be everywhere all the time (not that they don't try!), so they are trying to mandate local law enforcement to notify them of groups to watch. If the cities of America are refusing to notify the Feds about such things, then it becomes very difficult for them to watch for suspicious behavior. They will be spread too thin. The Feds only have the manpower to concentrate on known groups, with little or no reserve for hunting new groups.
I'm not sure if that made sense or not...
05-19-2003, 08:02 AM
Federal Magistrate on any violation of a Federal Statute. A Federal Judge, as opposed to the Magistrate, seldom is involved in issuance of a warrant.
State Judge of Record, be it Circuit, District or whatever name known by in that jurisdiction for the first level court of record, on State law violations; Usually a Magistrate on City or local violations.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.