Sheriffs group says they have authority to override federal laws that violate constitution
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 ก.ย. 2024
- “They have the authority to stand against any laws that go against your second amendment. Okay, ATF, we're not going to let you come in and start taking everybody's guns. We're not going to let it happen."
news4sanantoni...
_______________
Stay up to date with our social media:
WOAI on Instagram: / news4sa
WOAI on Facebook: / news4sa
WOAI on Twitter: / news4sa
Subscribe to WOAI on TH-cam: / @woaivideo
Daily News Playlist:
• WOAI 4 San Antonio Dai...
For more information, visit news4sanantoni...
Have a news tip? Send it directly to us:
Email us: NewsDesk@news4sanantonio.com
Call the Newsroom: 210.442-6397
WOAI is a TX based station and an NBC Television affiliate owned and operated by Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. is one of the largest and most diversified television broadcasting companies in the country today.
#WOAI #NEWS4SA #NEWS4SanAntonio #WOAI4 #SanAntonio
if it is unconstitutional it can't be a legal law
Bingo!
But the US Constitution doesn't give Article III powers to any law enforcement officers. Only the courts have the legal authority to determine the Constitutionality of laws.
@@vanessajazp6341 Facts.. Preach!
@Vanessa JazP The US constitution gives the power to the people the right to refuse any infringements that are unconstitutional, this country is set up from its founding to be run and controlled by the whole of its citizens.... not a all powerful government. An all powerful government trampling its people is what led to the war that founded this country.
@@vanessajazp6341 true but they can refuse to uphold a law if said law is unconstitutional
Since they investigate themselves and choose not to prosecute their officers, it’s common practice to pick and choose who they will prosecute. Hint: it’s never themselves.
lol, thank you so much for this. I have read so many comments that just made me shake my head, but yours was worth the wait.
They don't have authority, they have a duty to defend the constitution.
Captain Nemo,
Perhaps it's better said that they have DISCRETION to not enforce Unconstitutional laws in their jurisdictions.
Although I do agree with what you've said. Just saying.
Their Oath of Office is Authorization to refuse to uphold Unconditionally.
Well they've been doing a really crappy job of it for my entire life.
Cop's serve rich people and protect property.
@@blogintonblakley2708 cops are not elected sheriffs are!!! different standard. Police and cops serve the city and state. Not to the people that is why we need to de fund cops and police. Give the money to sheriffs.
@@michaelblake2280 Come on man! There is generally one sheriff per country that is actually elected. Then there are hundreds of deputies.
And all of them are cops.
The are all a bunch of gun toting mercenaries who make a living putting people in prison in the country with the most prisoners per capita of any other country on Earth.
Including all the ones you think suck and are tyrannies.
Our country is less free than almost every other country on Earth, in terms of allowing citizens to live without locking them in a cell.
So please wake up, set you propagandized political difference aside and realize that rich people own this country. And cops are their mercenaries that make sure this situation continues.
The problem is two people can read the same sentence and come to two very different conclusions.
Anybody who swears to uphold and protect the US constitution, has the authority and duty to do so! I just wish they would do that for ALL our constitutional rights. Not selectively.
"Uphold" does not mean "interpret". It doesn't matter if they don't like a law, if the court has deemed it constitutional, the police officer can quit his job so he isn't required to abide by it.
@@bukka6697 wrong. Nobody needs any help to understand the Constitution and the Supreme Court takes too long to do their jobs. Occasionally, they do their jobs wrong too. Like the 1934 firearms act
@@bukka6697 Exactly.
@@bukka6697 I completely agree the position of sheriff as an elected position that doesn't require a law degree nor does it require any previous law enforcement... Yet they are going to deem themselves constitutional scholars and above the Bill of Rights or Supreme Court decisions because they "feel" or "don't feel" something is constitutional.
This is complete ignorance and they should be removed as buy defacto they are going against what they swore an oath to.
@@bsrcat1 like the Governor of California refusing to work with ICE?
"A law repugnant to the Constitution is void." -Chief Justice Marshall
Chief Justice John Marshall (1801-1835), not to be confused with Associate Justice Thurgood Marshall (1967-1991).
'The Supreme court's job is to interpret the constitution, not police officers' - me
Courts are to see that justice prevails and those who break the laws are punished. If your a lawman you should know the law. You should also uphold your sworn duty to defend the constitution legally not vigilante style. If your evidence doesn't meet the requirements of the law then you have no case.
@@Michael-mh2tw Any Officer, of any State. Has CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY. Over any unconstitutional Law. Under Article.6. Section 3... Also Under. 5U.S.C. Sec.3331. Suggestion; do your research!!!
However, who gets to decide what is or is not "repugnant"? It sure as shit ain't some hick town Barney Fife wannabe in back country Texas. The only entity with the authority to void a law is the judiciary.
It doesn't give the the "power" to override unconstitutional laws, it gives them the DUTY to do so.
The CSPOA is giving Sheriffs the AWARENESS of their authority also known as powers, and they are correct! The ones who say otherwise are in cahoots with the administrative/state/fraudulent/blighteem/regime! aft/fat/atf is a rogue regime gestapo and should be defunded! No paycheckies go homie go homie!
THEY are not the interpreters of the Constitution. THAT is the United States Supreme Court. anyone that thinks a random Sherrif can decide what is constitutional and what is not is idiotic. there would be a hodgepodge of rules and laws across the country and counties... not to mention that most LEOs are uneducated morons. It takes more schooling to be a hairdresser than it does a certified LEO.
The Constitution gives the Courts, not local Sheriffs, the duty to decide what laws are unconstitutional. If a Sheriff is not enforcing a duly enacted law, then they are guilty of violating the Constitution.
@@andydickey nah, it is the duty of any person to stand up for what is right.
@@andydickey Shall not be infringed.
Any sworn official, knowing that a law is unconstitutional, is oath-bound to refuse to enforce it. This does not "override" the law.
An unconstitutional law is not valid. Read the constitution. The government is bound by that very same constitution. It was created to prevent government from doing exactly what they are trying to do.
Is that why police require identification from people not suspected of a crime? 4th amendment.
@@rcpilot179 That's why you do not give ID when you don't have to. if they force the issue, they just violated your 4th amendment rights, and you can take their qualified immunity away to sue their asses
🤣🤣🤣
"Any sworn official" does not have the authority to determine which laws are unconstitutional. As a matter of fact, our constitution has a mechanism for solving this question. The Supreme Court is the ultimate authority for that,
Anyone can disobey a law they think is unconstitutional but they also need to be ready to face the consequences should the courts not find in their favor.
Same can be said of Seditious Judges and lawyers as well! Now, can it not?
After all, I am from Texas - anyone remember Woody Harrelson's Father?
Another famous Texas Personality is Sheila Jackson Lee.
Anyone except cops that is...
Cops violate citizens constitutional rights every day. They only support the constitution when it benefits more time for donut breaks. Less laws to enforce, more donut time. Lol
Have we stopped teaching civics in school
the scam that people obey... lawyers, judges, cops, and politicians know the US constitution.. the US constitution is blatantly stated. There is no interpretation needed. It is written in black and white. For people to think there needs to be interpretation on it is complete stupidity.
Under the Constitution the sheriff's are known as the Cleo's known as the chief law enforcement officers and they do have the right to not enforce stupid laws not only that they also have the power to arrest criminal government officials if the people deem the officials as violations their oath and their rights with the help of the marshals they don't have to enforce stupid laws they don't have to enforce tickets cuz those violate the 8th Amendment a good shower from Arizona called a taxation through citation don't have to enforce anything the government says prior to the 10th Amendment that separate state law from federal law and the government and the judges and anyone cannot tell the sheriff's what to do but the people
They take a sworn oath to uphold it. Some men still have integrity thank God
There is no such power given to sheriffs anywhere in the Constitution. You would think of the Founders had believed in such a thing they would have listed that power in the document itself, just like they did for the three branches of government. This is just another form of fascism creeping into the right.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
These sheriffs have ZERO integrity, and are in direct violation of their oath of office.
Those satanists violate Natural Law every day that they show up for work enforcing the satanic unlawful "statutes", etc. of their satanic madsers in satanic governments.
Don't look to them for help.
@@bobcuddy853 🤣🤣🤣
@@looneyburgmusic $10 says you have a criminal record. Another $5 says felon
Any law that goes against the constitution does not hold water and the sheriffs are well within their rights and duties to block such tyranny!
Marbury v Madison they are all null and void! Politicians have been getting away with lies and deception for many years!
Does that apply to civilians when one of his officers gives an unlawful order or violates a Constitutional right?
@@FlameHAZE2010 The moment a government officer issues an unlawful command or violates a constitutionally secured right, they are NO LONGER A GOVERNMENT OFFICER acting in the lawful performance of their duty. They instantly become a criminal and impersonator and have NO LAWFUL AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER!
What about drug prohibition? Lol if you read the repeal of alcohol prohibition it clearly states that the federal government doesn’t have the authority to ban substances because they get people intoxicated. Ethanol is never specifically mentioned.
Sheriffs are tyranny.
Nothing wrong with Sheriff's learning about the constitution
A few hundred years late, but let's celebrate progress.
It's wrong when they're learning to misinterpret the Constitution
Problem is they know ZERO about the constitution...other than part of the second amendment...periodT and that's not what they're learning at these good old boy "conferences
It would be great if our legislative politicians took the same Constitutional law classes!
Something definitely wrong with Sheriffs insisting they know the Constitution better than the Supreme Court does! Why even have a SCOTUS if anybody that wants to can overrule them?
We all have to defend our constitutional rights
And who exactly is attacking your constitutional rights, sweetie? I mean, in reality, not your conspiracy theories.
And those breaking the Constitutional Laws???
Sorry honey, Im fresh out of conspiracy theories.
This comment is like saying: we all have to breathe. It adds nothing to the discussion at all except to point out obvious facts.
Democraps are the only people in history who willingly give up their rights.
I was trained to never follow unlawful orders no matter who’s issuing them..
An unlawful order is not the same as a law approved by the people's representatives and signed by a Governor.
The Constitution grants Article III powers to the courts alone. Only they have the the authority to overrule a law passed by the people's representatives.
@@vanessajazp6341
..my views and opinions on this subject are perfectly and completely anecdotal..
That being said it would appear to even the most casual of observers that our legislative body is profoundly flawed and driven by an agenda hatched by entities who fear an armed and informed citizenry.
Have you been paying attention to what’s going on?
I took an solemn oath when a raised my right hand. More than once. Have you?
@@vanessajazp6341 But none of those can conflict with the already established parts of the Constitution. You cannot just pass a law that straight up says a officer or official can search someone. This is already confirmed to be constitutional and just cuz I state passes it does not mean it's okay. Therefore an officer as well within their duty to uphold the constitution against that law.
Exactly! So was I!
@@Cander509 - are you one of those idiots who thinks any "armed militia" is going to overthrow the federal government, with the most powerful fighting force in human history at its back?
If a law violates the constitution, it's not the Sheriffs who are overstepping...
It's not the Sheriff role to decide. That's why we have judges.
who decides what violates the constitution... you know, according to the constitution? is sheriffs? i don't see t hat word in my copy.
👍🏻👍🏻
Judge, jury, and executioners.
The way to determine whether or not a law violates the constitution is to take it to the Supreme Court, not to refuse to enforce it. Until the SCOTUS says it violates the constitution, you have no right to make your own contrary interpretations of the law, that's anarchy. That being said, departments should be able to set their own enforcement priorities.
If there is no penalty for constitutional infringement, there is no constitution. And it has been gone for some time.
That’s why we the people must push back. If it wasn’t for those that have done it than it would have been completely gone. People are starting to wake up
@@leo29hornsfan Unfortunately, I think you are right. They just don't want to tell "We the people" that.
Apparently not. Florida's governor is stepping all over the constitution without pushback.
Enacting the second is supposed to be the penalty, but we’re too scared of consequences if we lose.
The Constitution has not been GONE. TREASON cannot NULLIFY the CONSTITUTION, just because it tries to IGNORE and over-ride it. Their CRIMINAL CONDUCT cannot DISQUALIFY the SUPER RATIFICATION of the Constitution which was properly Super Ratified by the SOVEREIGN CITIZENS.
The County Sheriff is the only law enforcement agency written into the constitution.
Maybe some State Constitutions, but not the US Constitution.
Sheriffs have every right to uphold the Constitution. They're part of our governments system of checks and balances
They take an oath to defend and enforce the constitution of the United States
@@timriggs8651 Wrong, try again
@@BigHunt206 how about you help by directing them to the part in the constitution that supports your argument rather than just saying "wrong"
It makes it seem like you dont know what youre talking about, because you dont have the confidence in what youre saying to provide the proof
And this is exactly what police and sheriffs are supposed to do, to uphold the Constitution above anything else. Thank God some police offers understand what their job actually is.
The definition of which is not up to a yahoo in a hat.
@@grahamo22 but he has a shiny star on his chest. Ultimate authority figure for wanna cowboys.
@@grahamo22 Ohhhh you don't understand the basics. Sad.
These guys sound like they're from 1963 Alabama when "federal overreach" forced them to desegregate.
Incorrect. Courts decide constitutionality of a law. Law enforcement... enforces laws. Of course they have discretion, but it isn't their job or within the scope of their supposed expertise to decide if a law is constitutional. Reminder: these are the same folks who will violate your co situational rights because the wind was blowing.
No IQ test or high school civics required to be sheriff
Great point. Sheriffs office are neither qualified nor legally able to determine constitutionality of laws.
@@brandonr43 LOL. You're too stupid to know what your rights are. Just blindly trust government always. They will never steer you wrong. I'm mean, that's why we're still under English rule, right?
@@darkpixel2k what a dipshit comment 😂
@@brandonr43 yet you can't refute it...
Thank you for standing for the constitution and our way of life!
What part of the Constitution gives these chuds the right to ignore established federal or state laws? Can you cite a specific Article or Clause?
Don’t believe what you see.There’s a video of one these sheriffs oppressing someone’s constitutional right.This whole interview is nothing but a fluff piece.I guarantee most of these sheriffs have stomped on someone’s rights before.
Dont stand too close. Fat man might eat you.
Still waiting for an answer...
If it's unconstitutional, it should be null and void, and it's a citizen's duty to defend our constitution.
IF It IS Unconstitutional, THEN IT IS NULL AND VOID AND AN ACT OF OPEN TREASON. And nothing Less than that.
And Ignorance of Govt Servants IS NO EXCUSE - it is in FACT GROUNDS for Charging them with TREASON for being INEPT and UNABLE to perform their Duty, Rightfully. their Oath Charges them to RESIGN if they are NOT Competent to do their job Right. If they Fail to Resign, or if their fellow members FAIL to remove them for incompetence, they also are guilty of Treason They have Failed their Fiduciary Obligations to the Constitution, To Their Oath of Office, to their Office and to WE THE PEOPLE.
Exactly
@@anombrerose6311 So who decides that? Ultimate arbitrator is the Supreme Court - if it gets that far. Are you arguing we each are constitutional lawyers and just know what is constitutional and what is unconstitutional? It is way more complex that what you are saying - and laws written by Republicans and Democrats have been ruled Unconstitutional - I think you are way over simplifying this. Are all those people that wrote those laws (struck down in court) guilty of treason? Good luck on the ethics complaints on their oath - hell AOC just got nailed for improper benefits (a free dress, hairdo and make up job) - she'll get a slap on the wrist. But it is not just Dems - both sides are pulling this BS - most of our elected officials are OWNED by their donors and corporations - they don't give a shit about voters or the Constitution.
@@jimbosc CONSTITUTION RULES - NOT the PERPETRATORS of CRIMES AGAINST the CONSTITUTION.
We are going to HAVE to start taking individual ISSUES before the Assemblies of the People, and have leaders pull out all the Constitutional Foundations which are the basis of those things QUESTIONABLE and put them before all the people, In groups, all over the country, and NOT a CONVENTION - THIS IS NOT to decide what CONSTUITUTIONAL PASSAGES we APPROVE OF, but whether LAWS AND RULINGS made by POLITICAL OFFICE HOLDERS are Constitutional.
No different than deciding if something the Politicians "NAMED" actually Comports with the WORD the DICTIONARY defines as that THING.
America literally did that over slavery.
a black man's BOND SERVANT was kept by the Black man MONTHS past the END of the Bond servants ALLOTED TIME at the Time of the Sale of that Servant's SERVICES, In those days, that was NORMALLY about 7 YRS - Normally, it was the price of a Fare on a SHIP to come to America, and thousands came by Indenturing themselves to an AMERICAN who would pay their Shipping Fare when they arrived in America.
This Bondholder HAD NO RIGHT to keep the man longer - though it was a Habit to begin charging the SERVANT for things that SHOULD NOT BE CALLED LAWFUL, but towns would let the Bondholder get by with it - usually because of Politics.. This Black man and Bond Holder - everything he could do to hold the Servant was EXPIRED. Finally several MONTHS later, the bond servant quit the bondholder and went to work for another man at a higher wage.
The Bond Holder, Anthony Johnson, went to the North Hampton Court and complained and ASKED THE COURT to RULE that the Bondservant be returned to him and BE HIS SLAVE INDEFINITELY. The NORTH HAMPTON COURT GRANTED THAT.
UNCONSTITUTIONALLY, but that was the Sole Foundation of Slavery in the USA, A Black Indentured Servant who owned a fellow Black indentured Servant, John Casor, for which Anthony Johnson sued Robert Parker, a White Man who did NOT own Indenturement papers on Casor, nor did the White man Own Casor as a Slave, either.
THE COURT was Guilty of Treason, they had NO FOUNDATION to make that ruling or for the Govt to turn it into a Right for Slavery, either.
AND THE FACT IS, WE THE PEOPLE are SOVEREIGN and we do NOT have to have a CIVIL WAR over these things, But we better start LEARNING HOW to Drag our Public Servants OUT for their CRIMES and hold them accountable, BCZ WE HAVE THE RIGHT to do so OUSIDE Govt Procedures when the Govt is NOT Obeying the CONSTITUTION. We Can hold a People's COURT.
Our Communities have the RIGHT to ASSEMBLE in their own communities and pull these people down OUT of OFFICE and CHANGE the RULINGS back to what is in Accord with the USA Constitution.
They do NOT have any Authority to fight off being taken out of office by a Super Majority.
Trap them in their govt office by a huge crowd and demand they resign and surrender to Law enforcement.
ICELAND did it about 10 yrs ago and so did Egypt.
www.sott.net/article/245591-Icelands-Amazing-Peaceful-Revolution-Ignored-by-Mainstream-Media
Iceland's Amazing Peaceful Revolution Ignored by Mainstream Media
Sat, 12 May 2012
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2354953/Egypt-celebrates-arrest-Muslim-Brotherhood-leader-army-hunts-300-Morsi-followers.html
By DAVID WILLIAMS and JAMES RUSH and SIMON TOMLINSON
PUBLISHED: 13:31 EST, 3 July 2013 | UPDATED: 20:00 EST, 4 July 2013
Read it.
The Constitution does not take a lawyer to understand.
Thank you for standing up for our constitution!
Oath of Office! They absolutely have a duty to disregard any law or order that violates the Constitution.
Too bad it's not their place to decide if a law is Constitutional or not.
@@looneyburgmusic Exactly. They have the ability to enforce or not but zero ability to decide what is or is not Constitutional
No they do not.
Article III powers reside with the courts alone, not with law enforcement officers who think they have the authority to make summary judgments.
@@looneyburgmusic actually it is
Who determines whether or not a law violates the Constitution? The Supreme Court does! Has the Supreme Court made that determination? If not, then STFU until they do!
America needs more Sheriff's like these.
no they need more people like this to say no and stand up together
Nice to see people do the right thing.
“A Law repugnant to the Constitution is void.” - Chief Justice John C. Marshall, Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Nobody wants your idiotic guns
@@faithboucher5407 Obviously you are clueless, and I won't waste my time with you.
Why quote a judge? I'll tell you why: they are the only ones that can determine constitutionality of a law. Sheriffs can't.
Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803), established the basis for *JUDICIAL* review of laws when a law is challenged. It did not say that some badge-wearing elected official could make the determination that a law is unconstitutional.
@@bukka6697 ?
Any law enforcement officer that swears an oath to the US Constitution has the same exact duty, not just the sheriff's. Uphold your oaths all peace officer's !!!
We just watched 2 years of every major police department in the country enforcing blatantly unconstitutional covid dictates.
I'm not holding my breath that the majority of police will ever risk the paycheck in order to do the right thing. Most of the ones who would have done the right thing have either quit being police rather than participate in police abuse of authority, or they already work for smaller, rural policing agencies that tend not to act in as high-handed a manner to the public.
The federal courts decide what laws are constitutional, not County Sheriffs. Stupid people shouldn't be Sheriffs or citizens.
I'm happy you said DUTY..Not the same Authority...A Sheriff has ATHORITY in his own county over FBI. ATF. HLS. Because the Sheriff is voted in...
@@maxoblivion
The Constitution decides what's Constitutional. Anyone who can read it honestly can interpret it.
The problem with the federal judiciary, and the government in general, is that they believe that if a judge rules the exact opposite of what is written in the Constitution, the judge's ruling is constitutional and the Constitution is unconstitutional.
@@christineshotton824 "The Constitution decides what's Constitutional"? What does that mean Christine? THE CONSTITUTION defines who has the authority to determine constitutionality and it isn't County Sheriffs. The federal courts and ultimately the Supreme Court decide the constitutionality of a law. If you oppose that reality, you oppose the Constitution. The Sheriffs who try to usurp the authority of the federal courts, are acting in opposition to the Constitution and are violating their oath of office.
In a day and age where people love to re-imagine history and the laws that have kept us around exactly 247 years now. It’s not hard to believe they would want to make you think it’s illegal to fight against tyranny when it’s your own Government. Who is setting these standards? Who’s making these rules? And WHO is stupid enough to believe them?
If ACTUAL tyranny came to America it would still be illegal to fight against it... When you are literally fighting the state it's always illegal. There are parts of the world with real tyranny right now. This isn't it.
Uhmm, that would be the Supreme Court.
All the way back to 1790, as a matter of fact... but I'm sure you know better
Unfortunately, someone that I was just in a ludicrous conversation with, rofl
About time Sherrif realize their authority over federal crap laws that have no power over sovereign states
Newsflash, child: they don’t have authority over federal laws. And you should be glad they don’t. Otherwise, any penny-ante nut job could decide the law based on whatever delusion of grandeur they have. People in small towns have a history of being bullied by the local“law”. Thank heavens for the transparency that modern technology provides. These so-called “Constitutional Sheriffs” have a history of not being re-elected once the voters see their whack job mentality and the potential real harm it could cause.
US States aren't sovereign they are subject to Federal Law
I’m a TEXAN I support these men 100 percent
Do you support the Constitution or do you support people who violate it?
Ignorance of the law or defiance if it is an offence.
AMEN! We ALL need to oppose unconstitutional 'rules' - I can't even call them laws because they are being brought fourth outside the influence of CONGRESS.
What the f*ck are you babbling about? Can you name ONE "unconstitutional" law that these chuds have chosen to ignore?
OUTSIDE the INFLUENCE of the USA CONSTITUTION and the approval of WE THE PEOPLE. They are automatically Acts of Treason.
They took an oath. Thank you for keeping it.
With any luck, they'll also uphold the 1st and 4th amendments as well, but I doubt it.
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 ...
I congratulate these Sheriffs.
Unfortunately, they will defend only the constitutional rights that they want to.
You have a duty to defend ALL constitutional rights for everyone, at all times.
Not just for your deputies.
As a former sheriff's deputy I know that the sheriff is the top law enforcement officer of that county. Local, state and federal agencies have to notify or ask the sheriff for assistance in that county
Excellent point. Maybe you can educate HistorianDude (how ironic) above.
My guess is that is a courtesy rendered but not a requirement. If a federal law is broken, the federal government has jurisdiction, not the sheriff.
FALSE
Oh high and mighty .
The 2nd Amendment keeps wannabe dictators in check. We will not allow your kind to enslave us like China and Russia have done to their citizens.
I tried pulling jurisdiction on a sheriff with my US Mall Marshal badge. He slapped the Smokey the Bear hat off my head. He is just lucky my flashlight didn't clear leather.
Bravo!! Thank you gentlemen.❤💙❤💙❤💙❤💙
Thank God for the Sheriff that upholds the Constitution.
The citizens not only have a right to disobey an unconstitutional law, but a obligation to do so. "Thomas Jefferson"
Enforcing state right to secede from union didn't work out so well
@@bobshopes7099 Plus the constitution explicitly stated that Confederacies between States against the Fed gov were Unconstitutional. The only issue that the Slavers were wedging on was that the Constitution only specified how individuals States get ADDED IN to the Nation, not how they get out (but the obvious implication would be that it would work the same way, 75% vote of "all the Nation" so either 75% of States Leadership or 75% national voters). So the slavers tried stupidly to say that they got out first AND THEN joined a Confederacy...lol what a bunch of evil morons TO THIS DAY their descendants are the same.
@@bobshopes7099 what you just wrote has nothing to do with what the OP wrote. 10th amendment is for the States. Plus the States have to follow the Constitution, Constitutionally. The south lost all Constitutional Rights when they succeeded.
"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." -Thomas Jefferson
Thank you, sheriffs 🙏
This kind of action is what it will take to start the ripple effect of stopping the over ride of the Federal Government from illegal action as we have seen in the past!
Sheriff's departments have a lot more Authority than the average person knows. They can stop a lot of government corruption if they just would.
They’re the last line of defense against tyrannical government, it’s time we find out where our locals stand🤔
These sheriffs are all about the constitution. Let's do away with qualified immunity also, good sheriffs. This would allow a citizen to sue law enforcement if law enforcement violates the citizen's constitutional rights.
As it should be. They are elected at the local level.
They ARE govt corruption. They're not going to stop themselves.
Civil asset forfeiture, seizing Dad's nice truck because junior had a little weed on him, arresting people for filming them, demanding ID "just because" (ya that was a Texas cop on video) illegally searching vehicles, stopping people for "driving in a bad neighborhood", stopping people for walking after dark, lying on camera about traffic stops, lying in court to the point that Texas has several hundred cops on a list that the prosecutors will never call to testify....yep those good Ole boys are all about the constitution, and protecting 2nd amendment rights, like they did in Uvalde. The list of serial predators and drug dealers/users who were Texas sheriff's is huge.
Ought to be fired !! They are not judge and jury !!
We take our freedoms very seriously here in America. The problem may be is we refuse to take responsibility for our actions . Very complex situation. 🇺🇸🙈🇺🇸🙈
Your mother must be very proud of your IQ
La la land!!
Yeah that's true
You're correct, when a Federal Agency starts to make laws up instead of Congress theirs a serious problem to our Rights as laid out in the Bill of Rights. The ATF is not Congress it can't just make up Laws and force other Agencies to follow them. The ATF ruling is going to be shut down by Congress or the Supreme Court.
" uphold and defend the constitution of the United states of America "
Sheriff Richard M, thank you, sir. God bless your soul. All you, sheriffs and police thank you so much for holding the constitution. Americans make sure they all are reallected.
God Bless these Sheriffs for upholding their oaths...and not listening to crooked politicians. Especially in this day and age of shady politicians trying to weaponize law enforcement.
While violating the law. Right. Constitutional Sheriffs Movement is right-wing anti-democracy dangerous nonsense.
One government group, the smaller, saying they can over rule another government group, the larger, because their interpretation of the Constitution is superior. I wonder how that will proceed.
Wildcard sheriffs vs the constitution they swore to uphold
The sheriff is not a government position
@@sm-fo6om Yes it is, every law enforcement agency is a part of a government local, state, or federal. The agencies get their operating money from taxes.
Gotta love a good Sheriff.. I appreciate them so much more seeing them stand up to the ATF.
Yes. They also took and oath and are serious about upholding it. Unlike the politician hypocrites that do what they want instead of upholding the constitution.
'the politician hypocrites that do what they want instead of upholding the constitution.'
Give me one example of a politicians hypocrite doing what they want in a way that is against the constitution, and show me what article it is against.
@@Michael-mh2tw the baby wants to be spoon fed 😂
They need to be federally investigated immediately....
Too bad most police officers don't feel this way.
Most cops have no idea what the Constitution is.
The police are just hired thugs to provide income for the state. Sheriffs are elected and given authority by the people.
There is a difference between sheriff and deputies and police. Most assuredly between sheriff and deputies and the F.B.I.
That’s what they say when it’s convenient but when you see 1st amendment audits in Texas they become policy enforcement officers instead of law enforcement officers.
You are undoubtedly right, but if we are to all agree we want the police in society- I think we need to applaud the things we like to hear from them all the same.
They are all crooked in one way or another
Thank you! Problem is that the same people that come on here and praise them for "defending the constitution" also support all those 1st amendment violations being committed not only in TX but in FL too. The same sheriffs that people say defend the constitution really don't. Just the parts they like.
@@floridamarinemom1749 you’re 💯,
I'm going to wherever these people are I'm going to be a part of that community and I'm going to support them in every way that I can.
This is what the Sheriffs office was designed for. It is an elected position not appointed. The Sheriff is a cushion between County, State and Federal agencies. They are sworn to uphold the Federal and State Constitutions, and step in when there are discrepancies, like if the State passes a law that contradicts the Federal or State Constitution, the Sheriff can openly reject that law. The Sheriff is considered the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of his/her County, because they are not appointed, so there is little or no chance of cronyism of appointed police chief or Trooper commander.
"This is what the Sheriffs office was designed for." No, it's not.
"It is an elected position not appointed." - Irrelevant.
"The Sheriff is a cushion between County, State and Federal agencies." - False claim, invented by anti-American right-wing agitators.
"The Sheriff is considered the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of his/her County, because they are not appointed, so there is little or no chance of cronyism of appointed police chief or Trooper commander." - See above.
More or less everything you said has zero basis in Reality.
Generally, the sheriff is the chief law enforcement officer when it comes to state laws and local ordinances. A sheriff has no authority when it comes to the primary enforcement of federal laws. Remember that a sheriff is an office created by a state constitution or a state law. The sheriff is not an office created by the US Constitution or Congress or the federal government. The sheriff is not required to directly assist federal law enforcement enforcing federal law but the sheriff cannot impede/interfere with federal law enforcement enforcing federal law. The sheriff is not part of the federal criminal justice system and thus he cannot stop the US Attorney from prosecuting someone in federal court. Swearing an oath to the US Constitution does not mean that the federal government gave the sheriff lawful authority to determine the validity of federal laws. Federal law enforcement do not work for or answer to the Sheriff. Federal law enforcement has Supremacy Clause authority when it comes to federal matters.
Agree with the sheriff! Execute an anlawful order in the military and see if that argument holds up at your court
martial .
Sheriff never heard of the supremacy clause which ironically is part of the US constitution that he is citing. This is what I do not like about America. Too many dumb people, especially in influential places.
Article VI, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution:
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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
I wish I had a dime for everybody who claims to know the law better than everyone else
Support these sheriffs any way you can!
Behind our Sheriff's department's 100%.. big government has gotten out of hand!!
Happy Independence Day my fellow Texans! March 2nd, 1836.
Happy Independence Day 👍🇺🇸
Thanks…
Hear hear
Sheriffs are the laws of the land for each state. The Federal Government has overstepped its bounds in all areas. Good job Sheriff’s
Each county. They are the highest elected official and swore an oath to protect us and our rights. The entire government operates with our consent. Make it happen at the ballot box.
All right as an American citizen are with the sheriffs department. Hey federal government don’t tread on me.
We are state Nationals not citizens the government is the citizens they are the servants but however you can identify as whatever you want you have the power to self-determination if you want to be a national or citizen so I can't stop you
Where the problem lies is in the fact almost everyone assumes the fed government is somehow the ultimate authority of the country (and the world for that matter) when this just simply is not the case. It's probably because they act like they own everybody and everything, and they believe it too. People have been assimilated through years of "schooling" to "respect authority" and because of this, end up believing the gov is the highest law of the land when actually, it is not. The Sheriff of any county, in his/her own jurisdiction, IS the highest law of said area (land), and they have more power than any fed agency who enters it. Fact.
What you stated is not a fact but an opinion that has no basis in the actual rule of law. Sheriffs hold no authority in federal matters. Generally, the sheriff is the chief law enforcement officer when it comes to state laws and local ordinances. A sheriff has no authority when it comes to the primary enforcement of federal laws. Remember that a sheriff is an office created by a state constitution or a state law. The sheriff is not an office created by the US Constitution or Congress or the federal government. The sheriff is not required to directly assist federal law enforcement enforcing federal law but the sheriff cannot impede/interfere with federal law enforcement enforcing federal law. The sheriff is not part of the federal criminal justice system and thus he cannot stop the US Attorney from prosecuting someone in federal court. Swearing an oath to the US Constitution does not mean that the federal government gave the sheriff lawful authority to determine the validity of federal laws. Federal law enforcement do not work for or answer to the Sheriff. Federal law enforcement has Supremacy Clause authority when it comes to federal matters.
@@jasonh5547 So the concept of State's right is non-existent?
That is one of the founding principles of the Constitution.
The State's have jurisdiction within their boundaries.
Look to Illinois and their recent "assault weapon" ban.
Every sheriff in Illinois save one has publicly refused to enforce the ban.
Granted that is at the sate level but but the concept is true when dealing with Federal law imposed on State's.
The Federal government itself is not the supreme power in this nation.
The Constitution is.
If anything the Constitution is mean't to limit Federal government therefore the sheriffs are correct in their assessment.
BTW, the sheriff does have the authority to arrest Federal employees and Federal law enforcement within their jurisdiction when breaking state laws.
The Constitution does not "give you your rights". Your "rights" are God given. The Constitution was written to RESTRICT what the government CAN do.
@@anitaodom5155 The Constitution restricts the Federal government.
That was one of the main points I made.
As far as a deity granting those rights, I am an Athiest.
Humans are born with natural rights.
@Mike Jones Actually, I could not see your response when I responded. Lol. I guess I am a really slow typist. I would also point out another distinction. Sheriffs and State officials are elected by "We The People" vs unelected bureaucrats.
They have the DUTY to refuse to enforce ANY AND ALL Unconstitutional Laws!
Only after a court rules it unconstitutional. Law enforcement doesn't get to decide what's unconstitutional, that's the job of the courts.
@@RoverTheDog1 … Correct! These badged knuckleheads will eventually land in front of a federal judge, and it won’t end well for them.
Just look how disgraceful Sheriff Joe Arpaio from AZ ended his miserably long, extra-judicial career…
@@RoverTheDog1 not true. Their oath is to the constitution not a judge.nice try though.
@@jajajajajajajajaja867 That's not how the law works. Yes their oath is to the constitution, that doesn't mean they can just decide what the constitution means to them. Everyone has a different interpretation. That's why the supreme court and lower court's exist. Nice try though
@@jajajajajajajajaja867 isn't interpreting the constitution literally a judge's job?
I sure hope they show THIS SAME RESPONSE when the WEF and the WHO come to dismantle OUR WAY OF LIFE !
And they have the power to make us all deputies
At least someone understands the oath they took. God bless them. FJB
Of course, a "professor" will say the sheriffs are misguided.
Those "professor" are just puppets at this point, big government all up in there insides.
Do quote one when it happens.
The Pro/fusser looks like he needs to go on a keto diet to me! Too much fat in his brain.
Because they are.
Most people don't know that our Sheriff's are elected officials 👍
Totally agree with the sheriffs.
Not "Says they have the authority"...."Reminds people of the fact they have the authority and duty"
Good to see great Americans in action!
About time! That professor needs to educate himself on the Tenth Amendment.
Great! Don't send any free masks, vaccines, PPE Funds, their pays or any more help for natural disasters, or boats loads of money for new Police/Sheriffs tanks, weapons, protective gear, funds for training, etc... If any of those individual citizens, would like help with masks, test kits, vaccines, they can request the help, individually set to their homes.
God bless them!
Sheriff's were the law of the land before the Texas Rangers and the introduction of federal marshals.. Sheriff's were Sworn and or nominated .Am I wrong?
Absolutely correct. They took an oath to the constitution. Honestly, they are 100% right.
Only problem - law enforcement is NOT an arbiter of what laws are Constitutional, or not. That is what the COURTS are for.
By refusing to uphold the law, these sheriffs are in fact in VIOLATION of their oath of office, and should be removed immediately
Why is it that no one points out that the 2nd Amendment doesn't say one word about guns? It refers to "arms". There are lots of different things that could be called "arms": Knives, swords, bow and arrows, guns, grenades, bazookas, shoulder mounted surface to air missiles, tanks, nerve gas, bioweapons, flame throwers, napalm, and bombs of all sizes and types including nuclear bombs mounted on intercontinental ballistic missiles. Using the freewheeling thought process (and I use the term loosely) of the 2nd Amendment zealots, doesn't the Constitution guarantee that all Americans should have unfettered access to any and all of the "arms" listed above, including personal nuclear weapons? The world will only be safe when everyone has their own nukes. It's difficult to believe that these folks think that each individual Sherriff should be deciding which laws they decide are Constitutional and which not. Sure sounds like a slippery slope to me.
Not only the authority, which we all have, but the responsibility
Samuel Adams: The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men.
"He therefore is the truest friend to the liberty of this country who tries most to promote its virtue, and who, so far as his power and influence extend, will not suffer a man to be chosen into any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man....The sum of all is, if we would most truly enjoy this gift of Heaven, let us become a virtuous people." - Samuel Adams
Samuel Adams: Shame on the men who can court exemption from present trouble and expense at the price of their own posterity's liberty!
If therefore a people will not be free: if they have not virtue enough to maintain their liberty against a presumptuous invader, THEY DESERVE NO PITY, and are to be treated with contempt and ignominy. ~ Samuel Adams
- The Boston Gazette, signed "Candidus" (exerpt) October 14, 1771
"And if a minister shall usurp the supreme and absolute government of America, and set up his instructions as laws in the colonies, and their Governors shall be so weak or so wicked, as for the sake of keeping their places, to be made the instruments in putting them in execution, who will presume to say that the people have not a right or that it is not their indispensible duty to God and their Country, by all rational means in their power to resist them."
- Samuel Adams
"Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say 'what should be the reward of such sacrifices?' Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth?
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams
Good for them! Our sheriff is taking the same stance on this deal
I'm so proud of the Sheriffs
Not enforcing background checks for firearms is fighting for your rights? Are you a special type of stupid?
I am proud of them when they uphold the constitution. Usually they pick and choose.
Somebody has got to stand up!
@@WitnessingTyranny So then you seriously cannot be against criminals with firearms... Just saying
@@WitnessingTyranny That loser of a sheriff literally said I disagree with background checks - murderers fresh out of prison is going to love that 🤡
No Mr. Taylor. The sheriffs are not "overriding Federal authority". They are upholding the Constitution against would-be tyrants. Big difference.
how about the a womans right to choose?
@@MrFloppy131 Not in the Constitution.
Have they heard of the supremacy clause?
Explain please. I'd like to know this
Great to see, now we need more of this!
If they are putting the constitution first, then they are upholding their oath!
No, because the constitution grants certain power to the Federal Authorities.
@Len Black not to regulate firearms. The federal government has ZERO authority in that aspect. Shall not be Infringed is as clear as day
@@nathankindle282 Well regulated is as clear as day, too.
but they arent, they are picking and choosing which laws to uphold and which to ignore....if they are gonna do it, then treat ALL laws like this even if you disagree. the govt and state dont have a right to make a woman stay pregnant, but i bet these Hatted fools wont protect a womans rights because they dont agree with abortion. if they are gonna defend constitution, then do it fully and not HalfAssed as normal.
these people are just clowns wanting attention.
@@nathankindle282 what you just said needs to spread across country to ALL cops because for some reason most of them think they can make the laws and have no clue what the constitution even is. Let’s be real, no politician, cop, lawyer, judge give a f**k about the constitution, only about their personal feelings and opinions. It bs and the people are seeing this very clear, if the people hopefully ever grow some balls and show the government we don’t need them and are tired of the bs lies maybe we can see some positive changes because right now this country is f**ked.
Thank you for standing up for our everyone's rights.
Sheriff's, police officers, military. National guard, we the people all have the same duty to defend the constitution. It's past time we get started on that.
Yeah it's on it's way..when AMERICA'S LEADER'S ARRIVE people are going to comply
I'm 52 years old and I've never heard the Constitution discussed so much as it has been in the last 4 years. ( 1789 ) would be proud.
1789 is appalled at the assault on them.
Much of the discussion is by people who don't understand the Constitution
Sure must be hard to discuss the Constitution with those having problems with the definition of what a women is. Problem is Right and left wing are of the same bird. Corrupt to the core
People can’t even comprehend the first sentence more less the whole Constitution
@@Dr_GraysGhost_420 Exactly. I talk to so many people that cannot list the 6 specific goals of the constitution as defined by the first sentence of the first paragraph of that document.
These sheriffs are real heros.
yes they are...to the klan....
Sheriffs don't know what the Constitution actually says or means, though. They prove that every time they violate the 1st, 4th, or 5th Amendments, which is literally every day. Weird how you folks trust them to uphold the Constitution when they violate it ALL THE TIME. The vast majority of violations of the Constitution comes from local and county law enforcement. They are not the heroes. They are actually the ones violating your rights 99% of the time.
A true hero would protect our forth amendment rights also. Texas sheriffs are the worse when it comes to honoring the forth.
! Thank God somebody is putting the stop on this !
How long before they decide they’re above all federal laws? Oh wait. They already do.
Joseph, some of those laws are not constitutional. You should be thankful organizations such as constitutional sheriff's and police officers exist.
@@jwtrucker5402 yeah any law you've been told not to like is automatically unconstitutional.
lol, talk about privilege!
@@edwardgiovannelli5191 and god forbid you know the law better than them, bc they belittle you and treat you even worse for P.O.P.
@@edwardgiovannelli5191 ever read the constitution, federal code, local laws? Now sit down and shut up stupid. If you actually thought logically instead of yapping, you might come to realize those cops are actually doing you a tremendous service.
@@jwtrucker5402 Unfortunately, JW, I'm not as smart as you, so why don't you go ahead and explain it to me. Which laws here have I misinterpreted? What logic am I missing?
That's a laugh, Texas sheriff's violate people's rights all the time! What he's really saying is they will pick and choose what rights the people get ! Hypocrisy at its finest!
100% that is true, Tenth amendment is clear.
Um, the 10th Amendment is not very clear and it also says nothing relevant to this video.
@@ajm5007 Um, actually it is. Pay more attention in school kid.
This has literally nothing to do with the tenth amendment.
@@Michael-mh2tw you and Aaron both need to go back to school
@@ajm5007 OK, explain.
Way to go, Sherrifs!! Others who take oaths to defend our Constitution of the US should follow suit.
By disregarding their oaths? Good plan.
No government official should ever think they have the right to force anyone else to violate the US Constitution. They can also not force us to violate the law.
Its not for police to interpret the law, it is their job to enforce it. Legislators write laws, judiciary interprets them and ensure Constitutionality, sherriffs enforce them. Sherriffs are NOT Constitutional law experts.
@@nandisaand5287 You destroy your own argument with this one line "Sherriffs are NOT Constitutional law experts". That's a typical left wing response to anyone's opinion you don't like. If ignorance was an excuse, we'd all be breaking laws every single day. But we're better than that.
@@guy-tn2ud I made my point succinctly: a sheriff's job is to enforce the criminal code, not to craft the criminal code, or interpret it's Constitutionality. Its his job to enforce the law as written, not as he would like it.
Nobody wants your idiotic guns
@@faithboucher5407 true colors.
Thank you for doing your duty Sheriff’s!
Way to go Sheriffs!
YES! You pick and choose which laws you feel like enforcing and who cares about the rest, that's "law enforcement" right?
The sheriff's were not law enforcement targeting the people they were law enforcement to keep the government in check and the only help us when we ask
Bravo Sheriffs. An unconstitutional law, regulation, rule or action is illegal, unlawful, and need not be followed. Protect and defend the United States Constitution and the citizens of your county as your oath of office directs you to do.
Sheriff never heard of the supremacy clause which ironically is part of the US constitution that he is citing. This is what I do not like about America. Too many dumb people, especially in influential places.
Article VI, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution:
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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
And who exactly in this system of government has the authority to determine what is and isn't "an unconstitutional violation"?
If your answer is "police" then what you really want in your life is a police state, where police (not judges, not lawmakers, not the voters) determine what the law is. Better if you admit that to yourself.
Not enforcing background checks for firearms is fighting for your rights? Are you a special type of stupid?
Clearly the Republican party wants criminals to have firearms. So much for their needing it for protection argument
All fantastic until you're arrested for whatever these Sheriffs feel is justified. Jesus. you Americans are unbelievable with what you will accept.
The Federal Gov't has become the gov't our founder's warned us about.
And don't forget the feds / ATF or FBI must ask permission of the Sheriff of the county they wish to execute a warrant / apprehension before they enter that county. Your sheriff has more authority over the feds than most people know .
Except for counties by the borders, given Bush Jr and Trump interpretations that the Courts did not aggressively (bipartisanly at the times) attack. Also, the borders between States are controlled by the Feds, so if a criminal crosses State lines the FBI can continue their warrant and if the criminal gets deep enough into dumb sticks territory he can say sorry later and be excused by JUDGES.
That is actually very incorrect. The feds have Supremacy Clause authority when it comes to enforcing federal laws in their subject matter jurisdiction. The feds receive their jurisdiction and arrest powers from Congress. Federal agents have NATIONWIDE jurisdiction in every county in America. They do not have to ask the sheriff to execute a warrant or apprehend someone. They do not work for the sheriff or answer to the sheriff. The key thing to note is that a sheriff enforces state laws and local ordinances. Sheriffs do not enforce federal law. Also, the sheriff does not have to assist the feds enforcing federal law but at the same time the sheriff cannot interfere or impede with federal agents enforcing federal law. A sheriff can assist the feds if they so choose though. This notion that they have to ask permission from the sheriff to come into their county is about as legal and valid as a three dollar bill would be. It is nonsense in relation to the actual rule of law.
@@letsomethingshine Federal agents have NATIONWIDE jurisdiction in EVERY county in America in their subject matter jurisdiction as authorized Congress in federal law.
@@jasonh5547 That will tested harshly very very soon. If you think these agents are virtuous men of courage you would be wrong. Very Wrong.
It is not a matter of authority - it is a matter of interpretation. Only the Federal courts have that authority. The whole purpose of the US Supreme Court is to interpret the US Constitution regarding conflicting laws at any level.
Sounds good for individual freedom
and those Texas Sherriffs should remember what happened in Waco.
That's why they should pushback against federal govt overreach.