And this is what our elected ones think is the grand model to follow...morons.

 One of the questions I get regularly is why should we be concerned about the Sheriff and his duties?  What difference does it make anyway?

The Sheriff is the one law enforcement officer that you elect. In fact, the Sheriff is by design the CLEO, (Chief Law enforcement officer) in the county. He is an elected official to the executive branch of government. His role is to protect the people as their elected CLEO.

In contrast:

The local police are hired by the township, borough or city and their job is to enforce the laws of the same, as well as the state and Federal laws. They are there to protect and defend the interests of the government entity they are employed by.

The state police are hired by the executive of the state and serve several purposes, including that of highway patrol. In fact, in the Commonwealth they are paid directly out of the motor vehicle fund and not the general fund. That's right, over $ 500 MILLION a year is extracted from the motor vehicle fund to pay for the state police, so their cost is hidden, and does not show up in the general budget fund every year. The state police do not work for you, nor do they work to protect and defend your interests or property, but that of the state.

The Distraction

Many times we hear the argument made that it is more cost effective to transfer responsibility to the state police because it is more cost effective. One common reason given is that rural areas just can not afford police protection.

It is very easy to become distracted when there is a realignment of the power structure in government. One thing you can always rest assured of. Whenever there is a transfer of power it is always away from the people. Many people in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have allowed themselves to be distracted when it comes to our county Sheriffs. The change in their job description is by no means incidental. In fact, it has little to do with the Sheriff. It has everything to do with the Office and what it represents.

It is not the Sheriff they are diminishing. It is the rights of the sovereign people they are trampling. By transferring power from the Sheriff to their police forces they ensure their interests are protected and that your interests are sacrificed for the greater good of the state.

When our government passes legislation that in any way limits the role of the elected Sheriff, they in effect have infringed upon your rights and taken powers that are not theirs.

Where can I find that in the Constitution?

I recently had a well read friend of mine pull me to the side and say to me, "John, I keep hearing about the power of the Sheriff. Can you show me anywhere in the Constitution where the Sheriff is granted these type of powers?"

I use this not as a chance to condescend, but rather as an example of how the average American today does not grasp the nature of what the Constitution is or why it was even written.

I explained, the Constitution was written to outline the limited duties that the federal government were given and to place constraints and restraints on the federal government. The office of the Sheriff is a county office and therefore would not be mentioned.

The Sheriff is your elected official to make sure that the federal and the state governments do not exceed their power and jurisdiction over you.

Do you think it is any coincidence that the government has attempted to diminish the power of the Sheriff, when it is that office that ensures your rights are protected?

The state and federal government would like you to believe that they are all powerful and that the local guys must move aside when they say jump, but that is not the case at all.

Supreme Court Decision in favor of the Sheriff

While we will not be able to find the power of the Sheriff enumerated in the Constitution, we do find that the Court labored over the issue of the federal government exercising its power over the state and the Court drawing the line in Printz v United States, 95-1478

 Quoting from the case:

 "Petitioners Jay Printz and Richard Mack, the CLEOs for Ravalli County, Montana, and Graham County, Arizona, respectively, filed separate actions challenging the constitutionality of the Brady Act's interim provisions....The petitioners here object to being pressed into federal service, and contend that congressional action compelling state officers to execute federal laws is unconstitutional. Because there is no constitutional text speaking to this precise question, the answer to the CLEOs' challenge must be sought in historical understanding

and practice, in the structure of the Constitution, and in the jurisprudence of this Court."

"Not only do the enactments of the early Congresses, as far as we are aware, contain no evidence of an assumption that the Federal Government may command the States' executive power in the absence of a particularized constitutional authorization, they contain some indication of precisely the opposite assumption. On September 23, 1789--the day before its proposal of the Bill of Rights, see 1 Annals of Congress 912-913--the First Congress enacted a law aimed at obtaining state assistance of the most rudimentary and necessary sort for the enforcement of the new Government's laws: the holding of federal prisoners in state jails at federal expense. Significantly, the law issued not a command to the States' executive, but a recommendation to their legislatures. Congress "recommended to the legislatures of the several States to pass laws, making it expressly the duty of the keepers of their goals, to receive and safe keep therein all prisoners committed under the authority of the United States," and offered to pay 50 cents per month for each prisoner.

Act of Sept. 23, 1789, 1 Stat. 96. Moreover, when Georgia refused to comply with the request, see L. White, The Federalists402 (1948), Congress's only reaction was a law authorizing the marshal in any State that failed to comply with the Recommendation of September 23, 1789,

to rent a temporary jail until provision for a permanent one could be made, see Resolution of Mar. 3, 1791, 1 Stat. 225. "

"It is incontestable that the Constitution established a system of "dual sovereignty." Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 457 (1991); Tafflin v. Levitt, 493 U.S. 455, 458 (1990).

 Although the States surrendered many of their powers to the new Federal Government, they

retained "a residuary and inviolable sovereignty," The Federalist No. 39, at 245 (J. Madison). This is reflected throughout the Constitution's text, Lane County v. Oregon, 7 Wall. 71, 76 (1869); Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700, 725 (1869), including (to mention only a few examples)

the prohibition on any involuntary reduction or combination of a State's territory, Art. IV, �3; the Judicial Power Clause, Art. III, �2, and the Privileges and Immunities Clause, Art. IV, 2, which speak of the "Citizens" of the States; the amendment provision, Article V, which requires the votes of three fourths of the States to amend the Constitution; and the Guarantee Clause, Art. IV, �4, which "presupposes the continued existence of the states and . . . those means and instrumentalities which are the creation of their sovereign and reserved rights,"

Helvering v. Gerhardt, 304 U.S. 405, 414 -415 (1938). Residual state sovereignty was also implicit, of course, in the Constitution's conferral upon Congress of not all governmental powers, but only discrete, enumerated ones, Art. I, �8, which implication was rendered express by the Tenth Amendment's assertion that "[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This separation of the two spheres is one of the Constitution's structural protections of liberty. "Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serve to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front." Gregory, supra, at 458.

To quote Madison once again:

"In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other; at the same time that each will be controlled by itself."

The Federalist No. 51, at 323.  

"Where, as here, a law violates the state sovereignty principle, it is not a law "proper for carrying into Execution" delegated powers within the Necessary and Proper Clause's meaning. Cf. New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 166 . The Supremacy Clause does not help the dissent, since it makes "Law of the Land" only "Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance [of the Constitution.]" Art. VI, cl. 2. Pp. 24-25.

"Finally, and most conclusively in these cases, the Court's jurisprudence makes clear that the Federal Government may not compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program.  A "balancing" analysis is inappropriate here, since the whole object of the law is to direct the functioning of the state executive, and hence to compromise the structural framework of dual sovereignty; it is the very principle of separate state sovereignty that such a law offends. See e.g., New York, supra, at 187. Pp. 25-34.

How do we begin to TURN this around and reframe the argument so people understand? 

TURN remains constant in our position that to be responsible we must not only educate people what the problem is, but we must attempt to find some type of solution so we can correct the problems in the system.

TURN believes that we must study history to establish what a realistic course of action is. Historically speaking, when government extracts more power from the people we find that they tend not to relinquish said powers, but rather expound upon them. We do not find that it would be realistic to expect the federal or state government to restore the balance of power that has been tilted in their favor by their own actions.

The story goes that Two thousand years ago, a Roman Senator suggested that all slaves wear white armbands to better identify them. "No," said a wiser Senator, "If they see how many of them there are, they may revolt."

The concept is similar today. People today do not understand how their freedom has been wrested away from them by the state through various methods over time. However, despite the slow wresting of power through manipulation, the power remains with the people. We are led to believe that we still have all the rights granted to us by the Constitution, but today we have our leaders mock us when we mention their actions violate our rights.

Much of this is because people now believe that the government is the Sovereign and that we are slaves. People do not understand that our rights do not come from the government but from our Creator. In effect, we have become slaves to the government without even realizing it. However, once we realize what has happened over time, we also look around and realize that our situation is one full of hope. We see "We the People" and realize the energy that lies within us.

What happened?

The Constitution presupposed a Sheriff that would ensure the peoples rights and it presupposed a people who knew and would guard their rights as sacred. When those two factors changed over time so did the balance of power.

Did the changing of the role of the Sheriff have a direct correlation to the diminishing of individual rights?

We believe it has. If we had constitutional Sheriff's, we would have politicians being arrested for violating their oaths of office. But rather today, people are mocked when they mention holding the government to account.

How can we help be a part of the solution?

The first thing that we can do is to educate people about how our rights have been taken illegitimately. Then we must educate them as to the Constitutional presupposition of the role of the Sheriff. Once people begin to understand how the Sheriff is the person they elect to defend their property and their rights, THEN we can begin to restore the republic.

This is no small task. The majority of people, especially in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania do not understand the Constitutional Sheriff. They see the Sheriff as the Court's officer, not the defender of the people from the government.

Secondly we unite and form coalitions and alliances of people who are willing to step forward and let the Sheriff know that we need him. Yes, I said that right, that we need him to be a Constitutional Sheriff so that we can restore our republic. Please notice, my order is educating people, then forming alliances of the educated people who are willing to step forward and be counted among those who are willing to be counted among those who are demanding a restoration of the Constitutional Sheriff.

Thirdly, this involves also lending support to the Sheriff in terms of manpower. Many Sheriff's may know the history, but also deal with the current reality that they have little to no support from any branch of government or law enforcement. Again, ask yourself the question you may not want the answer to-why does the Sheriff have no support from other law enforcement agencies? Because his office to constitutionally designed to hold those agencies at bay and protect the rights of the people who elected him and entrusted him to perform that duty.

There is nothing worse than being given a job without the proper tools to do that job. The Sheriff can not perform his Constitutional duty if he lacks the budget or the manpower. Remember the Constitutional duty he can not perform because of the lack of resources is to protect your rights and your property.

The logical solution is for those who are directly affected by this diminishment to step forward and offer our support in any way we can. We need to let our Sheriffs know that we not only depend on him but that he can depend on us to help him when and if he would ever need it.

TURN is directly involved in forming such alliances.

In Clearfield County, Scott Boyer is forming the Sheriff's Alliance. The Clearfield County Sheriff's Alliance site web address is http://sheriffalliance.ning.com/.

Listen to our resident rocket scientists pontificating in Congress.

This is the government we elected .

By the way, Guam is 209 square miles with a population of 178,000 people.

Easter is one of those lines in the sand. Either you believe Christ is risen or you don't.

That is a good thing.

 I celebrate Easter because of my belief that He is risen.

Discuss

On March 22nd we hosted Peg Luksik for a US Senate Job Interview here in Du Bois PA. Peg Luksik is running against Arlen Specter, however she is not the endorsed candidate of the GOP. Surprised NOT.

Listen to Peg Luksik address the real problems today:

Ironically, the GOP candidate will not debate Peg Luksik. Like Peg says, "The US Senate is the greatest debating society in the world and my candidate is afraid of debating a skirt?"

Last year the uninsured put a 40 billion dollar drain on the hospital system by using the emergency rooms instead of doctors. Charlie Rangel said the problem wasn't that they didnt get care, it was they were not insured.

 I wonder if anyone told them that is over twenty years with of healthcare for the uninured. Of course, no one would expect them to understand the difference between care and insurance.

The wise sages in Congress came up with a trillion dollar remedy to fix a 40 billion dollar problem.