| Author |
Topic |
|
Irongstone
Newbie
23 Posts |
 Posted - 07/29/2010 : 04:03:37
|
| Are you saying that the resolutions against forced vaccination and against 'monsanto laws' were a waste of time? The county's position on these issues matters whether or not it changes any state laws. A stand against tyranny is encouraging to many (thanks to the internet since mainstream news buries such stories). In other US states, the sheriff is the supreme authority within his or her county. If we had a county sheriff and elected someone with courage, he or she could prevent feds from violating our rights and freedoms. |
 |
|
|
oink
Punatic
USA
1503 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2010 : 05:16:49
|
WTF?
Pua`a
S. FL
Big Islander to be. |
|
|
|
Irongstone
Newbie
23 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2010 : 09:57:40
|
| To be clear, the "elected someone with courage" was referring to the election of a county sheriff. Of course, we'll also need council members with courage as well as honesty. |
|
|
|
Bob Orts
Punatic
1412 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2010 : 13:34:03
|
A Sheriff is nothing special or unique under the law.
Sheriffs traditionally have been elected by the citizens, but that is not an absolute right of a Sheriff, it is just the way it is done based on current laws in some areas. There are County Sheriffs who are not elected but appointed. There are Police Chiefs who are not appointed but elected.
The only powers an elected or appointed head of a law enforcement agency has, is the powers granted to them under state and county laws. The distinct advantage to an elected officials is that the usual method of terminating that person's position is through impeachment or a recall election. But there are still states where a duly elected official can be terminated without impeachment or recall.
An elected or appointed law enforcement official is still bound by the state constitution and the laws of the state and county they represent. Further, in some cases, elected law enforcement officials have less power because their state has a profession certification for law enforcement that even a person elected must obtain to use their peace/police officer powers. Otherwise they are relegated to an administrative oversight role.
A Sheriff, elected or appointed has no authority over federal laws. Federal law id federal law. State law if State law. County law is county law. I don't no where the notion that some elected sheriff is anointed some super powers above any other appointed head of a law enforcement agency. The only thing an elected law enforcement head has is the power of not being fired without a lengthy and public process.
As an FYI, the Hawaii County Police Chief is endowed under State and County law with certain powers that can not be over-ridden but the County Council. There are aspects of the job, supervision, priorities, and assignments that are not controllable by the elected political arm of the county. The police department can be called the Hawaii County Sheriff Department and nothing will change as to the operations of the agency. You can even make the position an elected political position and under State and County law, the elected head would still be bound by those laws.
|
|
|
|
whalesong
malihini
USA
84 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2010 : 14:05:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by james weatherford
quote:
Originally posted by 808blogger
What amount of force would you personally be willing to use against a person who does not want to pay alleged county "property tax" in order to get them to pay it? (moderator: yes this is a very serious question)
I, "personally", will not use any force.
As a member of Council, will I support the County taking property for payment of over due taxes and/or tax penalties?
At this point, I have to say 'yes', because that is the default process. Should someone come forward with a convincing argument to the contrary, I am certainly open to listening and keeping my mind open.
James Weatherford, Ph.D.
15-1888 Hialoa
Hawaiian Paradise Park
Many people are losing their jobs, at no fault of their own.
People are making a honest effort, to become employed but, the economy is not recovering and will not recover.
Govt bailouted out Corporations, with taxpayers dollar, yet our reward, is to become homeless, because there are no JOBS, or loans,or grants, available to start up a business. Yet, you feel it is the right thing to do, to take their homes away for unpaid taxes/dues?
Federal/State programs will become a part of the past.
Yet you are in favor of people, losing their homes over unpaid taxes/dues, to be left homeless.
At least your showing your true colors, of supporting these outragous laws, before the election. You just lost my vote, and to think, I thought, you'd be a Politician for the People.
Boy, was I wrong.
It looks like you want to join in on the Corruption, so that you can keep your paycheck, so you too, can continue to pay your dues/taxes.
Well, my friend, your job is not secure either. No jobs, means no taxes for the State, this means entitlement programs are on there way out.
Careful, what you support, you are subject to the same LAWS.www.dailyjobcuts.com
Thanks, for at least being honest, and showing, you are for corrupt politics, before the election.
|
|
|
|
Irongstone
Newbie
23 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2010 : 17:01:58
|
| All the power not specifically granted to the federal gov't by the constitution, is left to the states and the people of those states. For a local community to elect a sheriff as its representative police force and expect protection from illegal acts like warrantless search and siezure, we should ourselves be willing deputies that can be called upon to support the sheriff in an unusual situation. |
Edited by - Irongstone on 07/29/2010 17:04:48 |
|
|
|
james weatherford
Punatic
USA
1027 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2010 : 19:31:49
|
Whalesong,
Yes, at least I was honest in recognizing what the default situation is.
Please ask the same question of whom ever you do choose to vote for; and, when/if they answer, determine if they are telling you the truth or just lieing to get your vote.
I also offered to listen to alternatives.
Do you have any?
Thanks.
James Weatherford, Ph.D.
15-1888 Hialoa
Hawaiian Paradise Park |
Edited by - james weatherford on 07/29/2010 19:32:50 |
|
|
|
Irongstone
Newbie
23 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2010 : 23:53:12
|
| How about using 2% Land Fund money to buy Kulani, make it a homeless shelter, and prevent a national guard outpost in our neighborhood? I don't think the proposed youth training program is intended to instill the spirit of aloha. Guess who's the intended future target of the national guard. Hint: probably not foreign invaders. Would the troops train there with DU weapons, upwind of Puna? Never? |
|
|
|
oink
Punatic
USA
1503 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2010 : 03:59:14
|
Another WTF!
Pua`a
S. FL
Big Islander to be. |
|
|
|
Bob Orts
Punatic
1412 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2010 : 07:12:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by Irongstone
All the power not specifically granted to the federal gov't by the constitution, is left to the states and the people of those states. For a local community to elect a sheriff as its representative police force and expect protection from illegal acts like warrantless search and siezure, we should ourselves be willing deputies that can be called upon to support the sheriff in an unusual situation.
How would an elected Sheriff have any greater or lesser powers under the law than the Chief of Police for Hawaii County? The word "Sheriff" has no greater or lesser powers under Hawaii law. As I said, you have Sheriffs who are not elected but appointed and you have Chief's of Police that are elected and not appointed. The only greater power an "Elected" official has is the process of removal from office. That's it. Maybe if you can give some example of some greater power a Sheriff has above the powers granted by their State or County law, please provide and I'll be happy to look it over. |
|
|
|
Bob Orts
Punatic
1412 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2010 : 07:25:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by whalesong
At least your showing your true colors, of supporting these outragous laws, before the election. You just lost my vote, and to think, I thought, you'd be a Politician for the People.[/b]
Boy, was I wrong.
I think it is a misinterpretation of his answer.
A Council member is required to follow the law. As it stands right now, the law is what it is. James (or any candidate) would be blowing smoke up your rear if they said they would not enforce that law. But, James is also saying that if an alternative is available and it can be introduced as a Bill to change the law, he would like to hear it. That (and you know he and I don't see eye to eye on many subjects) is an answer that I fully respect.
Reality is, until the law is changed, a Councilmember is bound by law to enforce that law and can't pick and choose what laws they will enforce.
May I suggest that instead of faulting him based on a completely honest answer, and a truthful answer that every candidate will enforce the law because they can't ignore the current law or they can be removed from office, how about providing suggest for him to review?
|
|
|
|
james weatherford
Punatic
USA
1027 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2010 : 11:21:37
|
Mahalo, Bob.
James Weatherford, Ph.D.
15-1888 Hialoa
Hawaiian Paradise Park |
|
|
|
Irongstone
Newbie
23 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2010 : 14:17:44
|
Bob, thanks for your comments. After some research I agree there's nothing special about a local sheriff compared to local police. As far as posse comitatus ("force of the county") is concerned, local men are expected to join a posse if needed in an unusual situation. Prior to 1878, even military troops were used for this purpose. Fortunately, the Posses Comitatus Act of 1878 prevents the use of military for posse comitatus so there's better separation between military (who are trained to kill people) and police (who are supposed to protect people).
This all gets more relevant when we look beyond police power, which includes posse comitatus, to police duty, which includes protecting people from illegal acts. In 1997, the supreme court ruled that local authorities, within their own jurisdiction, supercede federal authority. In this ruling, judge Scalia quoted president James Madison, “father” of the Constitution: “[T]he local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere.” The Federalist, No. 39 at 245.
Therefore, if federal or other non-local forces illegally harrass my neighbor, then local authorities, and I if asked, must arrest them. I guess this is where the rubber meets the road for liberty and freedom. Patrick Henry supposedly said "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches the jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." |
|
|
|
Bob Orts
Punatic
1412 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2010 : 19:45:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Irongstone
This all gets more relevant when we look beyond police power, which includes posse comitatus, to police duty, which includes protecting people from illegal acts. In 1997, the supreme court ruled that local authorities, within their own jurisdiction, supercede federal authority. In this ruling, judge Scalia quoted president James Madison, “father” of the Constitution: “[T]he local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere.” The Federalist, No. 39 at 245.
The ruling said that local authorities can not be subjected to federal demand for enforcement of federal regulatory programs when no state authority exist. Example, federal regulations require pilots to have so much rest time in between flight time. If the federal government demanded that Hawaii County Police inspect the log books of pilots at the airport for compliance to this federal only regulation, that would violate the constitution under the Printz ruling.
There is nothing in it about local/state authorities having supreme rights over federal law. If it's a federal regulatory program administered and regulated under federal law, and no state/local laws exist to mirror the federal regulatory program, it's the job of the federal authorities to enforce. State/local authorities cant be forced to assume the role of those federal regulators. |
|
|
|
DaVinci
malihini
USA
90 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2010 : 20:18:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by Irongstone
All the power not specifically granted to the federal gov't by the constitution, is left to the states and the people of those states. For a local community to elect a sheriff as its representative police force and expect protection from illegal acts like warrantless search and siezure, we should ourselves be willing deputies that can be called upon to support the sheriff in an unusual situation.
No offense intended, really, but you sound like you live in Tombstone AZ in the 1870s (and spend a lot of time reading Tom Paine...) |
Edited by - DaVinci on 07/30/2010 20:20:05 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Council Powers & Functions: Back to Basics
