Posts: 286
Threads: 202
Joined: Jul 2009
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.[url][/url]www.dailyjobcuts.com
Thanks, for at least being honest, and showing, you are for corrupt politics, before the election.
Posts: 21
Threads: 1
Joined: Dec 2008
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.
Posts: 1,779
Threads: 73
Joined: Aug 2006
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
Posts: 21
Threads: 1
Joined: Dec 2008
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?
Posts: 2,655
Threads: 42
Joined: Sep 2006
Another WTF!
Pua`a
S. FL
Big Islander to be.
Pua`a
S. FL
Big Islander to be.
Posts: 1,581
Threads: 26
Joined: Jun 2007
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.
Posts: 1,581
Threads: 26
Joined: Jun 2007
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?
Posts: 1,779
Threads: 73
Joined: Aug 2006
Mahalo, Bob.
James Weatherford, Ph.D.
15-1888 Hialoa
Hawaiian Paradise Park
Posts: 21
Threads: 1
Joined: Dec 2008
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."
Posts: 1,581
Threads: 26
Joined: Jun 2007
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.
|
