Sheriff Mack to speak, Left’s undies knotting up (updated 18sep13)

September 2013
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28
29	30

OUR LINKS

YubaNet
White House Blog
Watts Up With That?
The Union
Sierra Thread
RL “Bob” Crabb
Barry Pruett Blog

Sheriff Mack to speak, Left’s undies knotting up (updated 18sep13)

16 September 2013

George Rebane

The NC Republican Women Federated have been working hard to bring Sheriff Richard Mack to speak in Nevada County. Today The Union ran a piece on the 18oct13 affair to be held in the GV Vets Hall. Sheriff Mack is the founder of the nation’s constitutional sheriffs movement and a celebrated public servant to most conservatives. You can find out more about the man’s thinking on his website here.

As predictable as the sunrise, our designated reader sent me a copy of the first of what promises to be many hyper-ventilations by the local Left to somehow diminish the scheduled speaking engagement, or preferably to ban it altogether. The big insult to these open-minded progressives is that Sheriff Mack will be introduced by our own elected Sheriff Keith Royal. Now isn’t that an outrage if I ever heard of one?

As pointed out regularly in these pages, it is always the looney Left that wants to proscribe anyone and everyone who doesn’t agree with their message. Why is that so one-sided? I’d be quite happy to have them invite Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Harry Reid, Maxine Waters, Rev Sharpton, Rev Jackson, Rev Wright, Bill Ayers, …, hell, even Harry Belafonte up here to speak. I would definitely be in the audience to hear what they had to say.

[18sep13 update] Apropos to the asymmetry pointed out above, the comment stream to this post is also illustrative. In there we see the notion of selective enforcement of laws taken up. Our progressive commenters are all in a lather about the intentions of certain local sheriffs to enforce only laws, regulations, mandates, etc they consider constitutional or have a proper legal basis. These commenters treat this notion as if it was invented yesterday by the so-called ‘constitutional sheriffs’, and as if it has not been long practiced by all governmental executive offices during the history of our republic.

Today’s egregious end-runs by POTUS and various state governors of their respective legislatures that has raised hue and cry across the land does not even come up on their radar. That Obama publicly stated he will constructively legislate through his agencies and bureaus (both criminal and regulatory) does not concern these worthies one whit. And that the President has already brought untold misery in job destruction and economic malaise nationwide is not their concern as he has promised to continue this policy for the remainder of his term.

Reading these commenters and their lines of argument is truly an education in the study of our polarization and the widening gulf that divides us.

Posted in Current Affairs, Nevada County, The Liberal Mind

131 responses to “Sheriff Mack to speak, Left’s undies knotting up (updated 18sep13)”

Gerry Fedor

16 September 2013

It’s rather humorous that our Elected Sheriff is going to introduce Mr. Mack…..
You remember our Sheriff, the one’s who’s waste millions of our counties dollars on his petty mmj ordinance. The one who continues the keep driving this ordinance built on lies forward.
We all need someone who’s a bit more “honest” rather than our Sheriff Royal!
Gerry

LikeLike
MikeL

17 September 2013

Gerry, I know this is a bit off topic but I still wanted to know how you are able to make so much money from your, I think you said 7.5 kilowatt, solar system.
If your sheriff, the highest elected offical of the local executive branch, is making laws then that is a problem, but I doubt that he is doing this. I am sure that you have an equal problem when the Califonia Governer decides to not enforce law or when the US President makes laws.

LikeLike
Ken Jones

17 September 2013

One issue is the Union describing this as a nonpartisan event. Hardly. Our sheriff is displaying his politics and bias. Don’t believe this is why he was elected.

LikeLike
stevenfrisch

17 September 2013

No one, least of all Mr. Pelline, was suggesting proscribing Sheriff Royal from speaking. You are putting words in peoples mouths again. But the Sheriff needs to know that introducing Mr. Mack, and being a ‘Constitutional Sheriff” with all of its trappings and nullification minded rhetoric, is going to cost him politically.
The law is a tricky thing…we craft it through legislation, court challenge and careful testing…for one man IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SHERIFF to determine which laws they will enforce and which they will ignore is not hat the voters of Nevada County voted for.

LikeLike
Michael Anderson

17 September 2013

George, I am absolutely ecstatic that “Sheriff” Mack is coming to town. I’ll be there with bells on my toes, just as I’m sure you would be if it were Maxine Waters speaking.
But just as you would be trumpeting from the tree tops who Waters is and what she stands for, so is Pelline, myself and others, doing the same with “Sheriff” Mack.
Have a quick read of this SPLC report, there’s some allegations in there I’d like to see refuted (if possible): http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2012/winter/resurrection

LikeLike
Russ Steele

17 September 2013

Ken Jones@07:29AM
Non-partisan -> everyone is invited: Democrat, Green, Independent, Republican, Libertarian, and any other political flavor that resides in the County. There will be no one checking your voter registration at the door. The only thing preventing your attendance will be your own narrow minded thinking.

LikeLike
George Rebane

17 September 2013

re stevenfrisch 759am – “The law is a tricky thing…we craft it through legislation, court challenge and careful testing…for one man IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS (President of the United States or Governor of California) to determine which laws they will enforce and which they will ignore is not what the voters of Nevada County voted for.”

LikeLike
stevenfrisch

17 September 2013

So when California Sheriffs like Keith Royal stop enforcing the law I fully expect them to be prosecuted to the fullest extent possible by the Justice Department and make their Counties liable for civil suit from the victims of the laws they did not enforce.
I can see it now….Nevada County citizens killed by deranged gunman who the Sheriff refused to do a background check on or enforce gun control laws on…who do you think is going to pay for that?
The theory of nullification has been rejected repeatedly by the courts, and it has never been legally upheld. You may think it is a right granted by our Constitution, but the Supreme Court of The United States disagrees. Instead nullification led to civil war and the death of more than 600,000 Americans.
Face it George, the whole “Constitutional Sheriff” movement is nothing but political kabuki theater.
If I were Sheriff Keith I would be very concerned about that SPLC report.

LikeLike
Joe Koyote

17 September 2013

So if it is OK for constitutional sheriffs to pick and choose which laws to abide by and which to discard, does that make it OK for the rest of us as well?

LikeLike
Gregory

17 September 2013

Nullification is real, Frisch, though justices keep wanting it to go away. It even forced the repeal of Prohibition as prosecutors couldn’t get 12 people to convict.
Even Obama is picking and choosing which of his own laws his administration will enforce in order to keep Obamacare from imploding. How is that different? Is it because the President is above the law? How Nixonian of you!

LikeLike
Gregory

17 September 2013

“So if it is OK for constitutional sheriffs to pick and choose which laws to abide by and which to discard, does that make it OK for the rest of us as well?”
It isn’t illegal to not make an arrest so they aren’t picking which laws to abide by. Not enforcing a given law isn’t illegal.

LikeLike
fish

17 September 2013

The law is a tricky thing…we craft it through legislation, court challenge and careful testing…for one man IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SHERIFF to determine which laws they will enforce and which they will ignore is not hat the voters of Nevada County voted for.
I guess the sheriff isn’t a TOP MAN like the wise legislators who craft our laws…eh Steve?

LikeLike
Ken Jones

17 September 2013

Russ the speaker is hardly nonpartisan nor our sheriff. I consider those two and the extreme right having captured the market on narrow minded thinking.

LikeLike
Paul Emery

17 September 2013

Our Sheriff has no problem enforcing Federal Marijuana Laws which are contrary to State law. So much for States Rights in that issue. Perhaps it’s the Federal bucks that roll in that temper his idealism.

LikeLike
Gregory

17 September 2013

Paul, it’s also possible he just doesn’t like pot.

LikeLike
Bill Tozer

17 September 2013

Thought is was up to the Counties to enforce/interpret the medical marijuana laws. Like if it ok or not to grow where visibly seen by kids at a school bus stop or too close to a neighbor. And the Supes put that enforcement duties squarely on the shoulders upon our local lawmen..Yep, they have been doing compliance checks and writing fix it tickets. Shame on them.
The real rub is when they are performing their compliance checks, they come across some with warrants, some felons with firearms, and some that are out of their minds on meth and have to cite em for child endangerment, aka, the bad apples.
Sheriff Joe got in hot water cause he chose to enforce laws of the land, like catching and detaining people who enter US soil unlawfully. Imagine that. There should be a law against enforcing those laws.
Let’s not be native here. How many of your have been pulled over for some traffic violation, acted respectfully to the officer, and were given a warning to slow down next time or take care of that brake light? I know I have on many an occasion, by the Sheriffs and the Nevada City Police, and even the GVPD.
Its been years since I got an actual ticket. I should have received more. Was running late to the airport and heading through an Auburn construction zone. The Auburn police officer asked it I did not see that 14 foot flashing sign that said SLOW DOWN–25MPH. I told him I honestly didn’t. He asked me how fast was I driving. I replied 50mph. He ran the checks and came back and gave me a choice. I could either accept the speeding ticket or be cited for the broken windshield. Figuring I have to fix that darn windshield anyway, I opted for the fix it ticket. He said he was offering me that choice only cause I told him the truth about my speeding. Actually, I was going 53mph and he knew that and I knew that, but lets just round it off.
Think people are pissed off that our Sheriff’s are actually enforcing the County Medical Marijuana part of the pot grows. Go ahead, disagree. Used to be a law against spitting on the sidewalk in CA. Don’t know if it is still on the books, but some would cry foul if ever cited for it. Only ones cited for that would be those who are confrontational SOBs.
Funny how people flaunt the law with impunity, then suddenly become jailhouse lawyers caring deeply about the laws of the land when busted. Always working an angle.
On a very local level, it is the Sheriff that calls the shots in a way. Arrest or cite? In Louisiana’s Parishes, the Sheriff says what bars can stay open past last call and is pretty powerful.
Also, on a local level, its the local Judges that tell law enforcement what to do. A warrant is an order from the judge to physically bring a person before the court. Physically. That usually means arrest and booking, no matter how much the person complains about his/her rights or cites the law. Always best to be nice to those who can make you late for supper.

LikeLike
Paul Emery

17 September 2013

Bill
You cannot ignore the influence of the Billions of Federal dollars distributed to local agencies to enforce the failed “War On Drugs”.

LikeLike
Paul Emery

17 September 2013

Also Bill California’s Medical Marijuana Laws are State Law. The so called local measure is a Nuisance Ordinance intended to circumvent State law and deny access to those with legitimate MM recommendations. It will likely be overturned at the election booth with a special election next spring. Proponents have gathered thousands of signatures for the revised ordinance which will increase access and throw out the ill advised current regulation.

LikeLike
fish

17 September 2013

You cannot ignore the influence of the Billions of Federal dollars distributed to local agencies to enforce the failed “War On Drugs”.
OMG….Agreeing with Paul Emery? See kids miracles do happen!

LikeLike
stevenfrisch

17 September 2013

There is a fundamental difference between nullification by a jury and nullification by an elected official. If one does not want to enforce the laws they should not run for Sheriff. In the case of the “Constitutional Sheriffs” they are saying “if you pass this law we will not enforce it”. That is a violation of their oath of office and ‘nullification’ on an institutional level. That is what we fought a civil war over.

LikeLike
stevenfrisch

17 September 2013

In many cases “not enforcing a law” is illegal. What if a Sheriff decided not to enforce child sodomy las because they are a member of NAMBLA, would we say, “hey they get to act on conscience”?
Second problem, as a citizen I am due equal protection; so enforcing a law against one class of citizen and not enforcing it against another is a violation of equal protection. If there were a law that said “semi-automatic weapons are illegal” do you expect the Sheriff to not take semi-automatic weapons out of the hands of people they believe are a threat? If as Greg alleges enforcement is discretionary, then why do law enforcement agencies regularly lose equal protection cases? The proof would be in the pudding, who would law enforcement enforce the law against? Does the Tea Party contingent here profess taking that power out of the hands of the people as expressed by the legislature?
The third problem is that if the legislature of my state or the US Congress passes a law, as a citizen I have a right to have that law enforced. If one does not enforce the law and as a result of that negligence something that harms me ensues, the state (in this case the county) can be liable.
Finally, allowing Sheriffs the latitude to decide which laws they are enforcing violates separation of powers. If Sheriffs as elected officials are the “highest executive authority in the county” as Richard Mack contends, then by refusing to enforce laws passed by the legislature they are in violation of their constitutional oath.
In short, this entire idea is intellectually bankrupt, historically flawed, and dangerous for other local government entities who would either cede power or assume liability. Crackpot bullshit.

LikeLike
rlcrabb

17 September 2013

In 2008, the citizens of California passed Prop 8. The state’s top law enforcement officer, Attorney General Kamala Harris, refused to defend the will of the electorate in the Supreme Court case. It doesn’t matter whether or not you agree with the ban on gay marriage, it’s the AG’s job to carry out the law. So who is it that picks and chooses which laws they want to enforce?

LikeLike
fish

17 September 2013

In short, this entire idea is intellectually bankrupt, historically flawed, and dangerous for other local government entities who would either cede power or assume liability. Crackpot bullshit.
I love it when you get the vapors!
Sheriffs have to be selective all the time due to budget and manpower issues as well as a whole host of other constraints.
You don’t like Macks politics….were he more in line with the Steve Frisch I bet you would cut him more slack.

LikeLike
Gregory

17 September 2013

“What if a Sheriff decided not to enforce child sodomy laws” -Frisch
There’s a victim involved there, Steve, your disingenuity is showing. The victims identified by the constitutional sheriff types are, for example, the folks who might have an ugly rifle that the Feds (or Jerry Brown) think the sheriff should arrest for merely possessing such an icky thing. Only politician’s bodyguards need them.
Victimless crimes, Steve. Try a’gin.
RL, nope, there is no law forcing the AG’s office to actually provide a vigorous defense of a proposition passed by the will of the people. I don’t have a problem with that (a principled “there is no good defense” should be enough of a fig leaf); but proponents of the measure should have standing to defend the law in court if the AG won’t.

LikeLike
Bill Tozer

17 September 2013

When I sued the Clinton administration in 1994, I never imagined that Justice Scalia – the author of the ruling for the majority – would be so profound and powerful with his defense of the Tenth Amendment. Not only did Scalia say that the “States are not subject to federal direction” and that the US Congress only had “discreet and enumerated powers” and that federal impotency was “rendered express” by the Tenth Amendment, he also proclaimed that the States “retained an inviolable sovereignty.” You would think that these statements alone would be monumental enough and would provide sufficient ammunition for all state and local officials to stand against any governmental tyranny without any hesitation. Nevertheless, Scalia went even further in this landmark decision, one in which two small-town sheriffs headed the Feds “off at the pass” and sent them on their way. Scalia, in his infinite obligation to the Constitution, took this entire ruling to the tenth power when he said, “The Constitution protects us from our own best intentions…so that we may resist the temptation to concentrate power in one location as an expedient solution to the crisis of the day.”
Seems to me that Sheriff Mack is against the enemey of the Constitution of the United States, aka, a Centralized Federal Government that exceeds Constitutional Authority. My enemy as well. We all should be praising his stand on State’s Rights.
Me thinks the undie knotting here is about Sheriff Royal, not Mack. About access to medicine, not some lawbreaker dude hauling 250 lbs of dope across state lines. Don’t be a bunch of dopes. “Crisis of the day” is spot on Justice Scalia.

LikeLike
Bill Tozer

17 September 2013

“In short, this entire idea is intellectually bankrupt”
Me thinks the Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you there Mr. Stevenfrisch, just like the Supreme Court disagreed with the current administration and others that Obamacare fell under the wide reaching Commence Clause.

LikeLike
stevenfrisch

17 September 2013

Yeah, Greg, the victim in not enforcing state and federal gun laws is the poor sap who gets shot in the head.
Bill Tozer, nullification has been tested in the SCOTUS several times…if you can cite your facts re: the SCOTUS disagreeing with my position please do so.

LikeLike
Walt B

17 September 2013

I do hope the constitutional sheriffs stick to their guns
and refuse to “obey” unlawful laws.(blatantly unconstitutional)
It’s no different than what others here have pointed out about
“O” and Moonbeam picking and choosing which laws to ignore.
I have my doubts about our own sheriff. I tried to find out his stance
on this more than once, without an answer.
I was asking the question even before the new state laws had been drafted.
( I knew full well Jerry’s kids were going full steam to attack the 2ND,, in spades.) Well, here they are all 12, sitting on Moonbeam’s desk.
Again I ask,, are you going to hold fast, hold your head high and give Brown the finger? Or cave and go polish your badge?
One thing will be certain if Brown signs those Bills. There will be plenty
of brand new criminals, just with a signature.
Not many are going to register those weapons. Then there are those that will lose the right to own guns.( overnight) But they are not felons. A misdemeanor
will be good enough. 10 years is a long time to be defenseless when you don’t deserve to.
Then there is AR “fix” Leave it to Ca. to demand gun makers to build another ” California special” That should cost a pretty penny.
The same goes for ammo. when the anti lead ban takes hold. Price it right out of reach.
You can bet that reloaders will be next on the hit list. Get caught reloading your own without a license, or what ever else they dream up, and your life becomes a nightmare.

LikeLike
Gregory

17 September 2013

“Yeah, Greg, the victim in not enforcing state and federal gun laws is the poor sap who gets shot in the head.”
Wouldn’t it be easier, not to mention constitutional, to make shooting people in the head illegal?
Already is? Good. What about not letting felons or people adjudicated to be mentally ill? Already is. Hmmm, so what law (real or proposed) is the problem?
Gun show loophole? Doesn’t exist. It’s a federal felony to be in the business of buying and selling firearms without a Federal Firearms License, and it remains in effect wherever they go. The meat of the current background check for everyone kerfuffle is transfer between family members, and I think you’d have a hard time getting a jury to convict anyone for giving their son or daughter one of the family firearms, assuming they aren’t forbidden due to criminality or mental illness.
I think you’ll find Mack & friends are not against very many gun laws currently on the books. Can you name one for discussion?

LikeLike
Paul Emery

17 September 2013

For those of you that consider public assembly an important right you should check out the regulations proposed today by the Sheriff and County Council placing strict requirement to public gatherings in the unincorporated areas of Nevada County. The BOS punted on the proposal but it will be back.

LikeLike
Gregory

17 September 2013

Golly, Steve, refusal to enforce a federal law isn’t nullification by this treatment in the wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_%28U.S._Constitution%29#State_Refusals_to_Assist_in_Enforcement_of_Federal_Law
It does appear Mr. Frisch has his head up his ass. Perhaps he can pop it out to revise and extend his remarks.

LikeLike
Joe Koyote

17 September 2013

America has more people in prison (per capita) than anyone else in the world. It seems as though we, as a people, must be a fairly criminal bunch with so many of us in jail. If law enforcement itself is picking and choosing which laws to obey and which ones not to obey, wouldn’t that set a bad example for the rest of the population? Wouldn’t John Q. Citizen say to himself, “Hell, if the sheriff can do it so can I?” Can a soldier decide which enemies to fight and which ones not to fight? Allowing these kinds of antics from law enforcement officials sets a bad precedent and could lead to more general lawlessness than our over-populated prisons can already hold. Sheriff is supposed to be a non-partisan office and political ideology should not play any role what-so-ever in the process of implementing and enforcing the laws of the land as created by the representatives of the people. This is especially true when a sheriff holds extreme viewpoints not in conjunction with the general population they serve. If that becomes the case then anyone arrested for anything can find a lawyer who will argue political bias or discrimination of some kind or another.
When a sheriff or any other law enforcement officer puts on his/her uniform they need to leave their politics at home and enforce the laws even when they politically disagree.. it’s their job. If they don’t like it, tough crap, find another occupation or work to get the law changed like the rest of us. This isn’t an effort to champion the constitution, it is an effort to destroy it.

LikeLike
Michael Anderson

17 September 2013

Greg wrote: “I think you’ll find Mack & friends are not against very many gun laws currently on the books.”
So “Sheriff” Mack’s appearance is about nothing more than some hypothetical gun laws, not yet on the books?

LikeLike
Paul Emery

17 September 2013

From the proposal:
“The proposed Ordinance would expand the definition of
an “Outdoor Festival”to include any outdoor gathering of 100 people or more for the purpose of attending a “commercial, recreational, civic or social function”
It seems lik the “Conservastives” are leading the charge on this regulation that would require a permigt from the sheriff for any gathering over 100 and of course would incorporate appropriate fees and conditions. Here is the full pdf. It doesnt cut and paste well. Check it out.
http://www.mynevadacounty.com/nc/bos/cob/docs/Board%20of%20Supervisors%20Supporting%20Documents/2013%20Supporting%20Documents/09-17-2013/14.pdf

LikeLike
Bill Tozer

17 September 2013

Thanks Paul for being on top of this. I have to get a permit before the boyz get together for the yearly huge gathering of paint ball wars up in them thar hills.
Dr. Rebane, I would like to go see Maxine Waters here. Would even pay. Just to see if the old adage “like a fine wine just gets better with time” is true. Would love to see Harry Belafonte as well. Loved his tally me banana song…er…banana boat song. Enjoyed how that song was used in Beatlejuice. Brilliant. Maybe Harry will be long winded as usual and we can can sing “Daylight come and I want to go home” as an encore.

LikeLike
Paul Emery

17 September 2013

Bill
The proposed ordinance would would also include wedding receptions and partiesof over 100 on private property for example. I really don’t understand why our Sheriff is gong in this direction. The proposal from County Council had his approval and, to my understanding, was proposed by him.
Keith Royal has been a rally good Sheriff for Nevada County but he seems to want to write laws himself. Having cops write laws is like having doctors invent diseases.

LikeLike
Bill Tozer

17 September 2013

Paul, were have you been? I don’t know where you live, but the County has been turning the screws on the unincorporated areas since before the 49er fire. Writing laws? Heck, we have people writing laws every darn day at every level of government. That’s all they do is write laws. Some call them lawmakers. The only time we get a reprieve from the onslaught is when Congress or the State Legislature is on recess. Then they come back with a vengeance. While Congress is out on recess, the departments are busy writing regulations with the force of law behind the regs. Its for our own good.
I don’t think this will be an issue until SYRCL or The Sierra Club meets on somebody’s spread for a shin-ding social event and are busted for not having a permit. Might even affect some little old ladies annual sewing bee or some ice cream social at Mr. Redwood Deck’s Save the Whirled Peas Casa Blanco.
Stay on top of it, Paul This smells of an anti-Hell’s Angels love fest gathering. I already posted once that there is talk in a nearby county to start taxing well water. Our lords and masters are turning over single every rock looking for a greenback. County Livin’ in God’s Country.

LikeLike
Michael Anderson

17 September 2013

Paul, it seems like Sheriff Royal is really going off the deep end. As the main resident KVMR journalist for the KVMR news team, please investigate what is going on here. I completely don’t understand what he is intending with a whole lot of his newest initiatives, it is almost like he has Tourettes.
I do understand the new Large Gathering initiative, but it needs to be thought out through and through, and there needs to be multiple public comment periods to vet it.
The main thing, going back to Sheriff Royal, is that he is seeming to vigorously support the appearance of “Sheriff” Mack in October. Does Sheriff Royal support every and all of “Sheriff” Mack’s diatribes and associations?
Having an answer to this question is not just a nice thing to know, it is the key to our governmental system. If I do not get a satisfactory response to my question in these various Internet forums I will meet with Sheriff Royal personally and get back to everyone with his response.
Yours, in service…
M.

LikeLike
Paul Emery

17 September 2013

I agree Michael. Keith Royal has been a fine Sheriff for Nevada County with a disciplined and well managed organization. I don’t know if he’s bored or is trying to please the wrong people but this proposal, which has his support, is way off the charts especially for a “conservative” that claims to be opposed to new regulations and increased fees and taxes.
My guess is that the proposal for this ordinance came from his office but it’s only a guess at this point.

LikeLike
Bill Tozer

17 September 2013

Paul, I read the ordinance. Every word. Seems more targeted at a music venue that anything else. Just reading the ordinance I fail to find the source as the Sheriff’s Department as you cite. However, if Bob Dylan or even Country Joe MacDonald and the Fish were to play under the stars around Bowman Lake on private property, yeah, a permit would be reasonable.
What always pops out is the fees for inspection (not stated), re inspection and all the departments that have to sign off…that is a lot of pencil pushers poking around. Only a $100 fine (with the usual threat of 6 months in the clink) but another clause of a 5k penalty on top of the misdemeanor.
Do like the requirement for a handicap toilet to conform with all federal laws (ADA and Clean Water Act, and, and, and)for groups over 125. Guess if you keep it to 99 attendees. you can screw the handicap Johhny of the Spot.
Hey, just keep everything to 99 attendees. First come, first serve. Sorry Charlie, you can’t come in.
Costs of the old back yard wedding just went up, even if you played pre-recorded CD’s. Can’t catch a break.

LikeLike
stevenfrisch

18 September 2013

Posted by: Gregory | 17 September 2013 at 06:45 PM
I read the cases cited, Prigg v. Pennsylvania and Printz v. United States last night and they clearly do not cover the issue I brought up. They cover whether or not the federal government can compel the State (not a single elected official). It also does not apply to the issue as stated by the “Constitutional Sheriffs” who are also objecting to State laws restricting guns.
You even point to the sentence, “States therefore may refuse to use their legislative or administrative resources to enforce federal law”, without even stopping to think what it may mean.
In short, you don’t know what the heck you are talking about.

LikeLike
fish

18 September 2013

This isn’t an effort to champion the constitution, it is an effort to destroy it.
No worries Joe…..been dead for years!

LikeLike
stevenfrisch

18 September 2013

Fish: Joe is entirely correct, the “Constitutional Sheriff” movement is an attempt to intervene in governance by determining which laws are enforced and which are not. The proponents elevate 2nd amendment rights over state sovereignty or other enumerated or implied rights like equal protection and general welfare. These decisions are made by courts, not Sheriffs. You may speculate about me ‘cutting more slack’ to one who represents my views, but the genera; effect of granting these rights to Sheriffs would be that everyones individual rights are diminished.

LikeLike
fish

18 September 2013

I stopped reading after, “Joe is entirely correct”.

LikeLike
George Rebane

18 September 2013

Regarding this comment stream, I draw your attention to the 18sep13 update to the post.

LikeLike
Paul Emery

18 September 2013

You neglect to say that the ” untold misery in job destruction and economic malaise nationwide” happened when Bush was head of state. He was either asleep at the wheel or knew what was coming down and was unable or unwilling to do anything about it. Much like your hero Calvin Coolidge in ’29 who fiddled while America burned..

LikeLike
Paul Emery

18 September 2013

That comment was for George

LikeLike
Joe Koyote

18 September 2013

Reading these commenters and their lines of argument is truly and education in the study of our polarization and the widening gulf that divides us.–
Perhaps the gulf widens because the extreme right wing, as expressed in these posts, is so far out of touch with most Americans as to be laughable. Yet you want to put the blame on the left, on “socialist or collectivist” ideas rather than your own extremism. It is your positions that widen the gap. Free Market Capitalism was the economic engine that fueled the industrial revolution and moved much of the world’s population from subsistence farming to subsistence wage earners while the elite still ate cake as they did in feudal times. At least people could feed themselves while still down on the farm. Now many have to rely on charity either from gov’t or private sources when the economic elite decide their profit margins are too slim to invest in jobs (at least in American jobs). Perhaps it is time for open minds to consider other economic models that might serve the needs of a planet with increasing population and decreasing resources better. Or are your ideological positions so ensconced as to limit your thinking as to other possibilities?

LikeLike
George Rebane

18 September 2013

PaulE 949am – The origins of the Great Recession have been much debated with no agreement in sight – for now we’ll have to leave it there since you will acknowledge no liberal involvement. But after the Obama’s ascendancy the economic malaise and job destruction (that continues to this day, and invisible to the naifs in statistics and data analysis) belongs to no one but Team Obama whose members labor in the administration and Congress. It is all of part of the fundamental transformation as I and many others have reminded readers.
You are apparently unfamiliar with the economic history of the 1920s to the extent of not knowing that Calvin Coolidge was long gone from the White House when Black Tuesday (29 October 1929) occurred. And as any mildly interested student of the 1930s depression will tell you, it was the monetary and regulatory policies rushed into place under Hoover and doubled down on by FDR that really caused and maintained the Great Depression, giving rise to SecTreas Henry Morgenthau’s famous 1939 lament to Congress when unemployment was higher than when FDR took office.

LikeLike
Paul Emery

18 September 2013

Well spoken Joe. What is never discussed is that in the last depression (yes I call it that) nearly 30% of our population still lived on small farms so they were able to grow their own food and take care of their families. Not so today with less than 2% living on farms.

LikeLike