Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. – Winston Churchill

George Rebane

Here is an exchange that did not take place in the pages of The Union.  On 7 November 2013 the newspaper published Ms Nancy Eubanks’ gratuitous attack on the Tea Party and former Sheriff Richard Mack who recently spoke in Nevada County.  The local media outlets covered the well-attended event sponsored by the Nevada County Republican Women Federated.  Ms Terry McLaughlin of the NCRWF immediately submitted a response to Ms Eubanks' article three separate times – McLaughlin’s 7nov13 letter was followed by a shorter letter and then one Other Voices piece on 18 November.  The Union has seen fit not to publish any of these nor any other communications that would serve to correct the record of the apparently untouchable Eubanks’ charges.  The Union’s policy vindicates Eubanks through silencing all answers.  As a public service, RR has now stepped into this breech.

Ms Eubanks' article was published under the title ‘Sounds like Somalia to me’ –

We just had the Republicans Women’s club sponsor ex-Sheriff Mack from Arizona to come to our community to talk about his theories on law enforcement.

He asserts that the ultimate law of the land should rest with local sheriffs — local control being the most democratic form of government. And he gets standing ovations from our local Tea Party people — and this from the group that touts “read the Constitution.”

The Constitution says the ultimate law of the land is the Supreme Court. Numerous court decisions over many years have upheld that precedent. We even fought a civil war that decided federal law supersedes state law. All you have to do is watch the movie “The Butler” to see what can happen when sheriffs take the law into their own hands. Ugly!

We now have a Republican party controlled by a minority Tea Party contingency that wants “smaller government,” low — or better yet — no taxes (“do away with the IRS”) and local sheriffs deciding what laws will be implemented or not (tribalism). Plus every able-bodied person should have guns — the more AK-47s the better.  Freedom.  Sounds like Somalia to me.

Now that’s a country we should emulate.

Nancy Eubanks
Rough and Ready

Ms McLaughlin’s unpublished Other Voices response submittal –

In a letter published on Nov. 7, and titled "Sounds Like Somalia To Me", Nancy Eubanks disparages former Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack's "theories" on local law enforcement and states that "The Constitution says the ultimate law of the land is the Supreme Court".   What Ms. Eubanks may not realize is that Sheriff Mack argued a case before that very same Supreme Court in 1996 and on June 27, 1997 the majority ruling on that case stated  "[E]ven where Congress has the authority under the Constitution to pass laws requiring or prohibiting certain acts, it lacks the power directly to compel the States to require or prohibit those acts…….Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. . . . Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the State's officers directly. . . . Such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty."
 
In addition, the majority opinion of the Supreme Court stated   "This separation of the two spheres (of government) 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. . . . . . The Constitution protects us from our own best intentions:    It divides power among sovereigns and among branches of government precisely so that we may resist the temptation to concentrate power in one location as an expedient solution to the crisis of the day."  

Ms Eubanks went on to say that "we even fought a civil war that decided federal law supersedes state law".    This topic was specifically addressed in that same landmark 1997 Supreme Court decision which indicated that the Federalist Papers expressed  "Preservation of the States as independent political entities (was) the price of the union" and "The Framers explicitly chose a Constitution that confers upon Congress the power to regulate individuals, not States."

Nancy Eubanks also appears to take issue with the Tea Party groups, which she seems to believe would like to "abolish taxes, along with the IRS".   From what I know of the Tea Party, I believe they advocate fiscal responsibility, a balanced budget, and debt reduction, not "no taxes" and "tribalism", as Ms. Eubanks described.   And I very much doubt the Tea Party in any way promotes the idea of "the more AK-47s the better".    However, I would like to point out that in the US Justice Department's own "Operation Fast and Furious", Federal agents knowingly allowed over 2500 AK-47 type assault rifles to "walk" into Mexico and end up in the hands of Mexican drug cartels. Two of those AK-47 rifles were used in the murder of US Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry in 2010.   Personally, I think that Mexican drug cartels murdering a US Border Patrol Agent with guns literally provided by the US government sounds "more like Somalia to me" than any of Sheriff Mack's "theories" on law enforcement.
 
Terry McLaughlin
Nevada City

[Addendum]  Brian Hamilton, editor of The Union, responds to this post here in the comment stream.

[29nov13 update]  This post has been getting a lot of attention lately, giving rise to a lively email exchange among more people than just regular RR readers.  It turns out that there was at least another counter to Ms Eubanks' letter sent to The Union.  A correspondent forwarded to me today this email from Mr Jim Driver.  Perhaps Mr Driver's effort suffered the same fate as Ms McLaughlin's for the same reason outlined by Mr Hamilton.  In any event, the following is from Mr Driver's email.

I thought that you would like to know that I also sent a response to Eubanks that has not yet been published. My response was sent in on nov. 15th. Here is what I wrote:
 
Sheriff Mack said WHAT?  You better check your FACTS!
 
Nancy Eubanks often writes about things that offend her.
 
Her latest Letter on November 7th titled “Sounds like Somalia to me” was about Sheriff Mack’s event sponsored by the Republican Woman’s club.

If she had attended the meeting, she would have learned that Sheriff Mack only spoke about Constitutional Law!
 
The first thing she derides is Sheriff Mack’s “theories on law enforcement”.

The Constitution of the United States is a theory?
She also wrote: “He asserts that the ultimate law of the land should rest with the local sheriffs …”.
 
Article VI, paragraph 3 of our U.S. Constitution, clearly states: “… all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution …”.

In America, the sheriff is a part of the Executive branch of our government; and he takes an oath to uphold the Constitution of The United States of America.

That means that when a law is Constitutional he must support it. That also means that when a law is unconstitutional, he must stand up for the people in his County. Sheriffs have exercised their right to defend their citizens against unconstitutional Federal laws and won their cases over and over again. This shows that Nancy’s implied argument, that he is not really in charge, falls apart.

Nancy wrote that he also said that: “… local control being the most democratic form of government.”
 
Sheriff Mack made it very clear that he believed in our Representative Democracy, where the majority cannot push their agenda on to the minority.

Then Nancy went on to write that he got: “a standing ovation from our local Tea Party people”.

Really?
 
In the meeting I attended there were about 600 people. Almost everybody was standing up and cheering. Does that mean everybody there was from the Tea Party?
 
I saw people with dreadlocks. Were they Tea Party folks? I saw people who were supporting the “99 %”. Were they Tea Party folks? I saw farm folks advocating “non GMO products. Were they Tea Party folks?
 
Nancy! Where did you get your “facts”?

You wrote: “The Constitution says the ultimate law of the land is the Supreme Court.”
 
In Article VI, paragraph 2, in my copy of the Constitution it very clearly states that: “This Constitution and the Laws of the United States … shall be the supreme Law of the Land.”

Also: “Article. I. Section. 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.”

The law of the land rests with the Senate and the House. Even if a President disapproves! The Supreme Court only decides on the Constitutionality of a law. In fact, when the people rise up to oppose a law, that law can be nullified!; either by amendments to the Constitution or by the Congress. Just as the 18th amendment was overturned!

Nancy wrote: “We even fought a civil war that decided federal law supersedes state law.”
 
Again, not true!
 
The Federal Government is the child of the State governments.

The Federal Government exists only because the States called it into existence! Remember? The States had to ratify the Constitution before it was the law of the land! I suggest that you re-read The Constitution and your history books.

I have not seen the movie “The Butler”; but your idea that our “Sheriffs (will) take the law into their own hands.” is absurd. That is guilt by association.

You state that “We now have a Republican party controlled by a minority Tea Party contingency that wants ‘smaller government,’ low – or better yet – no taxes (“do away with the IRS”) and local sheriffs deciding what laws will be implemented or not (tribalism).”

Since the three aims of the Tea Party are: Fiscal Responsibility, Free Markets and Limited Constitutional Government, your rant against them shows that that you know nothing about the Tea Party,
 
And finally; I must have been asleep, or in some other dimension, because I never heard anyone at the meeting ever say what she wrote: “… every able-bodied person should have guns – the more AK-47s the better.”

Nancy, you can write articles to the editor all you want, but until you verify your “facts”, who will believe you?
 
Jim Driver
Rough and Ready

[3dec13 update]  To put a bow on it, I received an email from Ms Terry McLaughlin summarizing some communications she had with Union editor Brian Hamilton subsequent to this post appearing on RR.  She has asked me to publish this "shortened version of our thread" as follows –

From Terry to Brian Hamilton:   "I just thought I should clear the air and reinforce the fact that I did indeed forward a personalized request for publication to you and to Cory  Fisher – and I explained that the DMV Kudos letter that was published in November had been submitted October 6 – and that I had never heard from you, so assumed it would not be published – and that the reply to Nancy Eubank's letter was time-sensitive. . . . Whether my letter is ever published in any form at this time is almost a moot point, as it was a time-sensitive response to many inaccuracies in Ms Eubanks letter – and if it's published more than a month later, no one would even remember her letter . . .
So – please tell me what your policy is?"
 
Reply from BrianHamilton:  "As I mentioned in the note to George, we do have a one letter per month policy. The policy is due to the large volume of letters we receive and our hope to be able to share as many "voices" as possible from the community.  When submitting an opinion piece, you should be contacted by us to confirm you are the author of the piece, which lets you know we received it.  Because we try to publish every letter — the least we can do for those who take the time to write them — sometimes quite a backlog can be created. In all honesty, there have been only a few pieces that we simply have not been able to publish (whether due to personal attacks, outright factual inaccuracies or potential libel issues).  Your point is valid, however, in terms of timely responses to other opinions shared. I'll discuss this with our editorial board on Wednesday to see if we need to shift the policy (especially in terms of timely discussions).  Again, I appreciate your contributions to the forum we provide on our opinion pages. I'll follow up with you on this."
 
Terry's response:  "You have answered some of my questions and I appreciate that you will take it up with your editorial board. Please let me know the result of that meeting – or even publish an article explaining the specifics of the policy. Thank you".
 
And a positive reply from Brian Hamilton:  "You bet, Terry. I like the idea of a column to explain.
I appreciate your understanding and look forward to future submissions."

McLaughlin concludes her email with – "the above gives a recap of a pretty positive conversation between myself and Brian, and hopefully will result in a clearer policy being provided in the Union itself, so all writers will understand how it works and we might get a more timely dialogue on issues published – which is really the goal here!   So you could go ahead and use the above (or parts of it) and I don't think it will antagonize Brian or hurt the positive trend we are moving in – which is my concern.   In general, I think Brian Hamilton is a good guy and honestly will try to come up with a policy that will address our timeliness concerns."