A national group of sheriffs that claims the top law enforcers in American counties are not bound by federal law has successfully spread its doctrine to dozens of states in recent years.
A national group of sheriffs that claims the top law enforcers in American counties are not bound by federal law has successfully spread its doctrine to dozens of states in recent years.
It all started with the legalize marijuana movement, now we are here.
Do you want local governance or top down governance from a thousand miles away? At what distance does it become colonialism? States are not required to enforce federal law, they just can’t violate the constitution.
I would rather have a shitty federal liberal democracy than a local fascist police gang? Thank you very much?
Legalized weed led to fascist, smooth-brained cops?
You can’t be this thick.
States not enforcing federal law. Legal weed was the first real test of States not enforcing federal law. Now states are refusing to enforce all sorts of federal laws.
How is it fascist to not enforce laws?
If you don’t want fascist law enforcement, don’t vote for fascist law enforcement. These guys are on the ballot, at least where I live.
A big distinction being that sheriffs didn’t legalize weed, State legislatures did. That does set up a big constitutional issue that the federal government has just ignored, but the linked article is different than that.
State legislatures repealed the laws against it that they had. After that it’s no distinction at all. State law enforcement was directed to not enforce federal law, because they’re not required to.
There’s no big constitutional issue: states cannot be compelled to enforce federal law, this is already clearly settled. This is why things like the age to drink alcohol are forced onto states by withholding highway funding, the federal government can’t pass a national 21 and over law and expect it to be enforced, so they told the states “pass your own over 21 law or we won’t give you federal highway money” which is constitutional they say under the equal protection clause because the condition applies to all states, and the courts have ruled this way. Now every state has their own individual 21 and over law, something many states didn’t want to do. This has to happen because state law enforcement cannot be compelled to enforce federal law.
These sheriffs, and the state gun law repeals and the silencer laws and all that kind of stuff are applying the same concept. Legalizing weed is really what kicked this movement into high gear, it was the first time in a century or more that states managed to prominently just not enforce federal law, now it’s become a broader movement. Nobody but feds are required to enforce any federal law, they’re just required to abide by the constitution.
I think Good Things are good, Bad Things are bad, and violence should be used to make more of the first thing and less of the second thing.
An overseer torturing an enslaved worker on a plantation is “local governance”.
The 54th Massachusetts Infantry shooting that overseer through the head and heart like Peter Weller 22 minutes into RoboCop is “top down governance from a thousand miles away”.
The location of a government is not what makes it inherently good or bad, it’s what that government does.
Killing slavers—lest there be confusion—is good.
What about the FBI and the airforce bombing black neighborhoods in 1985? Like literally bombing them. Was that the kind of top down governance you want?
No, what makes you think I want that kind of governance?
I have already said Good Things are good and Bad Things are bad.
Fascist sheriffs: Bad
Bombing the MOVE building: Bad
What in the phrase
reads in any way as support for Philadelphia pigs bombing people?
If anything it reads to me as firmly against that sort of thing.
I agree. It’s much easier to hold your government to account when you guard them while they sleep. Can’t do that from 1300 miles away.
As you referencing Fight Club right there?