[Vision2020] Fwd: Background of previous post
Art Deco
art.deco.studios at gmail.com
Tue Apr 10 13:08:35 PDT 2012
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Art Deco <art.deco.studios at gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 1:05 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Background of previous post
To: lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com>
Having lived in Boundary County during the 1980s which was the
Constitutionalists hotbed of Idaho, here is a small sample of some their
beliefs that conflict with law enforcement:
1. The government cannot force anyone to buy insurance. That includes
automobile liability insurance. Would a Constitutionalist sheriff not
enforce the law requiring automobile liability insurance? Similar beliefs
include that requiring driver's licenses, setting speed limits, etc are not
constitutional.
2. Many constitutionalists assert that the the federal income tax is
unconstitutional. If the IRS procured and foreclosed on a lien to collect
unpaid income taxes, would a Constitutionalist sheriff serve the
foreclosure papers, and then enforce the resulting eviction orders?
3. Many Constitutionalists believe that all wildlife and wildfowl belong to
everyone, and that they can be harvested at will. Hence, hunting seasons
and the requirement of hunting licenses are unconstitutional. Also, they
also believe that hunters in pursuit of game or wildfowl do not have to
obey trespassing laws applicable to private property. What would a
Constitutionalist sheriff do here?
4. Some Constitutionals believe that no search warrant would be necessary
for searches that the sheriff considers reasonable. Can you see the
problem here?
Here's the problem in a nutshell: There are probably as many different
views of what is and what is not constitutional as there would be
Constitutionalist sheriffs. Each sheriff gets to choose what is or what is
not constitutional. This is not the Rule of Law, but the Rule of Man.
And what a mess it would be.
Hello, Rick Henderson. It is the function of the Judiciary to decide with
finality the constitutionality of laws, not the Executive branch. The
sheriff is part of the Executive branch. Perhaps you need a remedial
course in civics.
At any rate it would be proper and expected for candidate Henderson to
address these specific matters among other things. Given his actions so
far, it does not appear that he has the integrity and/or courage to do so.
Let's hope he is smart and honest enough to change his mind about this.
w.
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 11:22 AM, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:
> I think that all of the candidates support the entire constitution, with
> the exception of Henderson. There may be some that would like to repeal the
> 17th. I think it is fine the way it is. If anything I would tighten up the
> Commerce Clause.
> Roger
> -----Original message-----
> From: keely emerinemix kjajmix1 at msn.com
> Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2012 18:43:57 -0700
> To: Rosemary Huskey donaldrose at cpcinternet.com, vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Background of previous post
>
> >
> > Rosemary raises some interesting and, I think, extremely important
> questions about Mr. Henderson's approach to law enforcement, the
> Constitution, and what he would do as Latah County's Sheriff. I would add
> another question of him and all other "Constitutionalists": Are they
> "organic Constitutionalists," those who believe that the original document
> and the initial first ten amendments -- what we call the Bill of Rights --
> is the only "real" Constitution, the only Constitution that reflects the
> intent of the original framers and the only Constitution worth defending
> and upholding? Or do they respect and defend the subsequent amendments,
> which include, among other things, the extension of enfranchisement (voting
> rights) to women, as well as the granting of immediate citizenship to
> people born in the U.S.? Which Constitution do they revere -- the initial
> document with the original ten amendments, or the Constitution whose
> expression of liberty and the highest ideals of our!
> nation
> is codified in the amendments that came after the Bill of Rights?
> >
> > The former is called "the organic Constitution." The document as it
> stands now, with the addition of the other amendments, is often not
> embraced by those who proclaim a personal and political reverence for the
> Constitution. The content of those amendments, however, are significant
> enough that I would want to know if anyone running for office in my
> community agrees with and is willing to defend the entire Constitution and
> all of its amendments, or simply what some have viewed as the "organic,"
> original, ten-amendment-only Constitution.
> >
> > This isn't a question of historical and political semantics. The
> political climate of the day poses a tremendous and very real risk to our
> nation and to each of its citizens, and I would want to know if a
> candidate, and particularly a candidate who appeals to my Christian
> brothers and sisters, is entirely supportive of the amendments added to the
> original Bill of Rights -- and not as an exercise in history, but as an
> indication of his or her views on enfranchisement, nativism, sexism, and
> other topics that require a depth of understanding not normally expected,
> but required in these days because of the recent insistence on
> "Constitutionalism." We would all assume, I think, that no one running for
> office is against the document that gave our country structure, but the
> insistence on absolute adherence to the document raises a couple of
> questions: WHICH document, in what form, and WHY the absolutist insistence
> on a principle generally assumed to be embraced by all candidat!
> es and
> office holders? Clearly there's something beyond "good, civic
> Americanism" at work here, and I would want to know why some candidates
> seem to believe that it's required that they feverishly trumpet their
> reverence for a document that, in my memory, has not been seriously
> challenged or denigrated by anyone running for office pretty much anywhere
> in the U.S.
> >
> > I'm only 51, so I don't personally remember the civil rights era that
> occupied my parents' time and energy, as well as their hearts and souls,
> but I know from history that certain terms, like "States' rights," sound
> innocuous but can actually mean, in their application, something more
> insidious and destructive to our country and the well-being of its citizens
> I believe that "Constitutional" is an example. Who among us wants to be
> thought of as "anti-Constitution"? I don't recall ever knowing of a
> candidate for public office who campaigned on a platform of spitting on the
> Constitution; indeed, the very act of their submitting their names for
> consideration seems to be an affirmation that they are, in fact,
> "pro-Constitution." Now we have something different, an attempt to co-opt
> an easily understood but relatively innocuous (because of its
> easily-understood nature) term like "pro-Constitution" that seems to mean
> something antithetical not only to the governing process its!
> elf, but
> something utterly beyond the agreed-upon understanding of what adherence
> to the document requires. The terms are the same, but the definitions and
> application? It's a whole new ballgame.
> >
> > Henderson seems to believe that it requires that he, as sheriff,
> physically prevent the Feds from coming onto Latah County soil in case of a
> legal or procedural dispute. Both the formation and the extension of that
> belief is frightening and, I think, probably not what some of his
> less-well-informed supporters would embrace. Words matter, definitions
> matter, and context matters. Unfortunately, very few voters are asking the
> questions, delving into the vocabulary, questioning the context, and
> challenging the application of this new "Constitutionalism." My prayer is
> that Henderson's supporters, and especially those from his church, would
> take the time to understand the context of his innocent, safe-sounding
> words. It ought to chill them -- but only if they check it out. Failure
> to do so will keep them comfortable, safe, and unchallenged, but will
> result in something antithetical to community, security, law, and civil
> order as we understand it.
> >
> > Lamentably, I think that's what Henderson and candidates like Gresham
> Bouma are counting on.
> >
> > Keely
> > www.keely-prevailingwinds.com
> >
> >
> > From: donaldrose at cpcinternet.com
> > To: vision2020 at moscow.com
> > Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2012 14:30:17 -0700
> > CC: rickh340 at gmail.com
> > Subject: [Vision2020] Background of previous post
> >
> >
> >
> > Mr. Henderson’s website appears to still be down. Earlier today I read
> his website and copied the following quotes (which I found to be quite
> alarming). Rose Huskey Race for SheriffLocal candidate Rick Henderson is
> running as a self-styled constitutional sheriff. His website explains what
> he thinks that means. He claims, in part “. . . a Constitutional Sheriff
> is one that views the oath of office in the highest regard! The Sheriff
> swears to "...uphold the Constitution of the United States and the State of
> Idaho..." Further, the sheriff is the only law enforcement selected by a
> vote of the people. The sheriff is getting their authority from the people
> of their county, not any bureaucracy, to represent the interest of the
> people of their county. This means that as your Sheriff I put the highest
> emphasis on protecting YOUR rights; including infringements from other
> citizens and from other agencies. . . . In short, a Constitutional
> Sheriff believes in the "Rule of L!
> aw";
> however the rule of law starts with the Constitutionality of that law.
> There are those that think a Sheriff should not interpret a law (recall
> the Nuremberg defense here). They believe that the legislatures know best.
> I disagree! I believe that legislature does have the authority to pass
> laws and that the Sheriff is obligated to enforce the lawful and
> Constitutional laws. However, our system is designed to minimize the
> chance of our rights being infringed. For example, we have seen the
> federal government try to say we are not allowed to protect ourselves or
> our livestock from attacks by various wildlife.Rick Henderson apparently
> agrees with the following statement from Sheriff Mack.“. . .The county
> sheriff is the line in the sand. The county sheriff is the one who can say
> to the feds, "Beyond these bounds you shall not pass." This is not only
> within the scope of the sheriff's authority; it's the sheriff's sworn duty.
> And what about the little guys; the individual pol!
> ice
> officers? It's all about judgement [sic] calls.
> http://www.cspoa.org/intro.php
> > =======================================================
> > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > http://www.fsr.net
> > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > =======================================================
> >
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
--
Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
art.deco.studios at gmail.com
--
Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
art.deco.studios at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20120410/c2b5b0aa/attachment.html>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list