[Vision2020] Fwd: Fwd: Background of previous post

Art Deco art.deco.studios at gmail.com
Tue Apr 10 15:08:12 PDT 2012

Mr. Henderson,

I have posted the questions below on Vision2000 at moscow.com.  Your responses
are awaited by the 600 or sp members of that community forum.

Wayne Fox

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Rosemary Huskey <donaldrose at cpcinternet.com>
Date: Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 1:12 PM
Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Fwd: Background of previous post
To: Art Deco <art.deco.studios at gmail.com>

Wayne, Please forward these very important questions to Rick Henderson and
let him know you have posted it on 2020 and await his response.  ****



** **

*From:* vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
*On Behalf Of *Art Deco
*Sent:* Tuesday, April 10, 2012 1:09 PM
*To:* vision2020 at moscow.com
*Subject:* [Vision2020] Fwd: Background of previous post****

** **

** **

---------- 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

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.


** **

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.
-----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!****

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!
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!

officers? It's all about judgement [sic] calls.
> =======================================================
>  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.
         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****

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/20120410/04133d34/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Vision2020 mailing list