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.

  • bedrooms@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    The group, known as CSPOA, teaches that elected sheriffs must “protect their citizens from the overreach of an out-of-control federal government” by refusing to enforce any law they deem unconstitutional or “unjust.”

    “The safest way to actually achieve that is to have local law enforcement understand that they have no obligation to enforce such laws,” Mack said in an interview. “They’re not laws at all anyway. If they’re unjust laws, they are laws of tyranny.”

    Not like that

  • mister_monster@monero.town
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

    • 00@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      1 year ago

      I would rather have a shitty federal liberal democracy than a local fascist police gang? Thank you very much?

      • mister_monster@monero.town
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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?

    • FfaerieOxide@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • elscallr@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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?

        • FfaerieOxide@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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

          it’s what that government does.

          reads in any way as support for Philadelphia pigs bombing people?

          If anything it reads to me as firmly against that sort of thing.

      • mister_monster@monero.town
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

    • danbob@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • mister_monster@monero.town
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

  • Throwaway@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Is this about weed or guns? I gotta know if its left wing and approved, or right wing and fascist.