Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

CSPOA and the upholding of the constitution

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • CSPOA and the upholding of the constitution

    Recently a New Mexico Sheriff and his entire police force were relieved of their duty because the sheriff attended a meeting of the CSPOA (Constitutional Sheriffs and Policy Officers Association). See Chief of Police Harassed by Feds, Placed on Leave After Signing Pledge to Uphold Constitution . Evidently a member of the TSA (Transportation Safety Administration (part of Homeland Security)) detained the sheriff on his way to a convention of the CSPOA. The sheriff did have a name change in his recent history and after being detained for 25 minutes he was allowed to go with no charges. However, upon returning to New Mexico, another sheriff put him and his department on administrative leave because of his POLITICAL AFFILIATIONS. Evidently someone doesn't agree with our sheriffs wanting to uphold the constitution. There is another article that is interesting in this case: Number Of Nation's Sheriffs Refusing To Enforce Unconstitutional Gun Laws Snowballs. Isn't it interesting that our everyday police officers have to organize to try and keep their vow to uphold the constitution. Obviously there are forces at work in the Federal Government that are pushing these men and women who are dedicated to upholding the constitution to do otherwise. To learn more about the CSPOA go to their website at: http://cspoa.org/cspoa-jan-2014-resolution/

  • #2
    The CSPOA does not promote "upholding the Constitution." They promote upholding a particular, selective, and somewhat dishonest interpretation of the Constitution, and promote unconstitutional schemes such as nullification. Mack himself has supported the assertion that a state has the right to secede, contrary to Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700.

    Comment


    • #3
      Regarding nullification, see:

      * United States v. Peters, 9 U.S. 115 (1809)
      * Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506 (1859)
      * Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958)
      * Bush v. Orleans Parish School Board, 364 U.S. 500 (1960)
      Last edited by Outis; 02-08-2014, 03:40 PM.

      Comment


      • #4
        I'm dubious of the part where "another Sheriff" put him and his department on admin leave... perhaps this is the common misconception that a deputy sheriff is a "sheriff" because he wears that name on his jacket, or drives a "Sheriff" car. I can't imagine a Sheriff (one per county or parish) having jurisdiction over another Sheriff.
        "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

        Comment


        • #5
          OK, it looks like maybe you're using "Sheriff" and "Police Chief" interchangeably --- not the same thing at all.

          See Chief of Police Harassed by Feds, Placed on Leave After Signing Pledge to Uphold Constitution . Evidently a member of the TSA (Transportation Safety Administration (part of Homeland Security)) detained the sheriff on his way to a convention of the CSPOA.
          "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
            I'm dubious of the part where "another Sheriff" put him and his department on admin leave... perhaps this is the common misconception that a deputy sheriff is a "sheriff" because he wears that name on his jacket, or drives a "Sheriff" car. I can't imagine a Sheriff (one per county or parish) having jurisdiction over another Sheriff.
            Shane Harger (the aggrieved party cited above) is not, and was not, a sheriff--he is or was a chief of police for Jemez Springs, New Mexico. According to a local news story, while he was placed on desk duty for a while, he was retained in the employ of the village. http://www.kob.com/article/stories/s3305689.shtml

            Comment


            • #7
              Thanks, Outis.. I knew something was "off" about this OP.
              "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Outis View Post
                The CSPOA does not promote "upholding the Constitution." They promote upholding a particular, selective, and somewhat dishonest interpretation of the Constitution, and promote unconstitutional schemes such as nullification. Mack himself has supported the assertion that a state has the right to secede, contrary to Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700.
                I read Texas v. White just to find out how the Supreme Court interpreted this concept of states not having the power to secede from the Union. The conclusion was that since they joined they have no power to secede because if all of them did then there would be no federal government. They also used the phrase, "to form a more perfect union" as a basis for deciding that a state cannot secede. These arguments are weak and were used to make sure the states stayed with the U.S. after the war. I believe that our founding fathers did not want the federal government to have such powers to have the ultimate say and governance over the states. (see Jefferson’s Arguments for Nullification and Limited Government). I believe the states should have the power of nullification and that Federal Government should be limited. I think the supreme courts interpretation in this regard is incorrect. So more power to Richard Mack for being a constitutionalist. I find his interpretation to more honest than that of the supreme court in Texas v. White.

                Here is an interesting video to watch regarding nullification: Thomas Woods speaks on Nullification at Nullify Now Los Angeles
                Last edited by onefour1; 02-08-2014, 05:36 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  From local Channel 7 News:

                  "It is our understanding that he had a boarding pass under Shane Harger and his driver's license indicated Braxton Haze," Lt. Keith Elder said.

                  Elder said that obviously made TSA agents suspicious. When Harger took his job with Jemez Springs, he was on a commission to assist the Sandoval County Sheriff's Office in protection of its citizens, but that's now over.

                  "So when that information came out that there was a difference in identity, the sheriff asked Chief Harger to surrender his special commission that is issued by the sheriff's office, and Chief Harger did that voluntarily," Elder said. "He is an employee of the Jemez Springs Village. The governing body of that village would have to take whatever actions they see appropriate concerning his employment."

                  Despite the controversy, Harger or Haze is still considered a legitimate, certified law enforcement officer in New Mexico.

                  Read more: http://www.koat.com/news/new-mexico/...#ixzz2slyKVoWp

                  =======================

                  It is disingenuous (and I know that's not your intent, 141) to use a scrambled up case like this to make a point.
                  "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    States do, at least theoretically, have the right to secede from the union. The procedure is simple--just as the several states individually petitioned Congress to join the union, they must petition the Congress to leave it. It has never been done, but the doing so would not be impossible.

                    States can _attempt_ to leave the union by unilateral declaration ... but that's been tried before. Didn't seem to work out too well.

                    I do not respond to arguments by link, and refuse to give Dr. Woods the time of day on general principle. Nullification is a settled issue. So is secession by any means but petition.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I used to be detained routinely at TSA checkpoints. I finally had a very polite (and "grown up") TSA screener, and I took the gamble to ask "what, exactly, is it that makes me get extra screening every single time?" He paused a second, then replied, "your flight documents show your informal first name, but your identification shows your formal first name". I asked -- "THAT'S IT?" He said, "yeah, change your frequent flier info, and you'll be fine".

                      Sure enough, I called Continental Airlines, changed my first name to my "formal" first name (Bovine instead of Cow ) and was amazed that I almost NEVER get stopped anymore --- "clear sailing" (or flying)

                      The Sheriff in question had, in fact, two completely different names.
                      "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                        The Sheriff in question had, in fact, two completely different names.
                        Again, he is a police chief, not a sheriff. Though it is easy and understandable why such an error would be made.

                        And the reason for two names is quite straightforward. He was involved with an earlier case where he received some death threats. http://www.abqjournal.com/news/metro...ro05-15-11.htm

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Outis View Post
                          Again, he is a police chief, not a sheriff. Though it is easy and understandable why such an error would be made.
                          Yes, I believe I pointed that out initially. Was reading through the OP again, and got tangled in the misrepresentations.

                          And the reason for two names is quite straightforward. He was involved with an earlier case where he received some death threats. http://www.abqjournal.com/news/metro...ro05-15-11.htm
                          That may be a fact, but not an excuse. Was TSA aware of that? Were they reasonably expected to know that?
                          "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                            That may be a fact, but not an excuse. Was TSA aware of that? Were they reasonably expected to know that?
                            I highly doubt that the TSA was aware of that, nor could they reasonably be expected to know. It's not like they have a database of name changes for people who legally change their names for perfectly good reasons. And name changes/false names are one of the things on the "Flag this person" list, for good or ill.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Outis View Post
                              I highly doubt that the TSA was aware of that, nor could they reasonably be expected to know. It's not like they have a database of name changes for people who legally change their names for perfectly good reasons. And name changes/false names are one of the things on the "Flag this person" list, for good or ill.
                              Exactly -- so, unlike what the OP is seems to be implying, there was no intent on the part of the TSA related to his attending this convention. No "grand conspiracy".
                              "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Gondwanaland, Yesterday, 01:42 PM
                              42 responses
                              178 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Cerebrum123  
                              Started by Ronson, Yesterday, 11:16 AM
                              6 responses
                              56 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by Juvenal, Yesterday, 04:13 AM
                              14 responses
                              62 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Terraceth  
                              Started by shunyadragon, 11-24-2020, 06:20 PM
                              22 responses
                              134 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by shunyadragon, 11-24-2020, 06:10 PM
                              5 responses
                              46 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Ronson
                              by Ronson
                               
                              Working...
                              X