Items of Interest, December 19 2011

Sheriff Mack Announces Lawsuit Against SPLC, Run for Congress

Economics:
Thomas Storck, Economics and the Real World

Energy:
Real wealth: Howard T. Odum’s energy economics

Demanding less: why we need a new politics of energy (report excerpt) by Rebecca Willis and Dr. Nick Eyre (EB)

Peak Oil:
OPEC says, "Don't Count on Us" for More Supply

California:
WAKE UP: There's A 82% Chance That California's Public Pension System Will Run Out Of Money

What's the point of being right if you end up dead like the person next to you? Why not party it up in ignorance?

Feminism:Mirror of Justice: originalism and sex discrimination

Diet and Health:
Natural remedies for cavities

Catholic:
Fr. Skeris, Singing Lessons
Alan Jacobs, Christianity and the Future of the Book (via Mere Comments)

Chrysostomos Christmas Concert 2011

(You can download clips from the concert at the above link.)

American History:
Freedom Betrayed, Again and Again by John Willson

Items of Interest, 1 August 2011

Commentary: Peak Oil Teachers by Eric Woods and Sharon Astyk (EB)
100 MPG on gasoline: Could we really? by Tom Murphy (EB)
How much energy does the Internet use? by Barath Raghavan (EB)

WWWTW: On being ladies and gentlemen in complimenting our spouses

Coolest Sheriff in the Country: Richard Mack on Tenther Radio (mp3)

But can he win?

Rebellion: Wyoming's Micheli: Sheriffs are ultimate authority; AP: Wyoming's Micheli: Sheriffs Are Ultimate Authority

How conservative is Wyoming? Wyoming Catholic College is in Wyoming. So is Yellowstone National Park. (2012!)

Micheli for Governor

This endorsement should be no surprise:

Richard Mack in Sunnyvale

(source of photo: Sheriff Richard Mack: oath of office and state sovereignty)

As I noted, Sheriff Richard Mack made an appearance in Sunnyvale last Tuesday [three Tuesdays ago]. I managed to go out to hear his talk; I am guessing that the crowd was filled with a lot of Campaign for Liberty and Ron Paul supporters, as well as libertarians. The San Jose branch of the John Birch Society was also present, selling issues of New American.

I have to say that initially I felt weird being there; the people seemed a bit too enthusiastic about liberty, and I wasn't used to that. There are probably some differences in our political and philosophical beliefs despite their desire for a limited, Constitutional federal government. Even if they do think that a California that exercises state sovereignty is a good thing, do they agree with the likely outcome? Are they more likely to be social progressives? Or supporters of Prop 8?

Sheriff Mack was introduced by former IRS agent Joe Banister, who started by leading the Pledge of Allegiance. As usual, I refrained from saying it, though I did stand and put my hand over my heart. The word "indivisible" seems to go against a proper understanding of the Constitution. See Thomas Di Lorenzo. It seems incongruous to me for one both to believe in states' rights (and the right to secession) and to say the Pledge sincerely. But those who were in the audience seemed enthusaistic for this display of patriotism. The brand of patriotism exhibited by the Tea Party movement relies on sanitized "conservative" propaganda regarding the American founding. I don't doubt there are a lot of Lockean liberals in the movement. Still, I would probably prefer their company to that of California progressives. (To a point?)

Banister pointed out that Mack is on the SPLC list of "Patriots." He then read a brief bio of Sheriff Mack from one of his backs, adding his own comments and anecdotes from time to time.

(While Tea Party supporters want freedom from federal government, what is their attitude towards the state? Do they have an inclination towards local democracy? How many of them are libertarian in their attitude to state and local governments as well?)

Sheriff Mack's talk was mostly about his own personal journey towards being a lover of the Constitution and liberty, and the ramifications of the SCOTUS decision in the lawsuit he brought forth against the federal government regarding the stipulations of the Brady Bill.

(Sheriff Mack recommends Freeze Dry Guy, saying that whoever has control over food has control over us, and in this time of uncertainty, it would be wise to stock up.)

He used Patrick Henry's "holy cause of liberty" in his introduction; I suppose that rhetoric was acceptable to some of the founding fathers and to those in the crowd, but it bothered me a bit. He mentioned that only 7 out of 3100 U.S. sheriffs joined the suit "against the Clinton administration," and asked why that was. He also commented on the futility of the drug war, which he deemed to be a farce.

Then he talked about his days when he was a young police officer. Even if there aren't formal quotas on tickets, there may be informal ones, and he did his part to write tickets. His moment of conversion came when he made an easy traffic stop on a woman who had run a stop sign in front of him. The woman was a young mother (with children?) who was not well-off. At that moment he caught a reflection of himself, and he didn't like what he saw. He walked away after handing the woman her license and registration back. He decided that he would quit. He called himself a hypocrite, because he never studied the US constitution or the Utah constitution, even though he took an oath to defend them. He said he took oath in order to have the job, not because he truly understood what the oath entailed. He was walking into the city administration and was ready to resign...

But then he imagined what his wife's response would be: "Can't you change yourself so you're not a hypocrite and keep your job? So he didn't, He decided not to quit, opportune time to take a class with the author of The Making of America, Professor W. Cleon Skousen. He appealed to Founding Fathers like Washington and Adams.

During his visual presentation he showed a clip from Gettysburg--Col. Chamberlin's speech about fighting to set other men free. Sheriff Mack sees the 3100 American sheriffs as a potential army to set Americans free from illegal acts by the federal government. They would be the ultimate check and balance against the federal government, as the sheriffs report directly to the people.

(He said that if California sheriffs would unite, they could let the water flow to the San Joaquin Valley, noting that the region produces 50% of fruits, nuts and vegetables for the United States. It is an important agricultural region, but is this what we should be preserving? Industrial agriculture may have its needs, but shouldn't we be working for a better political economic order?)

He also played a scene from Clear and Present Danger, where Admiral Greer is talking to Jack Ryan about how he took an oath and has a duty to the American people.

(The Constitution, the federal government, and states' rights: To whom do elected officials take an oath? To whom are they answerable? What about federal officials? Are they directly answerable to the people? Or is this relationship mediated by the states?)

Sheriff Mack linked the keeping of the oath regarding the Constitution and the Tea Party movement. He believes that the states must reassert their sovereignty -- this is the solution to an out-of-control federal government. He also mentioned state nullification as a way to deal with unconstitutional laws passed by the federal government. The emphasis on state sovereignty is the way to keep the movement effective and peaceful. (He does advocates only peaceful solutions, not violence.)

With respect to the Second Amendment and the militia, he put on a clip of The Patriot, with Mel Gibson. (He recommends Front Sight in Nevada and Dr. Piazza's know-how instruction. The sheriff took his family there, so that everyone in the family knows how to handle a firearm. Shooting is now a family event.)

Arizona and illegal immigration were also brought up briefly. Apparently Sheriff Mack is a supporter of Sheriff Arpaio. Everyone celebrated the fact that no ccw permit is needed in Arizona.

(What is the relation of a state police with the sheriff? I suppose who is the CLEO is determined by law.)

Next: the scene in The Rosa Parks Story when Rosa Parks declines to move to the back of the bus. Sheriff Mack: enforcement of stupid laws is tyranny. Would you rather be the one enforcing a stupid law, or protecting the one resisting an unjust law?

In a Republic citizens want to be left alone by their government. The Tea Party people do not want a national id or Obamacare, and Sheriff Mack wants electeds official or (C)LEOs who keep oaths, serve and protect, and defy tyranny if necessary.

(An example of tyranny--the English enforcing prima nocta in Braveheart.)

Mack pointed out that Reagan did not do anything to abolish the federal tax system. What would happen if the sheriffs did not allow IRS agents access to citizens? It was claimed that the federal government is a threat to constitutional liberty. To whom do you turn for protection from the federal government, for protection of your rights? Politicians take liberty away in order to hold on to their jobs. He cited Alan Keyes, who said the only difference between the slavery before the Civil War and slavery as it exists now is that the plantation owners at least paid for the chains.

Then he continued with a discussion of his landmark lawsuit. In the Justice Scalia's opinion, the dual sovereignty of the Constitution is reasserted. He did not explain concurrent jurisdiction in detail, but the federal government is limited to enumerated powers (I. art. 8), while the states have their own sphere of jurisdiction. The Bill of Rights protects state sovereignty with the Tenth Amendment. Who ensures state sovereignty?

Then he played another clip from Gettysburg, to my surprise, in which the Confederates talk about states' rights and state sovereignty with the British officer who had been sent to observe.
Sheriff Mack explicitly noted that his presentation shows the arguments of both sides, as they are depicted in Gettysburg.

(Can there be dual sovereignty, even in a Federal system? Does respect for the Constitution fall under the duty to respect for positive law? At this point I was thinking of those Catholic statists who would run roughshod over Constitution in the name of natural rights and natural law.)

Members of the Tea Party movement and 10th Amendment activists would have you believe that the destruction of the old constitutional order is not a fait accompli yet.

Sherrif Mack told us that even after the decision, Attorney General Janet Reno sent a memo to all sheriffs telling them to ignore the decision. He closed with another clip from Braveheart, in which Robert the Bruce tells his father, "I will never be on the wrong side again."

Again, he stated that the solution to our political ills is the reclaiming of state sovereignty.

He closed with "America's political prayer," the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution. This also seemed to me to be excessive. Does it reflect a naive understanding among Tea Party patriots and conservatives?

Just as there is a pocket edition of the Constitution available, so a pocket-sized abridged edition of the SCOTUS decision will soon be available.

Mack and Printz v. United States
potowmack.org
Cornell University Law School

Related websites:
Freedom Law School
Whatever Happened to Justice?

Post initiated on May 15.

Sheriff Richard Mack - Oath Keepers Interview

Posse Comitatus

David Franke, Bypassing Posse Comitatus

What could be so wrong with the use of the US military on American soil to protect American lives? The TV show The Unit hinted that this might be happening with 1st SFOD-D. Should the Posse Comitatus Act be repealed? What is more consonant with a Federal system?

One might think that it'd be understandable for states to seek the aid of the national military to put down rebellions or defend against domestic enemies. But that touches upon the crux of the issue: should an agency of the Federal government (such as the FBI) or the military just assist state and local authorities, or should an agency of the federal government have ultimate authority over these matters? Even when a federal agency is investigating or prosecuting a federal crime, such powers have been delegated to it by the states, no? It seems like this is a question pertaining to state sovereignty. (Is it proper to state sovereignty that the states have the ultimate authority in enforcing federal laws?) Is the Constitution explicit enough on these matters?

This reminds me, Sheriff Richard Mack will be in town on Tuesday to give a talk for the Silicon Valley Campaign for Liberty Meetup.

The Myth of Posse Comitatus
by Major Craig T. Trebilcock, U.S. Army Reserve

The Origins of the Posse Comitatus
by Bonnie Baker

County Sheriff Can Bust Big Bro (via Jeff Culbreath)

The duly elected sheriff of a county is the highest law enforcement official within a county. He has law enforcement powers that exceed that of any other state or federal official.

This is settled law that most people are not aware of.

County sheriffs in Wyoming have scored a big one for the 10th Amendment and states rights. The sheriffs slapped a federal intrusion upside the head and are insisting that all federal law enforcement officers and personnel from federal regulatory agencies must clear all their activity in a Wyoming County with the Sheriff’s Office. Deja vu for those who remember big Richard Mack in Arizona.

Bighorn County Sheriff Dave Mattis spoke at a press conference following a recent U.S. District Court decision (Case No. 2:96-cv-099-J (2006)) and announced that all federal officials are forbidden to enter his county without his prior approval ……

“If a sheriff doesn’t want the Feds in his county he has the constitutional right and power to keep them out, or ask them to leave, or retain them in custody.”

The court decision was the result of a suit against both the BATF and the IRS by Mattis and other members of the Wyoming Sheriff’s Association. The suit in the Wyoming federal court district sought restoration of the protections enshrined in the United States Constitution and the Wyoming Constitution.

Guess what? The District Court ruled in favor of the sheriffs. In fact, they stated, Wyoming is a sovereign state and the duly elected sheriff of a county is the highest law enforcement official within a county and has law enforcement powers exceeding that of any other state or federal official.” Go back and re-read this quote.

The court confirms and asserts that “the duly elected sheriff of a county is the highest law enforcement official within a county and has law enforcement powers EXCEEDING that of any other state OR federal official.” And you thought the 10th Amendment was dead and buried — not in Wyoming, not yet.

Does the Santa Clara County Sheriff care about being a check on the Federal Government? I doubt it. I suspect her personal politics are in line with most people in state government.

Negative attitudes towards the police

Many have an aversion to, or even a resentment of, the police. Some hold it against the police officer when they get in trouble and receive a ticket for speeding or some other infraction. Others are put off by those who abuse their authority, or are lording it over others, or because police officers are symbols of an 'oppressive' government. But is there an uneasy tension between the republican spirit itself and the existence of a professional police force? Or is the resentment due to a lack of humility and obedience to lawful authority, to a spirit of rebellion?

Should police officers wear some sort of a uniform? Or should they wear civilian clothing, along with a badge and their gear, maintaining a low-profile as much as possible? Is a uniform necessary for professionalism? (What would sheriffs and constables of the past have worn? Whatever was typical of the nobility?) Is a visible presence important for deterrence? Would deterrence be necessary in a small community? While police officers can effect some measure of deterrence in larger communities, doesn't this effect persist only while they are present? Hence, there is the problem of size and 'policing' by patrol car.

Some oppose the adoption of military-style BDUs by police officers, even though these are more comfortable and suited to the demands of police work (according to police officers who wear them), because this would make the police too 'militaristic' and be at odds with their actual function in society. Peter Hitchens holds on to the ideal attributed to Robert Peel in his creation of the Metropolitan Police Force, namely that the police officers should appear to be like an ordinary citizen as much as possible. Mr. Hitchens criticizes the replacement of the traditional bobby by the modern police officer accordingly. But what are the functions of the police, in addition to providing a defense of a community from criminals? The police are not merely referees and political life is more than a game--the stakes involved are much higher.

While they should appear like ordinary citizens as much as possible, they also have to be different, so that they are noticeable. Is it possible to balance being readily identifiable with blending in with the citizenry? Or are these two considerations so opposed, despite being seemingly necessary? What if it is the case that for the police to be truly effective, their presence should be concealed rather than be obvious? In order to determine what it is for the police to be effective, we must first know what its function is.

One detective for the Metropolitan Police has written that, "In 1829 the Metropolitan Police Act led to the introduction of the modern police force. The primary means of policing was conspicuous patrolling by uniformed police officers. The key objective was the prevention of crime." Is this ideal too unrealistic? Even though LEOs are said to enforce, that is compel observance or obedience of, the law, they cannot be a constant monitor everywhere, even in public areas--they cannot prevent a well-conceived crimed or one that is hidden from patrols or surveillance. In the U.S., because of the reliance on patrol cars, they usually only respond after a crime has been committed, and apprehend those who are guilty of crime and bring them to judgment and punishment. Though they serve the legal system and justice, they are not a tool of punishment, which is the coercive effect of law. They are also involved in the physical defense of a community, which function is assigned by Plato to the guardians in The Republic. And to an extent they act as referees who can mediate a dispute or de-escalate a situation before things turn ugly. Critics, in their zealous support of the deterrent function of police forget that the police must also defend the public and themselves from violent criminals, and therefore take the necessary precautions. (As the use of knives increases, is the time of the unarmed bobby coming to an end?)

Police officers are not meant to be social workers, though they should show a concern for their fellow citizens and do what they can to help because they are a citizen and in a position to do so. But these two roles should be kept separate, unless they are participating in the role of those who rule or of the magistrate? Otherwise, where the line be between showing proper concern for a fellow citizen and being a busybody?

Who should be entrusted with giving moral and spiritual direction to the members of the community, other than those who are virtuous and wise? And should they present themselves as sources of such aid, or should they rather wait until they are approached? In a fragmented community, perhaps only the police can be in such a position, but in a fragmented community, how can we be sure that the police themselves can be reliable moral guides? Being able to cite the laws of a community is not the same as being prudent or knowledgeable of (and conformed to) higher principles that should inform human law.

If it is proper to a republican constitution (or polity -- see Aristotle's Politics) for most to be citizens, would not the function of protecting a community from its internal enemies be a duty incumbent on everyone who is qualified to be a citizen as well? This seems to be in harmony with Peelian Principles. (Is it better to have a designated 'neutral' party apprehend those who have committed crimes, rather than relying upon the family of the victim(s)?) (Even in other constitutions, all the members of a community may be responsible for its defense, even though they might not hold office or have a share in ruling.)

The police are an instance of function being specialized within a community, and not of delegation or restriction of a function to certain persons, as in the case of legislating or ruling. If a true militia were to be established, how many people would lose interest in becoming a police officer, and look for another means of support while still feeling that they are engaged in the duties of a citizen? If citizens were more capable of defending themselves, or did not give the appearance of being passive sheep, would it be necessary to set the police apart in appearance in order to make their presence known and thus scare criminals off? And does having a uniformed police force (along with restrictions on firearms) serve to degrade the exercise of citizenship? If the citizenry cannot rely on the police to prevent crimes (which they cannot do to any great degree, at least here in the United States), would they not be somewhat justified in feeling angry that they have to support a group of people who seem useless?



Links:
Peelian Principles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Peelers - The World's First Police Force.
A History of the Nine Principles of Policing
Blues And Twos - Police Officer's Blog (UK policing)
City of London Police (wiki)
Metropolitan Police History
The Metropolitan Police

Wiki: Metropolitan Police Service; Metropolitan Police Act 1829, 1839
The Metropolitan Police Act, 1829
Metropolitan Police Act 1829 (c.44)
Police authority and reform in Augustan Rome and nineteenth ...
Google Books: An Introduction to Policing and Police Powers, by Leonard Jason-Lloyd
Elaine Reynolds, Before the Bobbies: The Night Watch and Police Reform in Metropolitan London, 1720-1830 -- Google Books
| Book Review | The American Historical Review, 104.5 | The ...
To First U.S. Bobby, Unarmed Is Unsafe

Johnson, who used to stand ceremonial guard duty at the White House and other Washington sites as a member of the 3rd U.S. Infantry Regiment, said British police need far better training.

He said he had 36 weeks of academy training and supervised field work to become a police officer in Texas. But at Thames Valley he said he received less than half that, and most of the instruction involved how to fill out paperwork.

Johnson said British officers are instructed to retreat if they see a gun and call for backup from armed officers, but that can give suspects time to escape. He said he recently found himself in the same room with a man wanted for attempted murder and he could easily have taken the suspect by surprise and apprehended him.

But, Johnson said, because the man was believed to be armed, he was ordered not to approach him. The suspect walked away and was arrested by armed officers two days later.

"If he had gone out and committed more violent crimes in those two days," Johnson said, "I would have felt personally responsible."

BBC NEWS | UK | England | London | Armed police tackle gun murders

Another page for Sheriff Richard Mack. (Previously mentioned here.)
Constitutional Duties of a Sheriff
The Spiritual Politician: Sheriff Richard Mack: America's ...

Another reason to love Wyoming

via Conservative Heritage Times: Wyoming sheriffs put feds in their place

The post is from 2007; let's hope that it's true and that not much has changed since then.

From the comments:
The Paragon Foundation
I don't know much about it, and how it relates to the Southern republican tradition.

Constitutional Law Enforcement Association