(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.
No comments:
Post a Comment