A critical difference between a society with representative government and an oppressive society is free people have a path to recourse over laws they disagree with. Oppressed people do not. In a free and democratic society, the people can directly and immediately affect the imposition of unfair laws.
Being able to select the person in charge of law enforcement locally keeps people in a position of immediate and direct recourse over policies enforced or forced upon them. Should unconstitutional laws or mandates be imposed on the citizens, they do not have to wait for another election or a lawsuit before they have recourse. The Sheriff can refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws or mandates. The state must then sue to impose the law. This way, cases can reach the Supreme Court before the people are affected by the rules, not years after their imposition.
The residents of counties directly elect county Sheriffs. Sheriffs are the CLEO (Chief Law Enforcement Officer) in that county. All law enforcement in a county should be under the jurisdiction of this elected official. Having both elected officials create laws and elected officials of a different branch enforce laws establishes a system of checks and balances.
Politicians, whether national, state, or local, must know that the people have the quick and direct ability to remove anyone who imposes laws that people disagree with or that contradict or aren’t congruent with established legal precedents. Any politician creating an unconstitutional mandate should be immediately charged with violating people’s rights and be dishonorably discharged upon conviction. Should a quorum of Sheriffs rise in opposition to a mandate (dictate), that rule should be stayed pending legal review by an appellate court.
Today, people find themselves in situations where city police enforce ordinances created by city council members. Council members are elected on many issues, not just law enforcement. When this happens, people don’t have direct recourse regarding the rules they are subject to, and those creating policies don’t have direct culpability. When people don’t have direct control over rules imposed upon them, they lose control of the government and end up in a police state.
For people to have recourse, the Sheriffs should have jurisdiction over all laws enforced in that county. This is how the Constitution intended for the law to be implemented locally. The Sheriff takes an oath to the Constitution and sees to it that the residents of their county are only subjected to Constitutional law. Sheriffs have enforced law since the mid-1600s, before the U.S. Constitution. City police didn’t exist until the city of Boston created a police department in 1838, nearly half a century following the creation of the Bill of Rights. The Constitution lays out how laws are made (by elected Legislators) but doesn’t address the enforcement of laws. By default, the Sheriffs were the only official law enforcement agents at the creation of the Constitution and the sole agents with legal authority to enforce the law. No amendments to the Constitution have created new law enforcement agencies, and federal agencies violate the sovereignty of the states protected by the 10th Amendment. Due to the Supremacy Clause (Marbury vs. Madison), no state law or city ordinance can violate the Constitution, and the Sheriffs are responsible for enforcing or refusing to enforce laws based on the Supremacy Clause. Sheriffs are a Constitutional safeguard for the people.
Sheriffs should oversee all aspects of law within their county. Any proposed city ordinances should be approved or vetoed by the sitting Sheriff. Sheriffs should maintain jurisdiction over hiring, training and conduct policies of police departments within their county. Any complaints concerning Police officers should pass by the desk of the Sheriff, who can make decisions regarding disciplinary actions, demotions, or dismissals. Having an elected official in control of all aspects of law enforcement keeps the power of redress in the hands of the residents. The First Amendment right to petition for redress of grievances is nullified when the avenue to redress is obfuscated or nonexistent.
Sheriffs serve the people, city police serve the city and state, State Patrol serves the state, and Federal Agencies serve the Federal Government.
A notable instance of a conflict between federal agencies and county Sheriffs would be the Bundy Ranch Standoff of 2014. In this instance, federal agents confiscated cattle and arrested one of the Bundys. This led to a conflict between the local Sheriff and federal agents. Eventually, a federal SWAT team was sent in only to face a Sheriff backed by armed citizens. The standoff ended with federal agents leaving the property. This would not have been an issue if the federal agents respected the Sheriff’s authority given by the people of the county and the state sovereignty protected by the 10th Amendment. Due to the 10th Amendment, federal agencies cannot violate state sovereignty and must run things by the Sheriff. State or federal law enforcement officials should notify Sheriffs of intent to arrest a person in their county and receive permission from the Sheriff to proceed.
Sheriffs should elect the Attorney General of their state. This way, the people have recourse, and the governor and legislators cannot appoint a corrupt conspirator. The people have no recourse if a corrupt governor appoints a co-conspiring attorney general. If the Attorney’s General is elected in general elections, then a corrupt Governor and AG can be selected through corrupt elections. If the Sheriffs of a state elect the AG, then recourse is as close to the population as possible.
We lose the separation of powers when the executive branch appoints the chief law enforcement official in the state. We also lose the separation of powers when the legislative branch can defund or threaten to defund a sheriff’s agency that doesn’t comply with legislators’ demands. Funding for the Sheriff’s appointed Attorney General should come from a mandatory percentage of the state’s revenue. If the government grows, the powers of the Sheriff grow as well.
Sheriff-appointed investigators should have investigatory powers over state employees so long as they do not infringe on their rights. The Sheriffs of a state should be able to hold a vote on an investigation and establish a grand jury.
The people of a county should be able to petition their Sheriff to bring a motion before the AG to investigate any illegal activity by state officials up to and including Judges, Prosecutors, Senators, Governors, and members of Congress. If judges and prosecutors do not follow the hierarchy of prosecutable offenses, the sheriffs shall convene a grand jury to investigate. If a Senator or Congress member has violated a promise of honor and consequence, they shall be investigated and dishonorably discharged if guilty. Sheriffs should be able to explore state reps or employees for crimes against the republic and remove them immediately if found guilty.
For the people to have recourse over unjust or unconstitutional laws being imposed upon them, Sheriffs must maintain jurisdiction over the laws enforced in each county and have the right to demand injunctions and appeal any law that violates the Constitution.
For a government to be of, by, and for the people, the people must be able to investigate and hold accountable anyone who serves the public. The Sheriffs are the representatives of the people best positioned to do so, and as much authority as possible must be delegated to them.
An oppressive government will slowly nationalize power and erode the people’s path to recourse. Once lost, people are reduced to a slave class who are to do what they are told. To maintain freedom, free people must be vigilant over their path to recourse in law.
The Sheriff is the first legal representative of the people and the final safeguard against oppressive acts by their government. Sheriffs are the natural point of friction between a free people and a tyrannical government and, therefore, should hold the highest authority possible.
Sheriffs and Elections
Election integrity is paramount to the continuation of any society with democratic elections. When one side doesn’t believe the elections are fair, they embark on the path leading to civil war. People will hit a breaking point when several things occur.
- They feel they have lost representation
- They think they are being persecuted
- They have no avenue of legal recourse
The U.S. has a long and cherished history of free and fair elections and peaceful transfer of power. A country can survive one rigged election but not successive elections. With one occurrence of a rigged election, the losing side may try to correct it legally before the next election occurs. If evidence of large-scale voter fraud continues, then representation is lost. If the persecuted side shows up in more significant numbers and wins the election, yet the incumbent government refuses to give up power, then a revolt is guaranteed.
One of the reasons there is a lack of confidence in voting in many states is that one person is in control of the election process. Often, the Secretary of State or Attorney General controls the elections. When one person controls the elections, then one party controls the process. This is much akin to having the fox guarding the hen house. The opposing party to the controller of the elections has a valid concern over any irregularities, especially if they are on a large scale. 2020 saw many valid concerns with elections.
The most fair way to run elections is to remove the politicians from the equation and break it into a compartmentalized system. The most efficient way is to put each Sheriff in charge of their county’s elections. On the voting night, they must report the final numbers to the governor, Secretary of State, or Attorney General (preferably all three). They should have a mandatory recount and audit completed within a week. Having the Sheriff run the county elections keeps the election run by the person whom the people of that county elected to ensure laws are being followed. Since the Sheriff is elected, the political affiliations of that Sheriff will reflect that of the voters.