Archives

supremacy

In the United States of America, the people chose representatives at the state level. The state representatives wrote a constitution that created their offspring, a federal government with strictly limited powers. The state representatives DELEGATED specific powers to the central government and RETAINED all others for the states and for the people. This is all spelled out quite clearly in your copy of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Mr Raney, who currently occupies the office of Ada County Sheriff, claims the opposite. I cannot confirm whether he actually believes what he says and does, but his actions and words indicate that he is eager to consider the people occupying offices of the federal government as supreme beings, and assist them as they DICTATE to the states, localities and the people. With no apparent limits, the current badge-wearer is willing to join any assault on your life, liberty and property that is directed from people and a location he considers to be above us.

That, Mr. Raney, is NOT how this country was and is set up. If you lack the courage to stand up and do your job right, do yourself and us the honor of resigning. Let someone who is willing to do shoulder the burden do so.


I am not the only one trying to explain reality to the Sheriff’s Office occupier. Below are two other knowledgeable responses to Mr. Raney and, at the bottom, Raney’s own misbegotten words.

—–

Sheriff,

I will say that it has been a pleasure having the opportunity to chat with you over the last few years. One great thing about Idaho is that if we have a concern, we can get to the top if we need to. I am grateful for the time you have taken to speak with me.

The purpose for this post is not as much to disrespect your position but to get people to consider the alternate perspective that was not covered in your article; that should be important to everyone that loves freedom, I hope my post is received this way.

First of all, the oath taken for office should have been with a proper understanding of history, for without it, the oath is worthless.

Second, the oath was taken with an understanding of where man’s rights come from

Third, the oath was taken with the understanding that government was created to protect those rights of the people, not to protect people from themselves or to protect the government.

Third, in this oath it was taken as a solemn promise to the people that you understood the limitations of government on the people so that freedom and liberty were preserved and protected not dictated or restricted by a government.

Fourth, the oath was to acknowledge that in our constitutional republic, we were a system of “self-government” and that the created government could exercise “few and specific powers” not to have the government interpret what our rights are because it is contrary to its creation.

Fifth, your oath was to honor the constitution as the Supreme law of the land, not to uphold all laws and administrative policies created by every and any political subdivision. Your oath was to render all laws repugnant to the constitution, null and void. In order for to see the repugnancy, one must understand what I have stated above.

In your article you mention the foundation of checks and balances and the separation of powers but your article is in complete contradiction to your statement. In it you state that such disregard would result in anarchy which is pure prejudicial conjecture and contrary to the entire creation of the constitution in that it was a document promoting self-government, that limits government NOT ITS PEOPLE!

In your article you state that we are the federal government, the state and local government, but you fail to mention that the states and the people are also free, sovereign and independent from the union as well. You fail to mention the phrase or any indication of the Declaration of Independence to fact that “when a government becomes corrupt to these ends it is the duty of the people to alter or abolish it” clarifying the sovereign capacity of the people and the states.

You state that our constitution says we have a right to bear arms but that was the Bill of Rights, but fail to separate the two documents because they were created for different purposes. One expressly declared what the government could and could not do, restraining itself, and the Bill of Rights was a Declaration by the people to the government stating what rights specifically were retained and not to be subject to some government entity or Supreme Court interpreting the rights of the people.

You state that there is also a “supremacy clause” and that your oath requires you to uphold all laws passed by state and federal representatives which is false. The supremacy clause was written with the understanding that the constitution was supreme and that no state could write laws that were repugnant to the constitution and could not write laws unless it was not expressly written in the constitution. In the formation of the union, it was the one way that the states would be guaranteed that the rights of the people and the states would not be violated by the federal government. Remember the purpose of the creation of government was to protect and preserve the rights of the people not restrict our rights at our expense, telling us what is good for us or to protect us from ourselves!

You state that our checks and balances point us toward a proper remedy to be challenged by the judicial branch is if it were legitimate. Case in point, our court has “RULED” that it should be legal to kill the innocent which is not only contrary to the constitution’s first tenant to protect life but violates the creation of government because it can no longer protect the innocent.

In your article you state that the determination of executive orders is to be left by the Supreme Court, not by 44 county sheriffs and you are incorrect again in that I would challenge you then to explain what the difference is between King George and his edicts and the edicts of an emerging dictator or nine in black robes? Explain how the people that created government to protect their rights would subject them to any one government entity that the founders knew could always have the power to oppress them?

The Sheriff is Americas last hope, it is the last line of defense to protect the people against the tyranny of a federal government and the sheriffs lack of knowledge of both the power he possesses and the understanding of his oath and our history, makes him unqualified and unable to protect the people, rendering the sheep to be tended by the wolves.

Sheriff, with all due respect, you possess the power to protect those in your county, all you need to do is stand and acknowledge it, we know you can, I know you can!!

Respectfully,

Thomas A. Munds

——–

DUMP RAINEY Letter (to KBOI Friday)

I am not at all surprised, yet totally disappointed at the Op Ed written by Sheriff Gary Rainy on the issue of “Assault Weapons” confiscation. The content of his letter shows a complete failure of his understanding of the sacred trust every Sheriff holds in the office to which he was elected.

Sherriff Rainey ignores the supreme law of the land called the Bill of Rights, mis-applies the Supremacy Clause, disregards the DUTY he has to “Protect the rights of the Citizens of Ada County”, and hides behind his own interpretation of his duty much to the GLEE of the O’Bama administration.

He has stated as much that he will “come with guns to take our guns” if the Feds direct him to do so. Would he “come with his guns” and chase rufusenicks to enforce a law passed by the FEDS requiring us all to wear GPS tracking device surgically implanted in our bodies even if he “didn’t like it”?

Sheriff Rainey has forever lost my support, and has earned my promise to work tirelessly replace him with one who will NOT BLINDLY “ENFORCE FEDERAL LAWS” without question, but will stand in front of the FEDS when they attempt to violate the rights of those who elected him. I would support an immediate recall effort with time, labor, and money.

Joseph A. Rohner III

——

gun control

By GARY RANEY

As an elected official and a sheriff, I have the great honor to take an oath of office. Very few occupations include the special pride that comes with the trust inherent in an oath of office, but mine does.

In that oath, I swore to uphold the Constitution and laws that we live under in this great nation. Those words were my promise that I would not use my own personal interests to decide what is right and wrong. I swore to work within our system of law and justice to fairly enforce what you, through your elected representatives in the Legislature and Congress, have decided should be the law of our land. Those laws are set upon a foundation of checks and balances, embodied in the separation of powers between the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government.

When we forsake the law or disregard those checks and balances, we take the first step down the path towards anarchy.

I have been asked many times in the past couple of weeks whether I will uphold my oath to defend the Constitution and proclaim an intolerance of federal action against the Second Amendment.

Many others have indulged that pressure and now we see Oregon sheriffs, Wyoming legislators and others making hollow promises to protect you from the intrusions of the federal government. Let me respectfully remind you that we are the federal government, the state government and the local government.

I did not swear to uphold just part of the Constitution. Our Constitution includes the right to keep and bear arms, but it also includes the “supremacy clause” that says that every state shall abide by the laws passed by our Congress.

So, despite the fact that I personally oppose some of the gun control measures currently under consideration, my oath requires me to uphold the laws that are passed by our federal and state representatives.

When we disagree with those laws, the checks and balances built into our government point us toward the proper remedy: changing the laws or challenging them in the judicial branch. As to whether or not the president has the power to issue executive orders limiting our Constitutional rights, that is another matter to be decided by the Supreme Court, not by 44 different sheriffs in Idaho.

We live in the greatest society the world has ever seen and we enjoy that because of the founding principles our forefathers established in our Constitution. It would be hypocritical and irresponsible of me to forsake that Constitution and the wisdom of generations that have followed it.

I fear that passions have led people into a rally of mistruth. It is time we truly respect the Constitution and our system of justice. Regardless of your personal opinion on the Second Amendment, embrace everyone’s liberty and use our well-established process to pass laws and contest them.

Hollow promises and threats will only divert people from doing the right thing — honoring the truth and being involved in a process whereby our rights and liberties are protected by a respect of the law, not by rhetoric.