The Carroll Standard

Trouble for the Sheriff

Tweet

Buffer

“A Republic if you can Keep It”

This writing pertains to the recent attempt of the "representatives" of the people in Sussex County and the state of Delaware to violate the republican form of government with another unconstitutional legislative act, HB 290.

A reading of HB290 clearly shows contempt for the peoples role in self-government as having the sole and exclusive right of regulating the internal government and the police thereof, as a free, sovereign and independent state. As stated in HB 290 "WHEREAS, it is the intent of the general assembly to specifically state the Sheriffs and their deputies do not have any arrest authority;..."

Patriots across this country are closely watching our sister state Delaware in her political struggle to maintain the high and noble constitutionally mandated office of the Sheriff. This fight is for the very heart of our form of government. We here in Maryland offer our support to this extremely important effort. It seems that people in positions of the public trust in Delaware are not deserving of that trust and must be removed from office for trying to destroy the office of Sheriff, using deceptive practices in questioning the lawful role of the Sheriff's arrest authority. I will first explain why this office is an integral part the American system of jurisprudence, and so important to our safety and happiness.

At the close of the Constitutional convention of 1787, a woman asked Benjamin Franklin, "What form of government did you give us Mr. Franklin a Republic or a monarchy?" Dr. Franklin answered, "A Republic if you can keep it." Our form of government is a Constitutional Republic not a democracy. This means that anyone with authority under the constitutions, heads of government, are elected as representatives of the people (the sovereign's), and must govern according to the limits of existing Constitutional law. The mandate for a guarantee of a Republican form of government is found at Art. 4 Sec. 4 of the U.S. Constitution.

The office of Sheriff is a very important part of our Republican form of government, safeguarding individual Freedoms. He is sworn to the Constitution, and is the supreme law enforcement officer of the county, also known as the chief executive, answerable for his action only to the citizens. He is our conservator of the peace (of course with arrest powers) and our duly elected representative, the one we go to first with problems of government corruption or common law crimes of theft and such. This in doctrine is known as interposition, and in practice the Sheriff interposes on our behalf as Chief executive of our county making sure the law is faithfully adhered to and executed.

The office of Sheriff arises Constitutionally and has its roots in the Common Law of England. Americans have a right to be served by the office of the Sheriff as a matter of law, Art. 4, Sec. 4 of the U.S. Constitution, which was incorporated into the Delaware Constitution at Art. 15.

The office of Sheriff was the only law enforcement office in the States of the union in the beginning from colonial times through the revolution into the Confederacy and into the Constitutional Republic. The first un-elected police force was in 1835 in Boston, Massachusetts. To my knowledge, the constitutionality of that agency has never been challenge in court, and frankly, with the sophistry in today's courts, it would probably be a waste of time. However, that does not change the fact of the constitutionality. Thomas Jefferson wrote in his The value of Constitutions, that there is no honorable law enforcement authority in Anglo-American law so ancient as that of the county sheriff whose role as a peace officer goes back at least to the time of Alfred the Great.

It is easy to destroy the sophistry of those "representatives" in the peoples Republic of Delaware when they state that the conservator of the peace is not defined by the Delaware constitution or that the common law powers of the Sheriff have been abrogated by statute. The attorney general's recent opinion on this matter (AG Opinion No.12-IIBO3 ) attempts to tell (deceive) the good people in Delaware that the AG did "...forgo an exhaustive historical analysis because the law of arrest is governed by statute in Delaware and the relevant statutes control over the common law." Well I have done that exhaustive historical analysis for them and can tell you that statement and many others given by government are not true.

The AGs opnion states that the term "peace officer" as far as they can determine has never been judicially interpreted in Delaware (like with all the historical data and present day Sheriffs arresting in all states of the union we need a court to tell us). Well a five minute search on the internet revealed the State V Brown case attached herein. Delaware Judge Harrington ruled that a peace officer such as a Sheriff has the right to arrest.

The common law powers and duties of the Sheriff are found in the exhaustive preeminent treatise "Anderson on Sheriffs" written by Walter H. Anderson after more than thirty years of active practical experience on this subject as a member of many state and the supreme court Bars. The government would hope this treatise would disappear. As a champion of the constitution's I can tell you Mr. Anderson understands law. Among a few of the statements of fact in this treatise are; sec.1"The office of Sheriff is one of the oldest offices known to the common law system of jurisprudence. It is an office of great dignity and greater antiquity." ; sec 43 "Rights of the Sheriff as a constitutional officer.-Where the Sheriff is named in the constitution his duties are the same as they were at the time the constitution was adopted." ; sec 50 "...where the office of Sheriff is a constitutional one, the legislature has no power without a constitutional amendment to diminish his official powers or to transfer to other officers the duties which properly pertain to his office."

Further into the AG's opinion it tries to explain their position as to how (unconstitutional acts of;{my words}) the legislature has abrogated the common law (without a constitutional amendment) by citing an irrelevant code section (title 11chapter 84 sec. 8401). Irrelevant because the Sheriff is specifically not included in the statute and it does not pertain to the constitutional office, only offices created by the state legislature most of them most likely unconstitutional.

In the opinion the AG states that "Anyone who does not 'meet the requirements of this Chapter and the criteria as established by the Council shall not have the authority to enforce the laws of the State. 11 Del. C sec. 8410' " If you go to the statute you do not find that 'anyone' is subject to the law but only "police officers" defined, not including the Sheriff. This may all seem a bit convoluted and hence the bible warns of the scribes (the attorneys of the day).

Furthermore

The Legislative, Executive and Judicial powers of Government ought to be forever separate and distinct from each other; and no person exercising the functions of one of said Departments shall assume or discharge the duties of any other. The function of the County council is legislative, NOT EXECUTIVE. Under the county form of government, the Sheriff is the Executive. Violating this separation of powers doctrine centralizes power into fewer hands and dangerously contributes to the possibility of a budding police state.

It should be noted that legislative acts that conflict with Constitutional mandates are void from their enactment(see footnote below). HB 290 is only one of many unconstitutional acts that are passed routinely apparently because most of our representatives seem to be either ignorant of our system of government, or seditiously in contempt of it violating the oath they took to protect it. These constitutionally violative acts are known as the criminal act of sedition, and sedition is defined as the overthrowing of the established form of government. The result has been the violation of the people's rights to life, liberty and property. If we are to survive as a self-governing and free people, we must elect statesmen who will be devoted to understanding and upholding that Oath. Thank God for men like Sheriff Christopher all across this country who are taking that stand. Support your local Sheriff!

The federal and State Constitutions are not taught in our schools, not even in our law schools, and therein lays a major part of the problem.

Footnote: The following is from the law encyclopedia American Jurisprudence.

Unconstitutional Official Acts

16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.

No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.