Nevada’s Cattle: The Rest of the Story

I was in a meeting last night with Sheriff Richard Mack and heard the rest of the story on the Cliven Bundy matter in Nevada. The Bundys are the last of 53 ranchers that lived and ranched that area with their cattle—the others have all been driven off by the federal government. The stsory was difficult to hear.

Sheriff Mack was 20 minutes away from ground zero, stopped still in freeway traffic that was at a halt because of the incident. As he fretted, he received a call from a 15 year veteran of the sheriff’s office at the Bundy scene, who told him: “They are going to kill us. Tell my wife I love her.”

Sheriff Mack jumped the traffic line and took to the shoulder of the road behind emergency vehicles, including an ambulance, headed to the scene. When he arrived, the BLM (Bureau of Land Management) officers had left, without the incident having erupted. He relates the story as it was told to him.

The men and women with the Bundys were unarmed. The BLM and its SWAT team, with weapons, trained marksmen and military vehicles, had erected two corrals at the scene: one for the cattle, and one for humans—anyone who wanted to speak out in the expected conflict. A sign marked the second corral: “First amendment speech area”, and anyone who spoke without being put in the corral first would be arrested.

Note that this is a gross violation of constitutional rights—to deny a citizen the right to speak, under any circumstances. To herd that individual into a corral before some government official gives him permission to speak and threatens arrest if he speaks outside the corral is unbelievable. We are human beings, not cattle! No citizen of the United States should be treated that way!

 

The situation was unimaginably tense. Sheriff Mack later asked a reporter present at the scene if he really believed the BLM would fire on them. His reply:” We had no doubt.” At what was surely the last moment, a reporter called out, “You will be on film and remembered forever for shooting these innocent people!”

Nevada sheriff’s deputy Tom Roberts then stepped between BLM troops and the unarmed civilians and said to the federal officers: ”You are better than this.” The deputy then turned to Bundy and said, “What do you want us to do?” Bundy asked the federal officers to take 10 steps back, to cool the situation down. Roberts turned to the SWAT team and said, “It’s time for you to leave.” They did.

A lot of things jump out to the reader of this story. First, why does the BLM need a SWAT team and protective vehicles? Only to go to war with America’s citizens, and only if wrenching their rightful property from them.

Second, how many other people has this happened to? Stories rage across the country from other states, where the BLM has turned militant and is committing felonies against Americans over their private property.

Third, note the power of one man. One journalist had the sense and wits to show the federal troops the infamy that waited them. One other man, Deputy Tom Roberts, had the courage to intervene. Without either man, we might have Nevada and possibly the entire West might now be engaged in a war with federal troops.

Make no mistake: the federal government is in the wrong here. Cliven Bundy refused to pay federal land use fees because those fees were illegal. He paid the state costs—those were constitutional. Bundy took a stand against tyranny, just as did the Tea Party patriots more than two hundred and fifty years ago. He has set a pattern for us: peaceful but determined resistance to federal larceny.

Last, what a travesty! Our federal government has turned to stealing property, treating Americans like animals, and threatening to murder innocent citizens to get their land. What has America come to?!

Planned Distractions and Local Efforts

I visited yesterday with Val Arbon, a friend in the freedom movement and I like his perspective. (I love ahah! moments!) He shared the following:

It’s all about local and state power. We fret over federal shenanigans—the things we have almost no chance of changing. This distracts us from the place where we can make a difference—our local communities.

Can any of us really change national politics? We raise our tiny voices to ask over and over: ”What can we do?” The echo returns: “Nothing! Nothing! Nothing! The problem is too big and you are too little.”

We’ve missed it: the place to make a difference is in local and state politics. When communities get it right they prompt states to get it right, and healthy states insist on federal limitations.

How else can it work? We yell at Congress and the president (and the TV!) and it doesn’t even ruffle the leaves on Washington’s trees. “If you do what you’ve always done, you’ll get what you’ve always gotten.”

So let’s do something different—clean up government near to us.

Let’s help our communities by junking Agenda 21’s property grabs. Let’s get to know the county sheriff and encourage his protection. Let’s get Common Core out of our state schools by drumming on the governor’s door.

The states “made” the federal government. We were here first. It shouldn’t be able to boss us around. It does, because we let it. We didn’t invent a federal government so it could take our power away. The power is in the states.

Thomas Jefferson got it. He wanted to be in Virginia to help draft its state constitution in summer of 1776, when he penned the Declaration of Independence. It was the more important process. He was told to stay in Philadelphia and stay focused on the national effort, and he did. What a blessing! “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…” I love those words! I’m so glad he stayed in Philadelphia.

The voice of the people spoke for freedom, but they contracted with the states to be their working agents. The task was to create a new nation. Eleven years later it was to create a workable government. (The first attempt, the Articles of Confederation, was a bomb.)  The “chain of command” runs as follows: the people authorized the states to build a federal structure. Liberty was the goal; the states were the agents empowered to make it happen.

Currently, the shenanigans of the federal government distract us from doing what really works: get it right at home, first. Our two political parties are either the willing or unwitting agents of distraction. These two parties, Democrats and Slow Democrats* (you do realize the Republican Party has disappeared, right?) both work to build party power. Forget the well-being of the nation. It’s disheartening. Sometimes it even seems hopeless.

It’s not hopeless. We can fix “home” and spread the repairs upward. It won’t be fast, but it will be real. It’s actually a time for real hope. More people “get it”—they care. More families are teaching the Constitution at home. More parents are homeschooling. They center their lives on the church. The sleeping giant is waking up.

We are on the way up! Let’s put our action at the local level and build a foundation of freedom.

* Thanks to my husband for this description of the current political scene.

Gay Marriage and Life in a Lawless Society

We have a national law to keep us safe from government power gone mad. It’s called the U. S. Constitution.

Enemies are demolishing it. One major attack is coming through the federal court system. The epicenter is gay marriage. Regardless of your beliefs on same-sex unions, you cannot approve this lawlessness. When law is destroyed, everyone loses.

The core issue is: who makes the decisions about government? The Constitution has an answer, no matter what the question is. It clearly tells us what all our governing bodies can and cannot do: Congress, the president and the states.

Congress is in charge of 20 things—a postal system, national navy, bankruptcies and immigration, and such—anything the states must be uniform in. (Article I section 8 of the Constitution)

The president is in charge of 6 things, all involve getting along with other countries, or preventing conflict between states. Some of these duties deal with treaties with foreign powers, commanding the military, and granting pardons. (Article II, section 2 )

There are decisions the states cannot make. (Article I, section 10) They cannot draft foreign treaties, raise their own armies, or develop separate money systems, for instance.

Anything else—anything—falls to the the states and the people. Any power not specifically given or forbidden, belongs to them. Those matters are none of the federal government’s business. The Constitution says this and the 10^th Amendment nails it down. We have no uncertainty about who can and cannot decide what.

So, about gay marriage—the Constitution is silent on marriage; nary a word on the topic. Who, then, decides? The states and the people do. It’s not a matter for federal courts; it’s none of their business. Thus, it is an unconstitutional, make that illegal, act for federal judges to rule on this matter.

But, wait: marriage wasn’t an issue 227 years ago when the Founders wrote the Constitution! Correct, but that’s the beauty of the Constitution: it adapts to every new situation. New technologies and ideas still fit within the powers assigned by the Constitution, and the pattern still works. Under that pattern, the states and the people make the decision about gay marriage.

So the people of Utah amended their constitution in 2003 to make marriage a male/female thing for their state. This was their duty/right.  A federal judge has cancelled it. That’s against the law, and he knows it; he has no authority there. Now other federal judges, emboldened by his misconduct, are doing the same and Congress and the president are silent.

Judges have the job to uphold the law. They are deliberately breaking it. Our law has become lawless.   

Some who want gay marriage are giddy. Are they thinking? If this law can be cancelled and Utah’s rights erased, anyone’s can be—any right, any protection: your right to own a car and house, to choose your job, to raise your children, to do what you like—all are based on law. The respect for your life is based on law. Take away the responsibility to abide by law and you take away rights and safety.

You do not want to live in a nation that ignores the law.

This is serious. Regardless of your beliefs on gay marriage, you want the right of states to make their own decisions to stand. It’s the law; it keeps you safe.

Openshaw: A Parallel on Shoes and Limited Government

Some people think anything federally run is better than policies set by state and local governments.
They reason that the federal government has more resources. It has access to the brightest minds in the nation, rather than just regional or local talent. It has more money. The country surely works better if we are all “on the same page” on most issues.
The opposite is true, and there is one “umbrella” reason why: You know what’s better for you and your family than someone 2,000 miles away in Washington D.C. who has never heard of you.
To illustrate, consider Jane and Jim, a local couple, and their shoe sizes.

Jane and Jim are very much alike. Both walk upright, breathe air and need approximately seven hours of sleep at night. They like the same restaurants and politics; they exercise regularly, love sports and share religious beliefs. Both enjoy work in the garden and love time spent with family.
In spite of their harmony, they would be miserable if they had to wear the same shoes. Jane wears a women’s size 6 — tall boots in the winter, colorful flats in summer. Jim wears men’s size 12, and his shoes all look alike. Jim thinks Jane is a tad frivolous, and Jane thinks Jim’s footgear is terribly boring. His size 12 foot cannot cram into her red, size 6 Mary Janes, and she would be hobbled shuffling along in his huge black lace-ups.
Our similarities as people apply nationally as well. Wherever we live, we are very much alike. We breathe, sleep and eat. We have interests and beliefs, keep our own schedules and enjoy those we love. Because Americans are the same in many ways, we benefit from many of the same policies and procedures. Our similarities unite us.
Our shoe sizes do not. They range from newborn to men’s size 18 extra wide. Our shoe sizes must be customized.
Just as shoe sizes are unique, governments must be customized as well. Montana’s sparse population with its vast, timbered hills and rugged mountains doesn’t “wear the same size shoes” as tiny Rhode Island, with its plentiful coastlines, waterways and urban, eastern manners. Neither match Utah’s high desert setting with its water concerns and renowned recreation areas.
Transportation needs vary, pollution policies and building codes differ, hunting and game policies are unique and wage requirements are not the same.
Montana and Utah do not need Rhode Island’s maritime laws and intricate freeway interchanges; Montana and Rhode Island do not face Utah’s water shortages.
The problem with federal standards is that they are the same for everyone in every state. Federal standards — in education, transportation, business and commerce, family matters and health care — are a one-size-fits-all situation: We all get size 9 shoes. Bigger feet writhe in pain, smaller feet are immobilized. Only the few with size 9 feet who like the government-issue style are well served.
One size doesn't fit all in government, just as one size shoe doesn't fit all Americans. That’s why we keep government as close to the people as possible — so we can make people comfortable, happy and well-cared for by state and local governments.

Our original Constitution provided for our needs and differences through strong, largely independent state governments.
Though all were similar, state constitutions adapted to meet regional differences and needs. Those things needed by every state in the nation, such as a postal system, rules for bankruptcies and patents and a national navy are to be handled by a federal government.
Other national needs included a uniform money system and standardized measurements so trade between states could flourish. Twenty universal needs, including a federal court system, became national duties, as assigned in the Constitution’s Article 1. In all but these 20 areas, states were in charge to customize their policies.
Amendments nine and ten in the Bill of Rights anchored that right.
Whether we wear red Mary Janes or black lace-ups, whether we live in Montana, Rhode Island or Utah, we need customized government kept close to the people. It just works best that way.

Nevada’s Cattle and the Federal Government

Get it Right: Nevada’s cattle and the federal government

5

Cliven Bundy’s Nevada cattle are part of a crisis that unites western lands, the county sheriff and a governor’s power to nullify federal abuse.
These three issues have grown into a standoff with national implications.
At issue is the question, who owns the land — the federal government, or the people who form the government?

If the federal government owns America, Bundy is an obstinate, stubborn trespasser. If the people own America, they have the right to use it. No federal bureaucracy should own 84 percent of Nevada, or any other state.
America’s Northwest Ordinance of 1787 set the policy that all states entering the Union came in under the same terms. Land within a newly admitted state would be sold to those who then became its residents. Minimal federal lands for postal roads, arsenals and such were purchased from each state.
The vast majority of a state’s land would be privately owned under state administration.
Eastern states were admitted under this policy. It was ignored for western states, the poor stepsisters of the American Union. The federal government refused to sell western lands, and held vast portions of it, which were rich with natural resources. This was unethical and illegal. The federal government now unlawfully owns 35 percent of the United States, mostly in the West.
Though this illegality occurred well over a century ago, time has not rendered it less illegal. Impervious to its misconduct, the federal bully now runs states and individuals off the land it dishonestly withheld from them.

Cliven Bundy knows this history. For two decades he has grazed cattle on “federal” lands that should be state owned. He has refused to pay what he terms illegal federal grazing fees.
The issue has become explosive.
Another problem ricochets through this incendiary conflict: that of environmentalists and the endangered desert tortoise.
Bundy’s grazing areas are near, but not on, the desert tortoise’s designated natural habitat. In a process known as “sue and settle,” attorney Judson Phillips of the Tea Party Nation explains that environmental groups work quietly with the Environmental Protection Agency to take control of state lands.
They bring a lawsuit, and the EPA mounts a tame defense.
When the environmentalists win, the EPA is justified to launch new regulations that effectively strip the land from state jurisdiction.
These are the “tricks of the trade” to escalate federal authority.
Cliven Bundy and his cattle inhabit both issues — land ownership and EPA excess.
There comes a time when those who uphold the law must stand against those who trespass it. The stand against illegal federal ownership of state lands should have been waged and won more than 100 years ago.
After Ronald Reagan’s election in the early 1980s, the Sagebrush Rebellion lit the West to demand that the feds back off.
Those driving the “rebellion” could better have demanded that the feds move off.
Cliven Bundy may have decided to do just that — move the feds off. There is a western movement building under Rep. Ken Ivory (R-West Jordan) and the Utah-based American Lands Council to give misappropriated lands to their rightful state owners.
If Bundy works peacefully and within the law, he could earn public support.
 Will Bundy have the support and authority of his governor and county sheriff to protect him against the federal bully? Clark County sheriff Doug Gillespie can protect him. Governor Brian Sandoval can stand with him and begin the process to nullify unconstitutional federal authority. Will either accept the challenge?
It is a major step to stand against the federal government. That action would not be easy, swift, cheap, placid, or simple. It is, however, necessary.
The only way to stop a bully is to push back, and stick with it. Without that, the bullying continues and results in more confiscations of state authority and lands.
Someone has to start the ball rolling and stand against unfairness. Cliven Bundy may be that person.
Western states need not be Cinderella step-sisters; they have the rights to their territories, just as do eastern states. Bundy deserves the support of his governor, county sheriff, and Utah, as well.

Nullification - When States 'Just Say No'

Governor Gary Herbert has a lot of power. If you don't want Obamacare, ask him to tell the federal government to "take a hike;" we aren't interested. The whole program is illegal and unconstitutional, anyway, and Gov. Herbert, as Utah's chief captain, calls the shots here in Utah. He can tell the feds to move on.
If you are incensed that the federal government illegally owns two-thirds of Utah, talk to Gov. Herbert. He can insist they keep their promise to return our lands, which will give all of us better schools, better living and more money.
If you chafe under illegal immigration, Gov. Herbert is still your man. While he isn't in charge of immigration, the federal government is negligent and we are being invaded. He can insist they act, or lead the state into action if the federal posse fails to show.

The governor, with the state legislature, has the duty to insist that the federal government keep the law. Thirteen states created the Constitution and federal government, so they are "the boss;" they wrote the laws. The federal government's job is to follow them.

The Founders knew something like this would happen, so they built disciplinary tools into the Constitution. Nullification -- the duty of a state to say "NO" to the federal government when it breaks the law -- is one of them. Elections are another. While states cancel illegal federal actions, voters hand eviction notices to elected officials who permitted the problem. Nullification is not rebellion or secession, as some claim; it is a safeguard of the Constitution.
Nullification is not new. In 1798 our infant Congress passed, and President John Adams signed, the Alien and Sedition Acts, which made it illegal to speak out against the government. Stunned at this federal abuse of the First Amendment's freedom of speech, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson taught nullification to Virginia and newly-admitted Kentucky.
This set the precedent and pattern for state nullification that brought down the Alien and Sedition Acts. Jefferson coined the term and called it "the rightful remedy" to end federal illegalities.

Some of the Founders protested. America was learning how to make the Constitution work in real life, and every new challenge set future patterns. George Washington, in his Farewell Address, explained, "Remember that time and habit ... fix the true character of governments ... experience is the surest standard by which to test ... the existing constitution of a country. ..."
Governments will gobble up power if they can. They are like spoiled, petulant children who throw temper tantrums for more. The states created the federal government; they are the parents, the federal government is the offspring. Like all good parents, the states are to resist tantrums and sly mischief while they insist on obedience.
Today, we have role reversal -- we have let the undisciplined child take control. While states, like parents, are far from perfect, they are still the best restraint for the federal government. Utah baby-stepped in the right direction in 2010. We blazed the constitutional trail back to a sound economy by acknowledging gold and silver as useable money within the state. Twelve other states have followed. More work remains for the governor and legislature, backed by Utah residents who stand firm.
It will not be easy. Like a stormy child, the federal government can get its hackles up and withhold federal funds. It takes real "guts" and determination to hold to what's right, as any parent of a flailing child knows.
Rep. Ken Ivory, R-West Jordan, made an interesting statement some while back that illustrates Gov. Herbert's position. "It's a lonely thing to be a governor," he said. "You stand isolated at the top of the state, with forces assailing you on every side to win favor for their position. The governor needs to hear from us -- not just when we don't like something, but also when we do. We need to tell him what he has done well."
We can encourage Utah officials to resist the heavy federal hand. If we are willing to sacrifice, we can rebuild the freedoms of 1787. While we encourage Gary Herbert to take a hard stand, let's also give him a hand when he does.

Openshaw: A Call to the Caucus

Utah's political caucuses took place this week: last Tuesday for Democrats and last Thursday for Republicans. If you have never been to a caucus, it's great to come to increase your part in self government. If you have attended before, come to lend your strength. These two nights are what it's all about -- the vote before the vote. Opponents of the neighborhood voice say there is little participation in caucuses. Prove them wrong.
A major talking point of Count My Vote was the decreased political participation of women. This has been a state and national concern--a long-standing irritant, with charges that the Founders were sexists in not granting women the right to vote. It is, in fact, politically correct to make that accusation, but the facts don't agree.
The 19th Amendment to the Constitution gave women the vote (suffrage) in 1919. Unfortunately, it also took from the states their constitutional right to set voting policies, which increased voracious federal control. The states were moving forward in this area, as they should. Western states had given women the vote decades before: Wyoming in 1869, and Utah officially in1896.
If we judge the past by the present, we mistakenly overlook cultural differences and can brand women's earlier non-voting status as discrimination. Not so. In early America's world of intact families, most women, centered on the home, were politically uninvolved by choice. The male, as head of household, voted for the family. Women's entry into commercial life was decades away, and the flood of single parent families, supported by big government "daddy" and its welfare checks, did not explode until Lyndon B. Johnson's 1968 Great Society. Both led, inevitably, to suffrage for women.
While early American women played a limited role outside the home, the impression that they were unequal (and thus kept from voting by discrimination) is challenged by Frenchman Alexis de Toqueville's fascinating description of America and its women in the early 1800s. He related that American men esteemed their female counterparts and "constantly display an entire confidence in the understanding of a wife...her mind is just as fitted as that of a man to discover the plain truth and her heart as firm to embrace it."
De Toqueville's important writings give a consistently invaluable picture of colonial America. He shows the equal worth given to both genders and compares this with the European movement to "make men and women into beings not only equal, but alike," to give both the same functions, rights and duties, which he said would leave both "degraded." He disclaims our modern charge of discrimination against women when he says: "The Americans do not think that men and women have either the duty or the right to perform the same offices, but they...consider them...of equal value...(and) believe the understanding of the one to be as sound as that of the other."
His explanation of American families in the 1800s clarifies their voting policies: "every association must have a head in order to accomplish its object and that the natural head (of the family)... is man." He continued: "I never observed that the women of America consider conjugal (marriage) authority as a ...usurpation of their rights nor ...thought themselves degraded by submitting to it. It appeared...they attach a sort of pride to the voluntary surrender of their own will...it is not the practice...to clamor for the rights of women."
The right to vote was not an issue among most early American women. It was in this spirit that the constitutional right to vote was confined to males; not to exclude women, but place them in a voting team.
De Toqueville concluded: "If I were asked...to what the singular prosperity and growing strength of... (Americans) ought mainly to be attributed, I should reply, to the superiority of their women."
In today's world, we prize the insights, participation, and votes of women and men of all ages. We need all of us to participate is self-government...even after the Caucuses. Join us this week at the caucuses and after to continue the creation of influence from the grassroots. Utah and every state needs your voice.

Wyoming Federal Land Grab: What it Means for Utah

The voracious federal land animal, hungry for state lands, has found its newest feed lot. Mid-December, the federal government announced it is stealing a million acres from Wyoming. Land issues with the feds are huge for Utah. After the 1996 Grand Staircase-Escalante land grab, we can empathize.

The Constitution provides for limited federal lands within each state, originally assumed to be about 1 to 2%, to be purchased for post roads, forts, arsenals, etc. How is it, then, that the federal government owns 62% of Alaska and 47% of 11 border-sharing Western states, including Utah? (Just a hint: vast oil and mineral reserves exactly underlie confiscated lands.) Federal land theft is a polished art, with federal ownership at 635 million acres, or 28% of available US land, most of it in the West, according to the Congressional Research Service.
Federal land grabs typically create national parks or protected wilderness areas. There is no constitutional authority to do so; parks are a state prerogative, not a national one. Undaunted, the Environmental Protection Agency and its unelected, uninhibited bureaucrats ignore the law. They have now reversed a 100 year old court decision, to give the Wyoming towns of Riverton, Kinnear and Pavillion to the Wind River Indian tribes. These towns will no longer qualify for local and state services if the decision holds after appeals are resolved. That could make local citizens chafe.
The tribes are delighted, as this brings more federal money into their coffers. Their delight is shortsighted; if the federal government can giveth, it can also taketh away in a year or a decade. We would all be safer with a precedent of lawfulness, rather than federal larceny.
Escalante still galls Utahns. In 1996, President Clinton declared 1.7 million acres of Utah a national monument, without public participation or Congressional approval. Strict prohibitions restricted grazing lands, waterways and roads. Environmentalists rejoiced, but if you were among the thousands of citizens who saw their homes, property, livelihood, and family heritage invaded with one press conference, you likely aren't a fan.

The right to property--what we subdue and bring under our care--is God-given. Environmental issues or not, forcefully taking property use from citizens is lawless. So is preventing citizens from using the bounty of the land they reside on. Resources were given us to use, not admire from a distance. For decades, now, debauched public policy has taken property rights from citizens when the government wants their property. Clinton invoked the 1906 Antiquities Act to quell legal challenges to his brazen act--hardly an example of political courage or ethical behavior.
So, now it's Wyoming's turn to dance with the feds over land ownership. The issue has been alive since 1938, though the courts had long since resolved it. Wyoming's Governor Mead says it's outrageous that an unelected bunch of bureaucrats can alter a state's boundaries 100 years after they were legally settled. He said, "This should be a concern to all citizens because if the EPA can unilaterally take land away from a state, where will it stop?" He has a solid point. A review of the proceedings by state officials shows deep flaws--"a host of faulty factual and legal conclusions"--by a federal government acting with a pre-determined outcome. The EPA is not known for its ethics or local sympathies.
Congress has the ability, and the responsibility, to end these constitutional abuses. It can bring regulatory agencies into line, if by no other means than to defund them. That it does not do so indicates that the members of Congress don't understand their responsibilities, are not serious, or are so busy battling each other within and between party ranks that they do not govern.
In vain we ask, "Where is Congress when we need it to stand up to bureaucratic bullies?" The answer: someplace other than where they are supposed to be.

Chief Law Enforcement Officers: Our Sherrifs

Our Sheriff's: The man who wears the star.

Anyone who watches old westerns knows the power of the man who wears the star. With John Wayne, Gary Cooper and Audie Murphy as models, who could overlook the contribution of sheriffs to the un-wilding of the West? The bad guys lost, the good guys won, and towns, children and virtuous women were saved.

Some things don't change much. We still owe gratitude to the man who wears the star. If we ever have to take a stand, we want him on our side, because he is the "boss" in Utah County.
Without a county sheriff, we would stand on wobbly ground, indeed. He is the protector of our liberties and property, and the executor of the law -- the constitutions of the United States and the state of Utah, to which he pledged sacred allegiance. We elected him to defend us in the inevitable, unending, time-worn battle between liberty and tyranny.
Our Utah County sheriff for the last nearly 12 years is Jim Tracy, a 37-year veteran of Utah law enforcement. When he came to Utah County the population was 170,000; today it is 530,000. His staff of 519 includes 300 deputies, in addition to 250 volunteers.

Sheriff Tracy runs a goodly ship. Inmates at the county jail are charged for their keep -- $40 per day, payable upon release. They can work their "rent" off on the 6-acre farm, the jail kitchen, jail industries, or countywide labor projects if they choose, but idle inmates taking up free residence at taxpayer expense doesn't play well in Utah County.
The sheriff's duties focus on two objectives: to honor the law and protect county residents. He safeguards jurors, the accused and prisoners, but is also our protection from abuse or overreach coming from any source, including corporations, bureaucracies and government.
He is part of the executive branch, but if warranted, he could refuse to abide by federal regulations. His stewardship is to the people who put him in office and the law he has sworn to uphold.
Judicial clarification for the power of county sheriffs came through the Brady Bill, passed in 1994 by Congress under Pres. Bill Clinton. The bill required sheriffs to enforce federal gun control measures in their counties but had a fatal flaw: it was unconstitutional.
No funding was provided, and non-compliance put the sheriff in legal hot water.
Sheriff Richard Mack of Graham County, Ariz., and sheriffs from six other states, funded by the National Rifle Association (NRA), took the case to the Supreme Court. The court ruling was voiced by Justice Scalia: 'The Federal Government may not compel the states to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program."

Sheriff Mack, whose Utah visit this month incurred death threats from gay rights activists, now advocates the power and responsibility of county sheriffs nationwide to stand against federal overreach and any encroachment of citizen rights of their residents. This Supreme Court ruling stands today, as it should -- constitutionality is not a changeable thing, based on fluctuating standards. What was constitutional then is inherently constitutional now.
The county sheriff protects the rights of each of us until laws are established, and then enforces laws once passed. (This assumes, of course, that those laws are constitutional.)
He is the top authority in unincorporated areas and shares equal authority within city boundaries. He gets his marching orders from the state -- the sovereign authority, as declared by the U.S. Constitution.
Sheriff Tracy is the county boss because we put him there -- we assigned his authority when we voted him into office.
He wants our feedback. Despite multiple responsibilities, including fire control, search and rescue, and the county jail, he is directly accessible to us. The man who wears the star is our "line in the sand" -- our check and balance against encroachment on our inalienable, constitutional rights.
He "has our back" and, in return, it is fair and appropriate that we have his.

Get it Right: Laws and the Lawless - Gay Marriages

On Dec. 20, our Rule of Law was attacked. U.S District Court Judge Robert Shelby singlehandedly cancelled 225 years of states' rights to determine the laws by which they will be governed in a democratic republic. With all the aplomb of a rag doll, he threw aside Utah's 2004 constitutional amendment, approved by 65.8 percent of us, that solidifies marriage as between a man and a woman. By this action, he set himself up as one man rule. Regardless of your beliefs on gay marriage, you should be dismayed that one unelected man, duty bound to protect the law, set himself above the law to silence your voice and will. No clearer definition of tyranny exists than this: the will of one prevails over the will of many.

Law at any level of government can be abused. Senator Mike Lee defined the lawlessness of those who abuse the law in his telephone town hall meeting on December 19 of this year. He offered an example of lawlessness -- President Obama's Affordable Care Act. Though deplorably passed through deceit and bribery, Obamacare is the law. The president now cancels, revises, annuls and reassigns its elements. A president cannot do this -- once a law is passed, he has no authority to change it; that is what kings do. Community leaders can also trammel the law when they disparage property rights. On a state level, Judge Shelby has entered lawless terrain with his invalidation of a Utah constitutional amendment.
When law is moveable -- when it changes as it seesaws between opposites who take turns being the party up and the party down -- no one is safe. The oppressor in one decade becomes the oppressed in the next. Fairness, impartiality and, invariably, freedoms become casualties. It is to avoid this rotating tyranny that we have inflexible laws.
Thomas Jefferson addressed individuals who undermine the law in a 1781 letter to Col. Vanmeter, "Laws made by common consent must not be trampled on by individuals." The Framers installed a government of checks and balances to protect individual rights. Jefferson's 1787 letter to Edward Carrington explained, "With all the imperfections of our present government, it is without comparison the best existing, or that ever did exist."

As Jefferson stated, while the Founders' system was brilliant, it was not perfect. The actions of Judge Shelby highlight a flaw in the Constitution -- the court system can become tyrannical. A court system was essential in a nation of sovereign states to settle disputes among them and with foreign powers. With no historical pattern to point the way, the final document put few limitations and limited accountability on the judicial system. Jefferson, as president, saw this weakness and urged Congress to repair it. They failed to do so.
Jefferson might have steered the 1787 Constitutional Convention away from judicial weakness, but he was serving as US Ambassador to France. Decades later, in 1821, he referenced his concern about the "omission ... [in] which lurks the germ that is to destroy this happy combination of national powers in the national government ..." This germ was the federal judiciary. He prophetically declared the nation would "pass to destruction by consolidation first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence. The engine of consolidation will be the federal judiciary." We have proved Jefferson's fears, as our courts, and judges such as Robert Shelby, tyrannically change the law, rather than align it with the Constitution, as is their duty.
Governor Herbert and the Utah Attorney General's office are to be commended for their prompt actions to reinstate the rule of law in Utah. In a 1785 letter to John Jay, first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Jefferson said, "An insult unpunished (or, in this case, unopposed) is the parent of many others." We may disagree on many things, but we surely agree that law must be upheld. Our safety depends on it.

The Crisis of the Day - States' Sovreignty upheld by the Supreme Court

 The Crisis of the Day

This Item was posted on the Sheriff Mack.com website prior to December 2, 2013. (I’ve made spacing adjustments and added italics.)
Sheriff Mack quotes Justice Scalia of the Supreme Court as he teaches about states rights and limited federal power. Sheriff Mack also opens a window to the use of disasters and crises to strip our freedoms.
Consider this a warning, and remember: to be warned is to be forearmed!

 When I sued the Clinton administration in 1994, I never imagined that Justice Scalia - the author of the ruling for the majority - would be so profound and powerful with his defense of the Tenth Amendment. Not only did Scalia say that the "States are not subject to federal direction" and that the US Congress only had "discreet and enumerated powers" and that federal impotency was "rendered express" by the Tenth Amendment, he also proclaimed that the States "retained an inviolable sovereignty."

You would think that these statements alone would be monumental enough and would provide sufficient ammunition for all state and local officials to stand against any governmental tyranny without any hesitation. Nevertheless, Scalia went even further in this landmark decision, one in which two small-town sheriffs headed the Feds "off at the pass" and sent them on their way. Scalia, in his infinite obligation to the Constitution, took this entire ruling to the tenth power when he said, "The Constitution protects us from our own best intentions...so that we may resist the temptation to concentrate power in one location as an expedient solution to the crisis of the day."
The "crisis of the day?" Was Scalia clairvoyant? He rendered this opinion in June of 1997. Now we are dealing with the Obama administration and others (Rham Emanuel) whose mantra is "Never let a good crisis go to waste."

Horrible examples of "crisis intervention" were seen during the aftermath of a bombing in Boston, a hurricane in New Orleans and a shooting in Connecticut. We see them whenever any other "emergency" arises. The police and Federal agents grant themselves power to suspend the Constitution, suspend American ideals and principles, and suspend their oaths of office to "make us all safer." The police in Boston went door to door drawing down on numerous citizens inside their own homes! During the chaos after Katrina ravaged New Orleans the police went door to door confiscating guns from law abiding citizens. After the Sandy Hook shootings legislators in Washington, Colorado, New York and Connecticut all tripped over themselves to create schemes of gun control laws aimed again at law abiding citizens!

It's during crises that the Constitution is really put to the test. It's then that those who have sworn to protect and defend it are given a chance to show their true character and dedication to principles of American liberty. If all that is needed is a "crisis" or "emergency" to justify the destruction of our Constitution and the individual liberties of our citizens, then our enemies need only to create "crises" and "emergencies." The result is a tremendous blow to freedom and the destruction of our Constitution, and thus the foundation of America.

I pray that our nation's sheriffs and police will stand and be counted regardless of the pressures and temptations to violate our oaths as an "expedient solution to the crisis of the day." Crises will happen and emergencies will come and go, but precious liberty, once lost, will be next to impossible to regain.

Sheriff Richard Mack (Ret)