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.

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.

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)