User Profile: Chuklz

Chuklz

Member Since: July 27, 2012

CommentsDisplaying comments newest to oldest.

  • January 16, 2013 at 2:21pm

    Befoire you spout any more of your supposed legal knowledge, you might want to check out the following regarding actual case law on the point of federal “supremacy” over the states and local sheriffs. It can found, in full, here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1478.ZO.html

    SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
    ——————————————————————————–
    Nos. 95-1478 and 95-1503
    ——————————————————————————–
    JAY PRINTZ, SHERIFF/CORONER, RAVALLI COUNTY, MONTANA, PETITIONER 95-1478 v. UNITED STATES RICHARD MACK, PETITIONER 95-1503
    on writs of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit
    [June 27, 1997]

    Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court.

    The question presented in these cases is whether certain interim provisions of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Pub. L. 103-159, 107 Stat. 1536, commanding state and local law enforcement officers to conduct background checks on prospective handgun purchasers and to perform certain related tasks, violate the Constitution.
    “Much of the Constitution is concerned with setting forth the form of our government, and the courts have traditionally invalidated measures deviating from that form. The result may appear `formalistic’ in a given case to partisans of the measure at issue, because such measures are typically the product of the era’s perceived necessity. But the Constitutio

  • January 16, 2013 at 1:17pm

    The sheriff is part of the executive branch of government and thus is constitutionally required by way of solemn oath, to uphold, defend, support, and obey the United States Constitution. So just like our President and Representatives, our sheriff’s supreme duty and responsibility is to protect and defend the Constitution.

    This “defense” should rightly take the form of securing the county from encroachment by the federal government. The sheriff is the supreme law enforcement authority in his county and it is for this reason that the office of sheriff is an elected position. In fact, this is the most important aspect of the sheriff’s authority; he is elected by, for, and of the people. He is not appointed, he is not a bureaucrat, he does not report to the town manager or to the city council. He reports directly to the people and is answerable to them and them alone. The role of the sheriff is another checks and balance put in place by our founders to help secure a free nation. The office should serve as another level of protection between the government and the people.

  • January 16, 2013 at 1:14pm

    The Brady Bill was passed by Congress and signed in to law by President Clinton. This law, among other things, sought to force all sheriffs in the nation to promote gun control within their own jurisdictions with no funds being allocated for them to do this work. Additionally, The Brady Act even contained a provision to arrest the Sheriff should he fail to comply. At this time, Richard Mack, Sheriff from Graham County, Arizona, along with six other sheriffs from around the country (Sheriffs Koog from Texas, Frank from Vermont, Romero from Louisiana, McGee from Mississippi, Printz from Montana, and Anders from Wyoming) filed suit against the federal government with the assertion that the Brady Bill was an unconstitutional law.
    On June 27, 1997 they won their suit when the Supreme Court ruled that the Brady Bill was in fact unconstitutional stating that the federal government could not commandeer state or county officers for federal bidding. Justice Scalia asserted the following in the supreme court ruling:
    “The great innovation of this design was that our citizens would have two political capacities, one state and one federal, each protected from incursion by the other, a legal system unprecedented in form and design, establishing two forms of government, each with its own direct relationship, its own privity, its own set of rights and obligations to the people who sustain it and are governed by it…

  • August 26, 2012 at 5:47pm

    Centerlinestripe: You are confusing laws of physics which have been proven (gravity), with scientific theory (evolution). Back to school time!

  • August 7, 2012 at 5:03pm

    OMG!! My spell checker was turned into “Fact Check:” It gets things wrong – a lot!! Too funny. I gave my spell checker the boot and all is well. Just like we need to do with the Usurper-in-Chief and his cronies!

  • August 7, 2012 at 4:56pm

    There’s a reason they call it the “October Surprise.” We can only hope that Mitt has several in store. Also, it is common for the challenger to wait until his VP running mate is picked and let them do the “dirty work,” thus keeping the presidential nominee out of the fray and on topic. We can only hope . . .

  • August 7, 2012 at 4:52pm

    BOUSHI44

    Your sources are Snopes and Fact Check . . . Enough said. Here’s a clue: the first three numbers of your social cesurity number identify the state froom which it came. His first three numbers are known. They identify Connecticut. Try learning something before going to the liberal talking points and “sources” – you may end up being conservative!

    Responses (1) +
  • August 5, 2012 at 4:14pm

    Not sure why you hate your fellow Americans, especially those from the so-called Heartland. I can only surmise that it’s because you perceive them to be conservative? The truly sad thing here, #1, is the amount of hate you show towards others whom you choose to demonize, belittle and attack, just because they may be different than you in their thinking and beliefs. Take a good hard look in the mirror, my friend. You might want to consider your own existence and question how you differ from those you demise for the presumptive values you foist on them. This may help you:
    1. Be impeccable with your word
    2. Make no assumptions
    3. Take nothing personally
    4. Always do your best

    I’m praying for and wish you all the best.

  • August 5, 2012 at 3:04pm

    Is this just your opinion, or do you have some facts to back it up?

  • August 5, 2012 at 2:40pm

    I am curious as to why so many would choose to devalue themselves and belittle their fellow citizens with this type of posting?

  • August 5, 2012 at 2:02pm

    Forgive, yes. Forget, no! He must be held accountable for his actions, which he has been. Through time, only he can erase the mark he put on himself, through his actions and behaviors. We hear his words, but must watch what he does.

  • August 5, 2012 at 1:26pm

    Sorry for the double post and spelling error – I suffer from slow satellite and fat finger syndrome ;-)

  • August 5, 2012 at 1:12pm

    As a C level employee, you represent the companyy you work for – their vision, values, principles – both in the corporate and private/public forums. His actions have direct impact upon the company and their viability. He fell into the trap that is so common today, trying to separate his work and private lives. He put himself, and his company, on the radar screen. If one were to check his contract and conditions of employment, I’m sure one will find such things well defined in the “Do’s and Don’ts” clauses. His termination, though a sad happenstance for both him and his family, is justified and correct. Some lessons in life are hard, and this one is due to his own actions and he is solely responsible for them. That said, we can still treat him with love and caring, but that does not mean he should keep his job. If he were my CFO, I’d fire him, too, for he not only embarrassed himself, but his employer, as well.

    Responses (1) +
  • August 5, 2012 at 1:09pm

    As a C level employee, you represent the comp nay you work for – their vision, values, principles, both in the corporate and private/public forums. His actions have direct impact upon the company and their viability. He fell into the trap that is so common today, trying to separate his work and private lives. He put himself, and his company, on the radar screen. If one were to check his contract and conditions of employment, I’m sure one will find such things well defined in the “Do’s and Don’ts” clauses. His termination, though a sad happenstance for both him and his family, is justified and correct. Some lessons in life are hard, and this one is due to his own actions and he is solely responsible for them. That said, we can still treat him with love and caring, but that does not mean he should keep his job. If he were my CFO, I’d fire him, too, for he not only embarrassed himself, but is company as well.