March 22, 2009 - All around us, the power of the federal government is manifested by hundreds of presidential executive orders, thousands of un-read legislation emanating from the U. S. Congress and millions of bureaucratic rules, regulations, restrictions and ordinances, issuing forth from the government’s massive bureaucracy ….. laws, rules, regulations, restrictions and ordinances that in most cases, bear no resemblance to constitutional law, much less constitutional authority.  These people don’t seem to care about constitutional law or constitutional authority, they just do it, because the can and it takes an alert citizenry to challenge them.

How do you fight such a monster?  The following story depicts one way.

No doubt all of us over 45 will remember that infamous day in March of 1981, when a love-struck John Hinkley tried to assassinate President Reagan, but was only successful in wounding him.  At the same time, Hinkley’s bullets also entered the body of James Brady, Reagan’s Press Secretary, leaving him severely injured and in a wheel chair for life.  Sara Brady, James wife, was instrumental in pushing for the passage of the original Brady Bill, requiring back ground checks for hand gun purchasers.  President Clinton signed the Brady Bill into law in 1993.

The impact of the Brady bill was to force the chief law enforcement officer of each county in the United States to be responsible for conducting the background checks of each hand gun purchaser.  As a result, over 3,000 lawsuits were brought against the government in state courts objecting to the new law.  Seven of those lawsuits were from county sheriffs who had to bear the burden of background checks, without so much as a farthing being offered from the federal government to pay for the sheriff’s troubles.

A couple of those lawsuits were by a sheriff in Arizona, Sheriff Richard Mack and another in Montana, Sheriff Printz.  Sheriff Mack filed his case on the same day that the Brady bill went into effect, February 28, 1994.  As the cases wound their way through the lower courts, the Mack and Printz cases made it to the 9th circuit.  A case by a Texas sheriff made it to the 5th Circuit Court.  The decision from the 9th circuit court ruled that the Brady Bill was constitutional.  The 5th Circuit Court ruled just the opposite, making it virtually impossible for the U. S. Supreme Court to ignore the case.

On December 4, 1996, the U. S. Supreme Court agreed to review the two cases from the 5th and 9th circuit courts, to adjudicate the different outcomes.  Ultimately, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled against the 9th Circuit Court (no surprise there) and for the 5th Circuit in a 5 to 4 decision.  As did the recent decision by the U. S. Supreme Court regarding the right to keep and bear arms belonging to each citizen of the United States, the opinion of the majority of the Supreme Court in the Mack/Printz decision, poked a very large “finger” in the “eye’ of the federal government.  The majority opinion by Justice Scalia bears repeating.  The following is excerpted from an article about the case, by the Constitutional Law Enforcement Association and contains some of the language out of Justice Scalia’s written opinion:

In Mack/Printz v USA, the U S Supreme Court declared that the states or their political subdivisions, “are not subject to federal direction.” The issue of federal authority is defined even further in this most powerful Tenth Amendment decision. The two sheriffs who brought the suit objected to being forced into federal service without compensation pursuant to some misguided provisions of the Brady Bill. The sheriffs sued the USA (Clinton adm.) and won a major landmark case in favor of States’ Rights and local autonomy. In this ruling by the Supreme Court, some amazing principles were exposed regarding the lack of power and authority the federal government actually has. In fact, this is exactly the issue addressed by the court when Justice Scalia opined for the majority stating, “…the Constitution’s conferral upon Congress of not all governmental powers, but only discreet, enumerated ones.”

Scalia then quotes the basis of the sheriffs’ suit in quoting the Tenth Amendment which affirms the limited powers doctrine, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution…are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” To clarify this point, we need to understand that the powers and jurisdiction granted to the federal government are few, precise, and expressly defined. The feds have their assignments within constitutional boundaries and the states have theirs, as well. Scalia also mentions this, “It is incontestable that the Constitution established a system of dual sovereignty” and that the states retained “a residuary and inviolable sovereignty.” Scalia even goes so far as to detail who is responsible to keep the federal government in their proper place, if or when they decide to go beyond their allotted authority. In doing so he quotes James Madison, considered to be the father of our Constitution, “The local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority [federal government] than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere.” (The Federalist # 39) Thus, the federal government has no more authority to compel the states or the counties to do anything, no more so than the Prime Minister of Canada has.

But what happens when the inevitable occurs; when the feds get too abusive and attempt to control every facet of our lives? The Mack/Printz decision answers this also. “This separation of the two spheres is one of the constitution’s structural protections of liberty. Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the federal government serve to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front.” To quote Madison again Scalia writes, “Hence, a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.” (The Federalist # 51) So the state governments are actually and literally charged with controlling the federal government. To do so is “one of the Constitution’s structural protections of liberty.”

What we can take away from this story is that the backbone of the U. S. Constitution is still in tack and upon occasion the U. S. Supreme Court will rule along the lines of the actual intent of the Framers of that Constitution.  But it took two brave sheriffs of the great state of Arizona and the great state of Montana, both Western States who still believe strongly in states rights, to “esplain” it to the federal government, whom apparently does not think that they are governed by that famous document of liberty, or falsely believes that their “rule” supersedes it.  It doesn’t!

The second thing we can take away is that we can still fight “city hall” and use the very constitution that our government ignores, against them and be victorious.  It is not necessary to resort to civil war or revolution, to upset the “apple cart” of an arrogant, out-of-control federal government that has lost all allegiance to the Supreme Law of the Land.  We only need use the most important tool of all, that the Founders gave us, our Constitution.  With it, we can challenge the “bully” and win.

Finally, throughout our history, from even way before the ratification of our Constitution, the County Sheriff was the ultimate law for his jurisdiction.  He is the only law enforcement officer in America elected by the people and answerable only to the people.  He swears on solemn oath to preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States and most sheriffs take that oath very seriously.   The County Sheriff, operating under the authority of the 10th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution, could very well be the last line of defense of the God-given, unalienable, individual rights of the people and the protector of the Constitution, as well as American sovereignty.

Sheriff’s Mack and Printz paid a very heavy price for their courage but it was that courage and their sacrifice that scored a victory for all citizens of the United States, proving that we are still a Constitutional Republic under the rule of law and we have not morphed into an Absolute Democratic Monarchy, under the rule of the mob ….. yet!

SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL SHERIFF!

He, or she, could very well be the key to the defense and restoration of America’s freedom and liberty.

© Copyright March 23, 2009 - All Rights Reserved

~ The Author ~
Ron Ewart is the President of The National Association of Rural Landowners and may reached for comment via email at r.ewart@comcast.net.