To Sheriff Raney,
Regarding the article: http://www.idahostatesman.com/2013/01/25/2425376/i-uphold-all-of-the-constitution.html
I will say that it has been a pleasure having the opportunity to chat with you over the last few years. One great thing about Idaho is that if we have a concern, we can get to the top if we need to. I am grateful for the time you have taken to speak with me.
The purpose for this post is not as much to disrespect your position but to get people to consider the alternate perspective that was not covered in your article; that should be important to everyone that loves freedom, I hope my post is received this way.
First of all, the oath taken for office should have been with a proper understanding of history, for without it, the oath is worthless.
Second, the oath was taken with an understanding of where man’s rights come from
Third, the oath was taken with the understanding that government was created to protect those rights of the people, not to protect people from themselves or to protect the government.
Third, in this oath it was taken as a solemn promise to the people that you understood the limitations of government on the people so that freedom and liberty were preserved and protected not dictated or restricted by a government.
Fourth, the oath was to acknowledge that in our constitutional republic, we were a system of “self-government” and that the created government could exercise “few and specific powers” not to have the government interpret what our rights are because it is contrary to its creation.
Fifth, your oath was to honor the constitution as the Supreme law of the land, not to uphold all laws and administrative policies created by every and any political subdivision. Your oath was to render all laws repugnant to the constitution, null and void. In order for to see the repugnancy, one must understand what I have stated above.
In your article you mention the foundation of checks and balances and the separation of powers but your article is in complete contradiction to your statement. In it you state that such disregard would result in anarchy which is pure prejudicial conjecture and contrary to the entire creation of the constitution in that it was a document promoting self-government, that limits government NOT ITS PEOPLE!
In your article you state that we are the federal government, the state and local government, but you fail to mention that the states and the people are also free, sovereign and independent from the union as well. You fail to mention the phrase or any indication of the Declaration of Independence to fact that “when a government becomes corrupt to these ends it is the duty of the people to alter or abolish it” clarifying the sovereign capacity of the people and the states.
You state that our constitution says we have a right to bear arms but that was the Bill of Rights, but fail to separate the two documents because they were created for different purposes. One expressly declared what the government could and could not do, restraining itself, and the Bill of Rights was a Declaration by the people to the government stating what rights specifically were retained and not to be subject to some government entity or Supreme Court interpreting the rights of the people.
You state that there is also a “supremacy clause” and that your oath requires you to uphold all laws passed by state and federal representatives which is false. The supremacy clause was written with the understanding that the constitution was supreme and that no state could write laws that were repugnant to the constitution and could not write laws unless it was not expressly written in the constitution. In the formation of the union, it was the one way that the states would be guaranteed that the rights of the people and the states would not be violated by the federal government. Remember the purpose of the creation of government was to protect and preserve the rights of the people not restrict our rights at our expense, telling us what is good for us or to protect us from ourselves!
You state that our checks and balances point us toward a proper remedy to be challenged by the judicial branch is if it were legitimate. Case in point, our court has “RULED” that it should be legal to kill the innocent which is not only contrary to the constitution’s first tenant to protect life but violates the creation of government because it can no longer protect the innocent.
In your article you state that the determination of executive orders is to be left by the Supreme Court, not by 44 county sheriffs and you are incorrect again in that I would challenge you then to explain what the difference is between King George and his edicts and the edicts of an emerging dictator or nine in black robes? Explain how the people that created government to protect their rights would subject them to any one government entity that the founders knew could always have the power to oppress them?
The Sheriff is Americas last hope, it is the last line of defense to protect the people against the tyranny of a federal government and the sheriffs lack of knowledge of both the power he possesses and the understanding of his oath and our history, makes him unqualified and unable to protect the people, rendering the sheep to be tended by the wolves.
Sheriff, with all due respect, you possess the power to protect those in your county, all you need to do is stand and acknowledge it, we know you can, I know you can!!
Thomas A. Munds