View Single Post
  #174  
Old 11-11-2009, 12:15 AM
vrand's Avatar
vrand vrand is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 428
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 7x57 View Post
I suspect this is misleading at best, false at worst:

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/fo...sage227513/pg1

Scroll down to where a (purported) Montana legislator chimes in.

Of course, "I read it on the internet, but I ain't no lawyer." So which is correct? The smell test says the one where the feds can still enforce federal rules, I'd say.

Sorry.

7x57
The story is somewhat true.

Quote:
Sheriff Mattis in a story in "The Spotlight" is quoted as having said
that Internet reports calling it a "court decision" and quoting the
sheriff saying he can detain federal officers in custody are wrong.
Mattis said the original report originated in Nashville, Tennessee in
1997, and also that the Wyoming Sheriffs Association was not involved.

Assuming that the story is a hoax, and that there is no 2:96-cv-099-J
or Castenada v USA, does that make the Constitution less applicable in
this instance? I don't think so. In fact, Sheriff Mattis has issued
notice to the federal government that they must secure his permission
before they can do business in Bighorn County, and so far, they have
complied with his request.


Right is still right, and the tenth amendment to the Constitution
gives powers not delegated to the United States (federal government)
by the Constitution, to only the states and the people.
There are only
four law enforcement categories defined in the Constitution for the
federal government, and all others should be the premise of the states
and the people. Those categories are piracy, treason, counterfeiting,
and postal issues, and according to the Constitution, the supreme law
of the land, all other law categories are the premise of the states
and the people.

To paraphrase Alexander Hamilton, (from Federalist # 78) if the
Constitution doesn't give the fed the authority, any law they make is
invalid. Last I heard, that hadn't been changed by any amendment.


The way I see it is that we have two choices. We can sit back and
accept that the federal government is going to usurp our rights or we
can do as Sheriff Mattis has done, and put the federal government on
notice that they are not welcome in our states and counties without
the approval of law enforcement agents in those states. Montana has, I
understand, passed legislation that requires the federal government to
gain the permission of local sheriffs before attempting to conduct
federal business in any part of the state not ceded to the federal
government already. (Montana House Bill #415). Nevada just failed to
pass similar legislation, declaring the states sovereignty and
independence from the federal jurisdiction that has governed most of
the state. Too bad.

"We the people" are the first words of the Constitution. If we want to
remain first, we must declare our rights as guaranteed to us under
that great document. If we are not willing to do that, we have no
chance of retaining national sovereignty either. Get ready to welcome
the new world order, if you are not prepared to fight for your own
states sovereignty.
http://www.no-debts.com/anti-federal...es/posse13.txt
__________________
Have a great day

"Opposing secession changes the nature of government "from a voluntary one, in which the people are sovereigns, to a despotism where one part of the people are slaves."--New York Journal of Commerce 1/12/61

"[I]t is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery!"--Patrick Henry

http://www.state-citizen.org/
Reply With Quote