Constitutional Sheriffs in the news

Via Drudge, we get this piece from Progressive Rag, The Washington Post.

The elitist, fear-mongering editorializing in the piece only makes it better, kind of like John Boehner calling Ted Cruz the living embodiment of Lucifer– It’s something of a ringing endorsement, considering who’s saying it. So much so in fact that you’d think he should understand that and keep his mouth shut.

That pesky Oath of Office thingy, which includes something about upholding and protecting the constitution of the United States, means not only that the Oath-taker may use individual discretion in deciding what is and is not constitutional, but that he must. He is required by the constitution to promise to use individual discretion favoring the constitution whenever there is a lack of total clarity on the matter. Otherwise they’d just swear to follow orders, or swear fealty to whatever pissed-off, Narcissist sissy occupies the Whitehouse.

This (clauses in the constitution protecting the constitution) causes authoritarians much weeping and gnashing of teeth. Their only options are to pretend the constitution doesn’t say what it says, discredit it’s authors, redefine the individual words, ignore it and redirect attentions and do what they want anyway, use intimidation and violence so people who know better will be afraid to speak out, install their fellows in the courts whenever possible, or buy people off.

So there’s always a risk for the authoritarian cause when they bring someone like Richard Mack into the spotlight. I believe more people should know about Mack, his organization and, more importantly, the principles on which they stand, and along comes a Progressive at the WA Post who helps out.

Sometimes they just can’t hold back. That common quirk among the authoritarians is a gift to us. I’ll take it, and see if I can amplify it.


One thought on “Constitutional Sheriffs in the news

  1. Re “the oath-taker must use discretion”. I would say “judgment” rather than discretion.
    In discussion of the military oath, where “obey orders” appears, one frequently hears reference to “lawful orders”, though judging by some searching for the actual words I just did that adjective doesn’t actually appear in the standard words. But the intent is clearly there. And the concept of “lawful orders” obviously requires the recipient of an order to make a personal determination whether the order is lawful or not, and to obey it if and only if it is.
    As for “redefining the Constitution”, that’s what the “living constitution” scam is all about, propagated by Woody Wilson and every Constitution hating socialist since then.

Comments are closed.