On The Subject Of Federal Law Enforcement

The US Constitution declares the federal congress has the authority to legislate on these 17 specific areas of the general welfare and common defense of the nation. All laws that fall outside of these 17 specifically enumerated clauses are presumed to be null and void. The 10th amendment makes it clear that those powers not specifically enumerated are retained by the states and by the people. The 9th amendment makes it clear that the people retain all rights (free actions that don’t harm others), with no power being granted to the federal government to legislate social engineering or behavioral laws (ie. laws that have no victim.)

The Sheriffs of the United States are elected officials for a reason. The reason being that should the State or the Federal government enact laws outside the scope of their granted authority, the Sheriffs, which are elected representatives of the people, have the option to not enforce those laws. The Supreme Court was never intended to be the final arbiter of all law. This is clear because they can not be impartial arbiters of federal power, given that they are paid and preside over the federal government. All branches of the government, the executive, the legislator, and the judiciary have authority to interpret and uphold the constitution. This is also made clear by the fact that law enforcement officers are sworn to uphold the constitution. If they were not given the authority to interpret the constitution, they would not be sworn to uphold it.

Only the legislator has the authority to create law; however, all branches have the authority to determine the constitutionality of the laws created. Given that the Supreme Court itself has upheld the sovereign independence of the Sheriff to interpret the law and the nullification principle of the executive, its clear that federal law enforcement agents are obligated by their sworn oaths to ignore the enforcement of all federal laws that fall outside the 17 specifically enumerated areas of legislation granted to the federal congress under the US Constitution.

Willfully enforcing laws that fall outside the scope of congress’s enumerated powers constitutes PERJURY of the law enforcement officer’s sworn oath to the constitution.

It is doubtful that federal law enforcement agencies were even intended to be created under the US constitution. The sovereign Sheriffs and city police are charged with enforcing federal laws. The federal law enforcement agencies were created by the federal government for the very purpose of getting around the sovereignty of the Sheriffs to interpret the constitutionality of federal law.

The Supreme Court has ruled the Sheriffs have no obligation to enforce federal law, thus the federal government circumvented this problem by creating their own branches of enforcement that they had direct control of.

I personally feel it is the duty of all federal law enforcement officers to turn in their badges and resign if they are truly to uphold their sworn oaths. Barring that, it is their absolute duty to at the very least ignore the enforcement of all laws created by the US Congress that fall outside of the specifically enumerated 17 areas under Article 1 Section 8.

Some case history:

“All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void” (Marbury vs. Madison. 5 US (2 Cranch) 137,174,176, (1803)

“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” (Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p.491.)

“An Unconstitutional Act is not law; it confers no rights: it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” (Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 p.442)

[T]he Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the State’s officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.” In Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 935 (1997)

“we have always understood that even where Congress has the authority under the Constitution to pass laws requiring or prohibiting certain acts, it lacks the power directly to compel the States to require or prohibit those acts.” New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 166 (1992)

jm-tyranny