bignflnut wrote:Therefore, my oath of office clearly states it is my sole responsibility as your Sheriff to enforce State Laws and uphold the Constitution of the State of Ohio and the Constitution of the United States.
The question, when the two are in conflict
(state laws vs Constitutions), is which will you value more highly? Who is paying the officer? Is it the County Commissioners? The StateHouse? Until election time, who has the leverage on these officers?
Sure, Mike can bribe them all. A million times 88 is a rounding error.
If the Statehouse eradicated the office of Sheriff across Ohio, that might be considered heavy-handed...but I don't put it past them. Yes, at the moment we have a faux Sheriff system, but that, too can change.
If the Statehouse were to eradicate the office of Sheriff, then who would they get to enforce their unconstitutional laws?
The answer is that there will always be Quislings willing to sell out their neighbors for the almighty dollar.
If I remember correctly, the Supreme Court ruled that Andrew Jackson's war on the Seminoles was unconstitutional. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but Jackson basically said, "They made the ruling so let them enforce it." [paraphrased]
Congress was upset with Teddy Roosevelt when he sent the Navy on a world tour. They lamented the fact that they didn't have the money to pay for the tour. Roosevelt basically told congress, "You got the money to pay for half the trip. If you want them back, you will pay for the rest of it." [paraphrased]
In other-words, a legislative body can outlaw anything they want if the Chief Executive signs the bill. Enforcing that law is something else entirely. Congress along with some of the states ratified the 18th Amendment but it was a colossal failure at trying to enforce it.
Any elected sheriff in a largely pro-gun county will have a difficult time answering to the people that elected him if he starts enforcing un-constitutional and un-popular gun laws - no matter what the legislature and governor tell him to do.
if the revenue / funds source is adressed i.e. talk of REDUCTION, the legislator who wants said function has a 2000% total tunnel-vision lock, no longer on the function itself but on the ''new'' funding problem.
