Oathkeeper Sheriff Blocks Feds From Raiding Local Farmer

[nickqt]

everything in your post is 100% wrong. But that's true of all your posts nickISISqt.

You're so oblivious to how much of a joke your posts are, michalAMERICAHATER1980.

Are you a very angsty teenager, or just kinda slow?

 

[fskimospy]

If a sheriff thinks that there is a federal crime being committed, he can act or no? If the sheriff knows the situation and sees a search he deems to be unlawful by a police officer, can he step in? Can he step in if its being done by a federal agent?

Depends on what the Feds had said about the matter. If the federal government had said that he could not enforce that federal statute then he could not act, no. That would be illegal. As I mentioned before, see Arizona v. US.

As for him halting an improper search I don't see how he could possibly have the knowledge or expertise to make that judgment, much less the jurisdiction. It is simply not his place to judge the validity of federal searches.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Supremacy clause. If the Feds are not acting in accordance with the law (and I don't know if they are or not) then it is not up to a local sheriff to decide, much less attempt to arrest federal officials in the performance of their duties. If he continues to impede federal activity he could be subject to sanction or imprisonment himself.

The Supremacy clause also makes the Colorado legislature felons by the approval of MJ use.

Anyway, that's not my concern so much as the lack of a warrant. When they become optional? The sheriff isn't saying the Feds won't be admitted, but need a warrant to do so.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

The Supremacy clause also makes the Colorado legislature felons by the approval of MJ use.

Anyway, that's not my concern so much as the lack of a warrant. When they become optional? The sheriff isn't saying the Feds won't be admitted, but need a warrant to do so.

Warrants are not required when it comes to inspection of food processing facilities. It's an agreed condition of opening and operating a business.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Warrants are not required when it comes to inspection of food processing facilities. It's an agreed condition of opening and operating a business.

That's a reasonable and informative answer. Thank you.

 

[fskimospy]

The Supremacy clause also makes the Colorado legislature felons by the approval of MJ use.

It does? What law are they felons under?

Anyway, that's not my concern so much as the lack of a warrant. When they become optional? The sheriff isn't saying the Feds won't be admitted, but need a warrant to do so.

A warrant has never been required for FDA health and safety inspections for the entire history of the FDA as far as I am aware, so they became not just optional but affirmatively unnecessary for these types of inspections about 110 years ago. The courts have ruled on this repeatedly.

The FDA's ability to inspect the nations food supply and its manufacturers without impediment is in direct support of public safety.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It does? What law are they felons under?

Lets see. Felony? Could be right. I do suggest you see the FEDERAL law here. The use of MJ is against federal law and the Supremacy clause is superior to state. The legislature has ignored and effectively conspired to subvert Federal law.

Usually conspiracy to aid and abet the breaking of federal law is illegal.

There's the CSA. Find where the state is superior to federal law in it.

 

[fskimospy]

Lets see. Felony? Could be right. I do suggest you see the FEDERAL law here. The use of MJ is against federal law and the Supremacy clause is superior to state. The legislature has ignored and effectively conspired to subvert Federal law.

Usually conspiracy to aid and abet the breaking of federal law is illegal.

There's the CSA. Find where the state is superior to federal law in it.

How is the state conspiring to subvert federal law? Choosing not to make something a state offense in no way impedes the federal government enforcing its marijuana prohibition. The state is also not aiding or abetting anyone. If you think they are, how?

The supremacy clause says that when state and federal law conflict that federal law takes precedence. That's why the Feds can still arrest and imprison someone even though marijuana is legal in Colorado.

 

[FrankRamiro]

Yes, I'm saying the FDA does not need warrants to inspect businesses. Their authority to conduct inspections comes from the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. It does not come as the result of a warrant, nor does any other inspection of a business that I can think of. Not only is probable cause not necessary, it would largely destroy the purpose of inspections. I mean do you think the health department needs probable cause that a restaurant is making people sick before seeing if there are roaches in the food?

http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/ComplianceManuals/CompliancePolicyGuidanceManual/ucm073839.htm

fskimospy; you are right and you give these guys here that don't know better a good constructive opinion that makes a lot of sense to intelligent people,but as you know some people don't want things that make sense,that's the problem of these world we live in,no respect ,everything goes.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

How is the state conspiring to subvert federal law? Choosing not to make something a state offense in no way impedes the federal government enforcing its marijuana prohibition. The state is also not aiding or abetting anyone. If you think they are, how?

The supremacy clause says that when state and federal law conflict that federal law takes precedence. That's why the Feds can still arrest and imprison someone even though marijuana is legal in Colorado.

So let me get this right. The citizens of CO are breaking federal law. The state has given them their blessing, but that's not illegal. Funny thing is that when a state adopts a policy contrary to Federal Law, Holder jumped on them and said their actions were in violation of Federal concerns. Well at least one thing is sure. States are not bound by treaties made by the Federal government. If they were then allowing a state to violate that treaty might be a violation.

Doesn't matter. Colorado supports criminal acts and the Federal government is content to do so. Too bad the exec branch didn't reschedule MJ to a Class V drug. That would reduce potential penalties in such cases.

 

[fskimospy]

So let me get this right. The citizens of CO are breaking federal law. The state has given them their blessing, but that's not illegal. Funny thing is that when a state adopts a policy contrary to Federal Law, Holder jumped on them and said their actions were in violation of Federal concerns. Well at least one thing is sure. States are not bound by treaties made by the Federal government. If they were then allowing a state to violate that treaty might be a violation.

What would be illegal about a state's decision not to make something illegal under their own laws? The state cannot impede the federal government from enforcing federal law but they do not have to assist.

States are absolutely bound by federal treaties.

Doesn't matter. Colorado supports criminal acts and the Federal government is content to do so. Too bad the exec branch didn't reschedule MJ to a Class V drug. That would reduce potential penalties in such cases.

Choosing not to punish someone does not equal supporting it and they are certainly not doing anything illegal by doing so. I agree that marijuana should be at a minimum rescheduled though. I wish all drugs were legalized though.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

What would be illegal about a state's decision not to make something illegal under their own laws? The state cannot impede the federal government from enforcing federal law but they do not have to assist.

States are absolutely bound by federal treaties.



Choosing not to punish someone does not equal supporting it and they are certainly not doing anything illegal by doing so. I agree that marijuana should be at a minimum rescheduled though. I wish all drugs were legalized though.

I confess I was having you on a bit. We had some good ones. My frustration is the tendencies of Presidents, not just Obama, to ignore the laws they personally do not like and enforce what they do. That they have the right doesn't make them right so to speak. I would much rather use mechanisms which exist, like the Executive right under law and treaty to put MJ on whatever is felt appropriate. Certainly the grounds for Schedule I status was never there, but anyone going back to Nixon could have mitigated MJ's inclusion.

Anyway, my more serious point about the treaty is that it allows changes, but not delisting entirely. Since Colorado has decided to act independently of federal statute inherently linked to the treaty, Colorado is in violation and therefore it seems as a nation we are too.

Do I really care? Not much. It was a passing thought.

If I had my say in the matter I'd not want rescheduling, but withdraw from the treaty unless substantial changes reflecting modern scientific knowledge and culture. Naturally "but if we pull out then other's might" may be heard. That's possible, but we have the option of leaving and if it causes real problems, then so be it.

In either case the CSA is badly out of date, and again being tied to treaty that's unavoidable to a certain degree.

We need a more rational change in drug policy. I doubt either upcoming candidate will risk his or her neck. Ahh, if Bernie were here. Might have done nothing but it's not like the party could punish him for being outside the box.