MORE POWER THAN THE PRESIDENT
By: Alan Stang
For many years, the peoples attention in the Battle for America
has been directed toward the federal government and its offices. Candidates stand for the
House and the Senate. Patriotic groups publish voting records of incumbents. Considerable
time, effort and money are expended in support of candidates for President. After decades
of such commendable activity, the record shows it is an utter failure. The danger to the
nation is worse than it ever was.
For many of those years, Republicrud bosses whined that if the people would only give
them control of the federal government, they would undo Democrud damage and restore Free
Enterprise. Finally, the people gave it to them. Remember? The Republicruds controlled the
House, the Senate and the Oval Office long enough to turn the country around. What
happened? The Republicruds made our problems much worse. Their spending made the
profligate drunken sailor look like Scrooge. They deserved it when the people kicked them
out. They lost all credibility.
Yes, there is Dr. Ron Paul. But Dr. No is a political aberration. Time and again, he
stands alone. He has neither mens room problems nor woman problems. He doesnt
take congressional retirement. He actually returns "money" (computer entries) to
the federal treasury. He proposes abolishing the Fed and the income tax and replacing them
with nothing. In foreign affairs he suggests that we mind our own business. Imagine! But,
again, he is an aberration.
Why? Certainly one reason has to be that we ship the successful congressional candidate
off to the District of Corruption. However good the new congressman may have been when he
or she boarded the plane to the District; he is subjected to intoxicating blandishments
when he arrives in the enemy camp.
Soon, he succumbs to the blandishments, maybe even making himself blackmailable, and
begins to vote as the party boss says, without even reading the bills. Instead of
representing the people of his congressional district in the District of Criminals, he
represents the D.C. to the C.D. He or she now is one of the boys or the girls. It has
happened hundreds of times.
So, if the long, heroic effort to elect federal legislators has failed, does there
remain any governmental Horatius who can stand in the gap; who can lead the Battle for
America and restore the Constitution? There is. Lock and load, mount up and prepare for
the return of the sheriff.
My guess is that in the minds of many Americans the sheriff is an antiquated figure who
lives in the movies. In the older movies he is the hero; he is Gary Cooper in "High
Noon," awaiting the train that will bring killer Frank Miller back to town. In the
new ones, he is the southern sheriff, even bigger than Rosie ODonnell, sneering,
sadistic, racist, violent, etc. He has no modern relevance.
But now here comes Sheriff Richard Mack, elected and re-elected in Graham County,
Arizona, where he served for eight years. During his tenure, three federal agents came to
a meeting of Arizona sheriffs and told them in certain terms how they would be dragooned
as unpaid federal bureaucrats and administer the new, federal Brady gun registration law.
The law was named of course for Ronald Reagans press secretary, who was severely
wounded in the immensely suspicious attempt to assassinate the President. Since then, Mrs.
Brady has become a leader of the campaign for Nazi gun confiscation. I dont know
whether she was as crazy before the shootings as she is now. Just one more increment of
lunacy and they would have to lock her up.
Richard Mack and the other Arizona sheriffs at the meeting rebelled.
Sheriff Richard says the language he heard in which he did not participate
could not be repeated in the presence of genteel Christian ladies, so we cant tell
you here what the sheriffs said. But Sheriff Mack did take the government to court. He
sued the United States, and Sheriff Jay Printz of Montana joined him as plaintiff.
On June 27th, 1997, the sheriffs won; in Printz v. U.S. (521 U.S. 898) the U.S.
Supreme Court struck Brady down. Associate Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the ruling for the
Court, in which he explained our system of government at length. The justly revered system
of checks and balances is the key:
". . . The great innovation of this design was that our citizens would have
two political capacities, one state and one federal, each protected from incursion by the
other" "a legal system unprecedented in form and design,
establishing two orders of government, each with its own direct relationship, its own
privity, its own set of mutual rights and obligations to the people who sustain it and are
governed by it." (P. 920)
Scalia quotes President James Madison, "father" of the Constitution:
"[T]he local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the
supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority than
the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere." The Federalist,
No. 39 at 245.
Again and again, Justice Scalia pounds the point home (page 921): "This separation
of the two spheres is one of the Constitutions structural protections of liberty:
Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal
Government serve to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a
healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the
risk of tyranny and abuse from either front.. . ." Gregory, 501 U.S. at
He quotes President Madison again: "In the compound republic of America, the power
surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the
portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a
double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control
each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself." (P. 922)
No one could make this any clearer. The primary purpose of the Fathers was to prevent
someone from grabbing all the power. When that happens, they knew, the result is
arbitrary, confiscatory, government, the kind Tom Jefferson described in the Declaration
of Independence. We would call it totalitarian.
Madison explains: "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and
judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary,
self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of
tyranny." Federalist No. 48, February 1, 1788.
To prevent that from happening, they divided the power. First, they divided the federal
power into three parts: the executive, the legislative and the judicial. They would bicker
among themselves, so that no one of them could seize all the power the Constitution grants
to the federal government.
The Founders divided the power even more. They set the limited power the Constitution
grants the "general authority," Madisons term for the federal government,
against the vast residual powers of the states. Each sphere of government, state and
federal, would be supreme in its own sphere. Neither could control the other. Each
protects itself from intervention by the other. Each has its own laws and rules.
Madison says this: "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans
possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate
governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are
appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than
any which a simple government of any form can admit of." Loc. Cit.
What does all this mean today in the Battle for America? Sheriff Mack says it proves
that the sheriff is the highest governmental authority in his county. Within that
jurisdiction inside his county the sheriff has more power than the governor
of his state. Indeed, the sheriff has more power in his county than the President of the
United States. In his county, he can overrule the President and kick his people out.
Remember, the President has few and limited powers.
What? The sheriff can do that? Hes not just a character in a movie? Thats
right. Not only can the sheriff do that; sheriffs have already done that, more than once.
Most Americans are not aware of that because lying, conspiracy scumbags like Rush Humbug,
Shallow Sean Hannitwerp and Hugh Blewitt (a lawyer) etc., havent told them.
Remember, the office of sheriff has a pedigree so long, we are not positive about when
it was created. We think it was in the Ninth Century in England. We do know that each land
district, or "shire," was governed by a "reeve." The sheriff of
Nottingham became famous. At first, the king appointed them. With few exceptions, our
American shire reeves are elected by the people.
In 1997, in Nye County, Nevada, federal agents arrived to seize cattle that belonged to
rancher Wayne Hage. The sheriff gave them a choice: skedaddle or be arrested. They
skedaddled. The cows stayed where they were. Wyoming sheriffs have told federal agencies
they must check with the respective sheriff before they serve any papers, make any arrests
or confiscate any property.
In Idaho, a 74-year-old rancher shot an endangered gray wolf which had killed one of
his calves. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service sent three armed agents to serve a warrant.
Lemhi County Sheriff Brett Barslou said that was "inappropriate, heavy-handed and
dangerously close to excessive force." More than 500 people turned out for a rally in
the small towns of Challis and Salmon to support the sheriff and the rancher and to tell
the federal government to back off.
While Richard Mack was sheriff of Graham County, Arizona, a bridge washed out. Parents
had to drive twenty six miles to get their kids to school half a mile across the river.
But the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers wouldnt fix it. First they had to do an
"environmental impact study," to replace a bridge already there. They were in no
hurry. The study would take a mere ten years.
The peoples suffering reached the board of supervisors. The board voted to dredge
the river and fix the bridge. The feds warned that they would be fined $50,000 per day if
they tried. The supervisors hesitated. Sheriff Mack promised them and the workers
protection and pledged to call out a posse for the purpose if necessary. They built the
bridge and the Corps of Engineers faded. The board never paid a dime.
So the long dormant spirit of America is reviving. The states are beginning to adopt
Tenth Amendment resolutions, using powers they have always had. The people are restoring
our long unbalanced constitutional system. There is something "blowin in
the wind," but it isnt what Bob Dylan thought it was. Recently, Sheriff Mack
addressed 570 people in Fredericksburg, Texas. He reports that the reception was
What can you do? For once we are not just complaining. There is a plan. I do not argue
that you should forget about Congress. Not at all; if you see an opportunity there, take
it. Always remember that right now it is run by people like Barney the Bugger of
Taxachusetts, who will be elected by moronth in hith dithtrict until he dieth of AIDS.
Most of the time, when you approach your congressman, you come to complain. In the new
crusade, you will approach your sheriff and tell him that he is not only handsome,
charming and overwhelmingly masculine, but also that he has powers he may not be aware of.
You have come to tell him what they are and to back him up. My guess is, when you tell him
that, he will not kick you out.
Tell him you expect him to return the courtesy when the Nazis come from the District of
Criminals to get the guns. Tell him you are ready in a minute to serve under his direction
in a posse. He will not move to Washington and be corrupted. He will stay there with you.
Show him the ten orders the Oath Keepers will not obey. The Oath Keepers are retired and
active duty military and police. Their web site is oath-keepers.blogspot.com. The first
order they promise to disobey is an order to disarm you.
Put him together with Sheriff Mack. You will find him at sheriffmack.com. His telephone
numbers are 928 792-4340 and 928 792-3888. Bring the sheriff to your town to speak. He
will explain all this. Invite your own sheriff. At the meeting I attended, the local
sheriff and chief of police were there and loved what they heard. No one dislikes hearing
how important he is.
What if your sheriff is stupid or a federal factotum? That is what you will find in
many big cities. I once interviewed Los Angeles County Sheriff Peter Pitchess, who said no
one should have a hand gun. I asked him how a five foot lady alone in bed could defend
herself from a rapist. Realizing he was perilously close to making himself look even
dumber than he did usually, Pitchess conceded she could have a long gun.
I brightened. A street sweeper isnt really the best weapon for close quarters,
but it would give the lady a chance. Unfortunately, Pitchess added the word,
"unloaded." I asked him what that five foot lady with an unloaded shotgun could
do against a six foot rapist. A police captain sat beside Pitchess during the interview.
His job was to extricate Peter from the jams he persisted on getting himself into. The
police captain extruded a barrage of miasma. It was effective. I did not get an answer.
In such cases, says Sheriff Mack, move to a county where the sheriff is receptive. Many
more will be. For instance, in Texas there are 254 counties. Each has a sheriff. If it is
feasible to do so, run for sheriff yourself. Even your wife will be impressed when she
sees you with a hog leg on your hip and a star on your vest. Imagine the intense joy of
meeting IRS Communists or BATFE Nazis at the county line and denying them admission.
The Battle for America will be decided in your county at your front door. If you act
now, later you will not need to "fill your hand."
Alan Stang has been a network radio talk show host
and was one of Mike Wallace's first writers. He was a Contributing Editor for American
Opinion magazine and has lectured around the world for more than 40 years. He is
the author of some seventeen books and hundreds of magazine pieces. His new book is Why
Women Are So Crazy: Not in Their Place, available at his website, alanstang.com. He is a regular columnist for Ether Zone.
originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink
Alan Stang can be reached at: email@example.com and firstname.lastname@example.org
We invite you to visit his website at: www.alanstang.com
Published in the March 20, 2009 issue of Ether Zone.
Copyright © 1997 - 2009 Ether
We invite your
comments on this article in our forum!