On July 23 John Furlong appeared before the Palm Coast City Council. He identified himself as the “director of Flagler County for CSPOA, which is the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association.” He told the council that “we’re working in Flagler County, in all 67 counties in the state of Florida, to make every county in the state of Florida a constitutional county.”
He did not say how Flagler County was not a constitutional county, or how its government organisms like the City Council could legally function if they were not constitutional. He did not say who that “we” are. His association has no state registration, so you can’t check. The chamber was empty, so Furlong did not seem to be representing anyone local, at least not anyone who’d be bothered to show up. These “we” of dubious organizations tend to be more of an “I” pretending behind plural pronouns and social media masks to be, like gangs, more phalanx than clique.
There is a national organization. Several investigations of the group give us an idea of its origin and purpose. It is not the sort of organization the Palm Coast City Council or any local government–or anyone, really–should be associated with, at least not if local governments don’t want to be associated with extremists, bigots, and vigilantes who see federal authority in particular and government in general as the enemy.
The Anti-Defamation League reports: “The Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA) is a large anti-government extremist group whose primary purpose it is to spread anti-government propaganda to, and recruit from, law enforcement personnel, especially county sheriffs and sheriff’s deputies.”
The association believes, illegally, that a sheriff’s powers preempt federal and state laws and local ordinances, and that the sheriff has the authority not to enforce any law the sheriff, and the sheriff alone, considers unconstitutional. In other words, Sheriff Staly would outrank the FBI, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and all state and federal courts. We’ve heard this before: it’s sovereign citizen extremism behind a police shield. It’s what perverted the states’ rights movement during Jim Crow, when the likes of George Wallace and Theodore Bilbo and Ross Barnett liked to claim that federal law had no authority in their state.
Last year, after a Texas Tribune investigation reported that “Some 50 Texas sheriffs and numerous elected officials have attended trainings on the unsupported notion that sheriffs can single-handedly overrule state and federal law,” the state’s law enforcement commission investigated, then prohibited granting state education credits to those attending. When even Texas takes a stand against constitutional
wackos, it’s time to stop being solicitous or pretend to merely be lending an ear and to take a similar stand.
The record of the organization’s leadership is more sinister than its theoretical crack-smoking. The Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association’s founder is Richard Mack, a former sheriff in Arizona, a former Oath Keeper–another anti-government extremist organization that recruits from police and military ranks–and a gun-supremacist. After his sheriff days he adopted militia tactics. He was willing to use women and children as human shields against federal agents during the Bundy Ranch standoff in Nevada 10 years ago. In 2009 he took part in a Second Amendment march synchronized to the anniversary of Tim McVeigh’s terrorist bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City, the bombing that murdered 168 people, 19 of them children.
Mack then founded the CSPOA posse scelestus to oppose gun legislation. He expanded the mission to constitutional vigilantism by glomming onto Covid’s masking and vaccine hysterics before taking to the John Birch lecture circuit to spread the gospel of McVeigh, Alex Jones–owner of the disinformation site Infowars–and supremely white conspiracies.
The organization’s current leader, Sam Bushman, owns an online radio station called Liberty News Radio. Top story as I write this: “BOYCOTT THE SATANIC ANTI-GOD OLYMPICS.” It features James Edwards’s “Political Cesspool” radio show, whose mission statement “is pro-White.” The Cesspool has “featured a wide roster of white supremacists, anti-Semites and other extremists, such as the longtime Klan leader David Duke and Holocaust denier Willis Carto,” according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. The CSPOA national conference Bushman organized in Las Vegas last April “drew a parade of felons, disgraced politicians, election deniers, conspiracy theorists and, in the end, a few sheriffs,” according to NBC.
This is the organization whose local ordinance John Furlong on July 23 told the Palm Coast City Council it should adopt. This is the organization whose creed Furlong espoused to claim that “we need the constitution to be the steadfast of our nation, of every citizen of every group.” He urged the council to enact an ordinance “to give more teeth to help the sheriff and his deputies and his CER team, which is community emergency response teams, to enact if anything they need help to keep peace and order in the county.”
Not for nothing, but emergency management is Jonathan Lord’s domain, not the sheriff’s, and it’s a safe bet to say that neither Lord nor the sheriff have had trouble keeping “peace and order,” or would want to be part of an ordinance that would violate at least half the original articles of the Bill of Rights. Did I mention that what John Furlong is proposing, even in the hands of our esteemed sheriff, is illegal? Sheriffs “have no authority, not under their state constitutions or implementing statutes to decide what’s constitutional and what’s not constitutional. That’s what courts have the authority to do, not sheriffs,” says Mary McCord, a former federal prosecutor and executive director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown University.
Furlong is urging the County Commission to pass the same ordinance and claiming, correctly, that one Florida county passed something like it last year. Collier County calls itself, with a straight face one must assume, a “sanctuary county for the Bill of Rights” (sic). So have a few other counties around the country.
From Pandoras about Agenda 21 to fluoride alarmists to anti-vaxxers to birthers and white replacement theorists, it’s not unusual for the well of local governments to ooze kooks and crackpots at public comment time. That’s what public comment time is for. It’s a good pressure valve, and it can be a gauge of society’s more typhoidal tendencies.
John Furlong’s Wilford Brimley demeanor makes him look every bit the nice guy, like everyone’s favorite uncle, as involved as the next guy in what he must think, probably with little research, is a terrific idea, though he’s not alien to credibility gaps. Last August he was among a few fevered voices trying to bully the council into conducting a forensic audit of all city accounts, claiming, without evidence of course, that he hears “too much going on” that’s “concerning.”
So why make an issue of John Furlong’s proposal to the council? Because of the shocking response he got from Mayor David Alfin, a man who lost a son in the line of duty, a federal agent killed with his partner with the same murderous disregard for law enforcement that CSPOA’s history is soaked in.
This is what Alfin told Furlong: “Your initiative is very near and dear to my heart, my family’s heart as well. So I would ask if you would reach out to me so that we can have a one on one conversation so that I can understand it better and more thoroughly. And obviously I would ask that you might contact each city council member individually so that they can better understand some of the details underlying what you’re trying to do. And if you have the time, I’m sure that we would be able to find time to do that.”
Alfin never says as much to most residents who bring serious, legitimate everyday concerns to the council. I’m sure we can all agree that, say, Royal Palms Parkway’s third-world memory lanes or a decent vacation-rental ordinance or this year’s debate on whether to plunder the city’s treasury with another harebrained rollback are more important issues by astronomical units of magnitude than entertaining anti-government propaganda.
Yet to this representative of an organization hardly distinguishable from a hate group, Alfin–one of whose opponents again in this year’s mayoral election is the former sovereign citizen Alan Lowe–is willing to extend the red carpet and start turning council and administration upside down to help with the “details” of what Furlong is trying to do.
It is inexplicable. Alfin is not an uninformed man. He is absolutely not uninformed about the history of domestic defiance and terrorism against federal authority, though he appears to be uninformed about enablers like CSPOA. I’m going to choose to think that Alfin, whose heart can sometimes trick him into forbearance for all the wrong reasons, committed a well-intentioned but catastrophic misjudgment, as often happens when the fetish for law enforcement is brandished in front of candidates running for their lives. Otherwise, his response would be unforgivable.
We–by which I mean we, 70,062 Palm Coast voters–should hope Alfin and the council did have some meetings to better understand where this poisoned proposal is coming from, but not with John Furlong. They could start with their attorney. They could start with five seconds on Google. They could start with their common sense and, failing that, their conscience. Palm Coast and Flagler County governments have better things to do than give aid and succor to hate and dog whistles hiding behind the Constitution.
Just a thought says
Surely Alfin was able to step back after the meeting and realize that invited a wolf in sheep’s clothing into his inner sanctum?
Skibum says
Oh hell no! Those who prescribe to the so-called “constitutional” sheriffs group are extremist MAGA supporting wackos themselves who have blatantly look the other way instead of enforcing state criminal laws when the violators are extremist idiots who these unethical sheriffs agree with and do not want to see held accountable for law violations these sheriffs see as somehow in conflict with their wacko version of the U.S. Constitution. And I am not the only career law enforcement officer, present or retired, who would immediately disavow and refuse to support for ANY law enforcement leadership or elected position if our sheriff or others here gives this wacko group even a little support or foothold. I have seen firsthand the despicable and unethical positions this group has taken in other jurisdictions, and believe me, we do NOT want to have any of that nonsense because it just makes it easier for right-wing extremists to get away with criminal activity while a sheriff directs his deputies to look the other way and not make arrests. It is like what Trump has been saying about the Jan. 6 convicted felons who are in prison. He calls them “hostages” and has vowed to pardon them, even though hundreds of lawbreakers who were hauled into court for various felonies, including I might add, assaulting and seriously injuring many law enforcement officers, had their days in court and were convicted by juries of their peers. None of them are hostages, they are criminals, thugs. I associate this sheriffs group with the same types of individuals who think that regardless of what state laws say, they can pick and choose which laws to enforce and who to hold accountable, which violates the oaths of office that they took when they were elected. I say to them: GET THE HELL OUT OF HERE, GO BACK TO THE HOLES YOU CAME OUT OF!
Nephew Of Uncle Sam says
Let us not forget that two Sheriffs Deputies sent off the bus from Flagler County with “insurrectionists” to the January 6th “Rally”.
Protonbeam says
And gave them a training and safety brief ….
Kat says
I still find that completely unnerving. I can certainly see how I hate group like this could gain a foothold in our county. They had a tent set up at Flagler Beach first Friday right next to the Republican party tent.
carole says
Have you read the original Constitution? Our own Sherriff says that he is a Constitutional Sherriff but he is working for the corporation, not a Democracy or the Republic that our forefathers designed the Constitution to be.
Not many people read anymore they get their information from the BOOB TUBE, which happens to be owned by people who don’t have our interest in mind just their pocketbooks.
Ben Hogarth says
If you have to say it in your organizations name…….
Kind of like how the “Holy Roman Empire” (Middle Ages Germany) was neither Holy nor “Roman”… and it was far from being an organized empire as it was largely a collection of fiefdoms with no unifying nation.
So when I hear “Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association” – what I’m hearing is that they are neither Constitutional nor Peaceful. And after reading this article – yep, sure checks out. The loony toons have badges too.
If they weren’t such a clear and present danger to American Democracy, I’d say “laugh them out of every room.” But what they are suggesting is no laughing matter.
Nephew Of Uncle Sam says
This is what Alfin told Furlong: “Your initiative is very near and dear to my heart, my family’s heart as well. So I would ask if you would reach out to me so that we can have a one on one conversation so that I can understand it better and more thoroughly. And obviously I would ask that you might contact each city council member individually so that they can better understand some of the details underlying what you’re trying to do. And if you have the time, I’m sure that we would be able to find time to do that.”
If Alfin can’t figure out this clown’s proposal then he just needs to drop out of the race.
Sheriff Staly needs to get ahead of this ‘constitutional sheriff” BS and denounce it along with making sure no in his office joins the likes of these kind of groups. If he can’t then he should step aside as well.
CPFL says
Being registered as Constitution Party of Florida for my political standing, I am all about the Constitution and it being upheld. I would never agree with sovereign state lunatics, this actually might be even crazier than them. Not shocked that some of our council would listen to this propaganda and eat it up.
Laurel says
I think I told this story once before, but if so, I’ll do it again. When I was a teenybopper, my folks and I took refuge at the Governor’s Club Hotel in Ft. Lauderdale during a hurricane. I was listening to my little transistor radio to WQAM (Tiger Radio) and the DJ was following the storm. He said that the winds knocked down a large portion of a billboard featuring the John Birch Society. All that the storm left was “Help Save the John.” As a kid, I thought that was pretty funny. As I got older, the full meaning became apparent, and it became even funnier.
It has been several decades since I was a teenybopper, yet, the same nasty, bigoted bullshit survives. How sad. What the hell happened to all the hippies? What happened to “Peace, Love and Rock and Roll?” Why does hatred still live in the hearts of people, who need to suppress those with simple differences like melanin or gender? Why is it so damned important to bully those they fear into submission?
Bullies are the most gutless of all people.
IM Yellowstone says
What happened to “Peace, Love and Rock and Roll?”, you asked. The hopes and dreams live on in that very small, long-gone Bahi Mar Community Center with every Lauderdale teenager on Friday night. It was on the path to the right of passage. I bet you were there!
Laurel says
Greynolds Park, east side, every Sunday. A1A every Saturday. The Image (Miami Beach) every Friday and Saturday night!
Barbara Maloney says
Your research in to the organization appears to be biased either by sources you used or your own views. The organization and teachings are totally aligned with the constitution and protections it affords to we the people. The Corporate governances along with statuary codes are what is out of balance. Most, including the writer of this article, have no idea that your constitutional rights have been stripped away as you have become a corporate commodity.(your name in all caps)
That group of Sheriffs are truly trying to protect we the people and preserve our rights. If there is a conflict then it’s because those in government have lost sight of what they are supposed to be doing and whom they are serving.
Congratulations to whomever supports this movement. I agree we need a Sheriff’s department that will serve and protect under the constitution.
The dude says
Tyranny always starts with a group who knows the real truth… always
Nephew Of Uncle Sam says
Wow “Barbara”. I’ll give you a special reward, It’s called the Special Bus Award. For with all the naysayers to Pierre over the years, about what he has written, you can pat yourself on the back as being the biggest one. So celebrate tonight in your Sheep PJ’s, with your sippy cup of that special Kool-Aid and munch down on red snowflake cookies. You earned it.
FlaPharmTech says
Are you my husband incognito? You and he have the same biting sarcasm that is very, very accurately aimed. Thank you.
Duncan says
Barbara, I certainly don’t understand your perspective.
I had never heard of CSPOA, but it took me all of 30 minutes to research and come to the conclusion that this is a dangerous group of tyrants that are a threat to democracy and not interested in law and order, as it is typically defined (by our laws).
They appear to simply be interested in furthering their own agenda while mascaraing as a group of constitutional scholars – constitution misfits is more like it.
What we have is not perfect, but I believe it close to what was intended by our founders.
CSPOA seems no different than any other dangerous extremist group.
We can agree to disagree.
Skibum says
Barbara, either you are completely uninformed and just making stuff up while dawdling on your computer keyboard, or you are much more insidious in your intentional misrepresentation of what this extremist group is all about. So tell us, which is it? You can’t fool me because I worked in law enforcement for nearly three decades and I know a whole hell of a lot about this group of MAGA supporting, Trump loving extremist group of sheriffs, who may come off very low key and dress professionally in public, speak nicely when in front of local groups like the Palm Coast City Council, and seem completely reasonable. But do not be deceived by their sheep-like appearance. They are wolves and have only one primary priority when as elected sheriffs and I have to tell you, IT AIN’T ABIDING BY LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL STATUTES, or abiding by their oaths of office and performing their law enforcement duties in a fair manner consistent with the ethics and professionalism expected of a law enforcement professional. No, they routinely make their own standards for which laws they like, but even worse, they completely disregard and ignore other laws that they don’t happen to agree with, hence they abrogate their professionalism, their ethics, their honor, AND their oaths in order to hold up higher that any of those their own weird and extreme views on what they think the U.S. Constitution is really saying to them as if they are, all of a sudden, given the ultimate authority by God knows who to throw everything else aside and enforce their own ideas of what the laws SHOULD be. They might as well take those badges off of their uniforms and throw them away and buy themselves “Soveriegn Sheriff” badges since they are like in so many ways the “sovereign citizens” who don’t believe in any laws, just in the opposite sense because these “constitutional sheriffs believe in only THEIR laws.
Laurel says
I listen to Skibum first on this topic. I’ve been reading his comments, I guess for about a couple years now, and he’s a straight up guy. Thank you, Skibum, for providing us good information. I hope more people will pay attention.
Hammock Huck says
We have one Barbara.
Tony says
HA HA HA
Deborah Coffey says
Please get help.
tulip says
Is this the same “sovereign” type of thing that Alan Lowe believes in since he used to declare himself a sovereign citizen? Be very careful of who you vote for. There are a lot ofnew people here that have no idea who some of these candidates are. I’m voting no for Lowe, as I have all the other times he has run. Interesting how this subject appears right around primary time.
PAULETTE HATFIELD says
I think the Mayor was more concerned for the safety of our community. To insult Furlough in front of the City Council and all of us residents watching it live on YouTube, I did see the mayor write something down and pass it along and I imagine it was something like “keep calm and let’s get this guy off of the microphone”. Th speaker is out of the Chamber and forgotten. Done.
Jackson says
Constitutional Sheriffs? (excuse me while I throw up)
We need better education…
The word sheriff is not mentioned in the US Constitution.
Sheriffs have nothing to do with the Constitution of 1787. In fact, it would be an insult to sheriffs to call them ‘Constitutional’.
Sheriffs deal with the man, not the legal ‘person’ created at your birth, the all caps NAME that appears on all the bills you get in the mail. That all caps entity is a corpse…a corporation, a dead entity, a fiction created on paper. Police deal with the legal person. Police are policy enforcers (Codes and Statutes).
Sheriffs deal with the man under Common Law. And they act on a sworn claim of loss, injury or harm by another man. Sheriffs are elected by men and women, and are not suppose to be concerned with the private legal society (Codes and Statutes). They are suppose to operate in the real world, not the fictional world created on paper.
So why not Constitutional? Because The Constitution of 1787 created the tiny federal zone, whose jurisdiction is the 10 square miles (Washington DC) and any territory temporarily granted to them by the states (upon good behavior) for forts, dockyards, etc. The Constitution is ‘The Law of the Land’ (within federal territory only). See Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 which spells it out.
Jim says
I’d bet some decent money that Alfin will very shortly disavow this group CSPOA stating that he didn’t realize exactly what this group represents. Or, maybe, he truly thinks we need to be a “constitutional county”. Either way, this just fires me up more to make sure he is not the mayor of this city after the election. I expect the mayor to be cautious when responding to people like this and if he didn’t know who or what they are, even more cautious. To say this is disappointing is putting it mildly. Seems to me someone is asleep at the wheel.
I hope the rest of the council (except Danko) recognize this group for what they are and decline to even meet with any of them.
I fail to understand why it has become more “mainstream” to deny anything legal that some group just doesn’t like. From picking “fake electors’ when an election is lost to somehow concluding that local sheriffs are the supreme law of the land. Local police have plenty of power already and I definitely want to be assured there are other police agencies with the power and authority to look over their shoulder and intervene if that becomes necessary. We seem to have a good Sheriff in Staly but, even so, he and his department need to be aware they can be called to justice by higher law agencies. And Staly won’t be the Sheriff forever and who knows what the next one might believe?
With all the issues facing this city, it is a real shame that Alfin wants to give this garbage some of council’s time and energy. Another reason why he is not the person for the job.
Dennis C Rathsam says
Stuff Em in Alfin was for it…. before he was against it! Havent we had enough! BYE BYE mr Mayor
Randy Bentwick says
You ask “Why Is Palm Coast’s Mayor Extending the Red Carpet to ‘Constitutional Sheriff’ Extremists?”.
I’ll tell you why.
Because he’s a dingbat.
PDE says
For the mayor to even consider inviting this right wing nut to speak in the first place is beyond belief. I swear, this place gets nuttier every day!
Pierre Tristam says
The mayor did not invite him. Anyone has the right to address the council at public comment time, certainly without prior vetting or clearance, as that would be inappropriate (and illegal) by the council.
NJ says
I agree, anyone can have 3 minutes to speak at a City Council Meeting! Now FORGET about him and RETURN to Operating this City with Common Sense!!!
Celia Pugliese says
You are correct anyone has 3 minutes to speak in council meetings “without being invited”. Lets be fair.
Probably he was not invited…just took advantage of the 3 minutes we are all allowed.
joseph hempfliing says
isn’t the FREEDOM OF SPEECH great ! allowing for the expression of so many diverse “opinions” on the topic BOTH pros and cons.
my suggestion if you are honestly interested in knowing what they are about check out CSPOA’s website and listen, as difficult as it may be, to what exactly Sheriff Mack has to say in his own words.
In my opinion, he didn’t write the Constitution but instead suggests we live by it.
and yes ,despite all the noise ,that we follow it.
And maybe you will also learn a bit more about STATE’S RIGHTS while you are at it !!
Rob says
Right on!! You are so very correct!!! People need to know and understand what the constitution means and says! Our founding fathers knew exactly what they were doing! They made a covenant with God for this nation and the radical left are so afraid of it, that they call us extremist!!! That shows how really excellent they are but we will pray for them anyway!!!
Pierre Tristam says
Rob, you’re mixing your Old Testament with the Constitution. I’s OK. We’ll pray for your historical illiteracy, though I’m surprised you’re OPK with welfare for the soul, since you obviously aren’t when it’s for human beings in need.
Laurel says
Rob: Please explain to me this “…covenant with God…” Our forefathers supposedly made for our country, and give quotes and references.
Also, is anyone who even slightly disagrees with you considered the radical left?
The dude says
Please point out to us dullards where in the constitution is the word Sheriff mentioned? You might also point us to the clause stating those Sheriffs to be the final arbiters of what is and isn’t constitutional.
Rob says
I’m sorry, on my comment, I meant how ignorant, they really are but we will pray for them anyway!!
Laurel says
Rob: Spoken like Jesus?
Skibum says
Oh Joesph, aren’t you precious. So “Sheriff Mack” says we all should live by what is written in our nation’s Constitution, including what it says about “state’s rights”. Speaking of “state’s rights”, isn’t it correct that states have the right to pass state laws and enforce those laws? Why don’t you ask “Sheriff Mack” why this group of “constitutional sheriffs” are so vehemently opposed to upholding their oaths of office and enforcing statutory laws on the books in a number of states simply because these extremist sheriffs don’t agree with those laws that state legislatures debated, passed and sent to the governors of those states who signed them into law? Did you sleep through U.S. History and government classes in school, or did you just not apply the knowledge from lessons? Our Constitution has some very laudable ideals written into it, but it is not an infallible document, nor is it in any sense of the word a substitute for local, state and federal statutes… laws that are legal and meant to be enforced by those who swear an oath as law enforcement officers. Just like the 10 Commandments have what many consider to be God’s most important laws for mankind, but the tablets are no substitute for written laws that must be in place to have an orderly and functioning society. You want everyone to just refer to a document written in the 1700s and use that literally for how to live in today’s world, like these “constitutional sheriffs” keep referring to it like it is their bible? Fine, start by getting rid of all present day handguns, rifles and shotguns in America and let people have a musket that was the weapon of choice and the intent of referring to the “well regulated Militia” in the 2nd Amendment that the “constitutional sheriffs” love to refer to as much as possible… as if we are about to be attacked and overrun by the Brits any day now. Yeah, let’s all just do away with present day laws as well as common sense, and just stick to “laws” that are in the Constitution. That would work, wouldn’t it??? Oh, and don’t forget to emphasis the “law” in the Constitution about all men being created equal, because that was such an important “law” that our forefathers needed to include in 1776 that they made sure that black men were legally only allowed to be 2/3 of a person, women were not allowed anything resembling equality until further amendments were passed in the 20th century, and another amendment needed to be passed in the 1960s allowing blacks the right to vote in America, despite all of the vaunted language laying out the “laws” that all men were somehow equal over 200 years earlier. And for the coupe de gras in this comment, please show me how many blacks are part of this “constitutional sheriffs” extremist group. I would venture to say NONE because these good ole white boys who came up with this nonsense and want law enforcement to literally use the original Constitution as the law of the land and the basis of their constitutional law enforcement authority, know damn well how discriminatory in practice and intent our original U.S. Constitution was when it was written, back when only rich landowners had the power and authority to make decisions for everyone else, including the laws everyone had to adhere to. We, as in America, changed all that over time, and we damn well do NOT want to revert back to the way it was, or to have an extremist group of law enforcers have reign over everyone using their own wacko, extremist, outdated, bigoted AND unequal version of the Constitution to take the place of statutory laws, which is EXACTLY what “Sheriff Mack” and his ilk are attempting to do!
Ray W. says
Hello Skibum.
An idea posed for thoughtful consideration, please.
If, pursuant to the 10th Amendment, the people hold all political powers, what did they give to the federal government when they ratified the Constitution? Limited powers? What did they reserve for the states? Other limited powers? What did they keep for themselves? They retained the rest of the powers that were not delegated to either the state or federal governments.
And from the limited notes that were kept by various members of the Constitutional Convention, the founders decided not to include their idea of individual rights in the proposed Constitution.
So where does the idea of governmental rights come from? Our founding fathers purposely declined to enumerate any rights of any kind in the Constitution. When the first Congress convened, they passed a Bill of Rights, but it was only for the people, not for the government. The idea of state’s rights, from the best that I have discerned after years of practicing and studying the law, did not form until shortly prior to the Civil War, when people who advocated for secession began broadening the definition of “powers” to expand into the separate sphere of “rights.”
I have written of this before. During oral arguments in a death penalty case before Connecticut’s Supreme Court, the State argued that it had the right to execute the defendant. As I recall, the Court ruled against the State on the main issue before the Court. In a concurring opinion, one of the justices reminded the Connecticut’s attorney that states have never had rights; they only have powers delegated to them by the people.
As an aside, years, perhaps decades ago, when reading one historian’s assessment of the Civil War, the historian included a short paragraph based on a number of letters written by Union soldiers. They kept mentioning that when they captured confederate soldiers, the rebels repeatedly said in their heavy southern accents that they were fighting for state’s “rats”. The Union soldiers were not used to southern accents. They wondered why soldiers would fight for states “rats”. It made no sense to them. Besides, none of the Union soldiers had ever heard that states had rights.
It has become customary among certain groups to claim that states have rights, but that apparently has never actually been true; it is simply a conflation of two different concepts. Only people have rights. Both governments and the people have powers. Law and custom can be two different things, don’t you think?
Skibum says
Ray, once again, you raise some very thought provoking questions for consideration. While reading your comments, I suddenly thought of the Citizens United case and how the Supreme Court ruled in that case, which set off extreme backlash against the decision with many comments about how “corporations are NOT people!” Corporations have people in them, and so do states. If the Constitution only give people rights, and not states, is it fair to extrapolate and come to the conclusion that the Supreme Court did indeed get it wrong when they ruled in the Citizens United court case? I’m no constitutional expert by any means, and your points certainly bring up some interesting considerations in the “constitutional sheriffs” and other federal court rulings.
Ray W. says
The debate is never supposed to end. As I used to ask jurors, is common sense a process or is it a result?
While the entire sequence of questions on this issue could take quite some time, in essence, I would try to elicit from the jurors their understanding that if common sense is a result, then someone else can decide for you what common sense means; you only have to listen. If it is a process, if the judge instructs you to deliberate, then you have to go through the process yourself over and over again to reach an understanding of what actually happened in the case. I wanted jurors who were willing to debate with each other, not merely listen to the bully in the room.
Tom D Hutson says
Well, what do you know, this article has shed light on “WACKOs” that have S—T for brains. Yes, that includes some of our local leaders and Sheriffs in this state and might also include those in our state house. All of these so-called leaders all take the same Oath to “PROTECT and DEFEND” our Constitution yet bend over for some lunatic ex-sheriff who tells them, “THEY” whomever they are, have earned special power and authority once elected. To those members of this “Right-Wing” terrorist group, those that think and believe they have so much power yet are AFRAID to admit their membership. Hey come out of the closet, act like you have a pair, why are you hiding your membership?
Could it be that if our Little Mussolini Governor finds out he just might have to “FIRE YOU”? Hey he did that for a State Attorney for saying he might not enforce a state law. But then why did he create a Florida State Army under his control housed right here in Flagler County? As for Mayor Alfin get a life, why would you want your city council members to meet in private with this local nut case? Can a leopard change its spots?
Final two thoughts on this article. All Florida citizens should read and educate themselves on what this organization is (Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officer Association is “CSPOA”) and what they stand for. Read the history and what they really stand for before jumping to defending it.
For Sheriff Staly, put on big boy pants and publicly state your official position regarding this “Right-Wing” organization and if you are a member or have been a member. As a member of the Florida Sheriffs Association, you should ask for an Official statement from the Florida Sheriffs Association “Denouncing this CSPOA and its memberships.”
Thomas Hutson
Skibum says
By the way, Sheriff Staly is not just a member of the Florida Sheriff’s Association (FSA), as Treasurer, he is one of the association’s officers. As this state’s official professional association for elected sheriffs, I wouldn’t think they would want to be associated with a fringe group like the “constitutional sheriffs” that endorses such wacko, extremist views regarding elected sheriffs’ “constitutional” powers. I wonder if there is an interested, local journalist (hint, hint) around who might be interested in following up by requesting an interview with, or response from the sheriff who is the president of FSA, or even Sheriff Staly, so we can hear FSA’s official position on the CSPOA’s current activities trying to get all counties in FL to designate themselves as “constitutional counties” to benefit the extreme views of the CSPOA’s “posse” that it calls itself on it’s website.
Celia Pugliese says
If ain’t broke don’t fix it please. Floridians better get informed not to be taken by extremism.
Watcher says
There are two parties in America today. The Globalist Elite Party, which consists of the Globalist Democrats and Globalist Republicans that want a one world government. And the Constitution Party which consists of JFK Democrats and Reagan Republicans that want to restore the American Republic. While the Constitution is important, it’s not the most important document our forefathers gave us. That destination belongs to The Declaration of Independence, which came first and has not been changed by the Globalists. This document grants Americans the right to offset a government that has become detrimental to the people, it’s not only a right, it’s a duty. That’s the duty of the Military. Ask yourself a question, which party is the Military going to support when the civil war starts that the Globalist Elites have engineered?
Laurel says
Watcher: And who determines when the government has become “detrimental” to the people? When the rich and powerful believe so? Then, we turn the military against the people some particular group has determined detrimental? What if the majority of the people do not feel the government has become detrimental, or do not agree with this particular group?
What is your idea of “elites?”
What is detrimental, to me, is the ongoing division of our people. Republican v. Democrats. Blacks v. Whites. Young v. Old. Religious v. Secular. Men v. Women. Americans v. Immigrants. Family members v. Family members, and there are even more divisions. We are not likely to have a civil war simply because our divisions are spread throughout the country, but tell me please, who should be in charge of this “detrimental” determination? Should the voters have the true facts and be free to vote with out suppression, or rely on falsifications created by the few who would most benefit from these falsifications?
Ray W. says
Funny, I always read that Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration, opposed a standing army. He believed that a militia under the direct control of the government was the body that was to defend the independent American government. Yes, I recently finished reading another biography of Jefferson, based on his 25,000 preserved letters and other writings, and on a study of 40,000 correspondences that he kept after receiving them from others.
Adams, our second president, built 11 more Constitution-class warships. Jefferson, who succeeded Adams, disbanded the Navy and let the 12 warships rot at anchor. Jefferson believed that sloops could defend American ports. When the British fleet showed up to attack Baltimore in the War of 1812, the sloops were no match for them and the Constitution-class warships were not seaworthy. No, nothing I have ever read supports your argument that our military was ever intended to be a force to overthrow the government.
I do recall from my childhood reading of a series of uprisings up and down the western mountains from New York down the Appalachians called the Whiskey Rebellion. President Washington’s militia was called up and sent to suppress the revolt. A number of leaders were hung after military trials and others imprisoned.
Here’s how one historian addressed the issue:
“The fourth region, however, remained stubbornly opposed to this coalition. The backcountry did not support the federal government. Throughout the interior parts of Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia and the Carolinas, hostility to the new regime grew stronger as it began to function. In 1794, after a federal excise tax was enacted, the backcountry rose in an armed insurrection which has been miscalled the Whiskey Rebellion — a label which has trivialized a regional movement of high seriousness and danger to the Republic.
“The rebellion broke out in mountain counties of Pennsylvania (Allegheny, Cumberland, Westmoreland, Washington) which had been settled by British borderers. It was much more than merely a protest against a whiskey tax. Behind it lay a culture which felt its ideal of natural liberty to be deeply threatened by the new Federal system. One North Carolinian expressed his feeling in cadences that called to mind the border poets of North Britain, and many earlier conflicts in the American backcountry:
The country’s a’ in a greetin mood
An some are like to rin with blud;
Some chaps whom freedom’s spirit warms
Are threatening hard to take up arms …
Their liberty they will maintain.
They fought for’, and they’ll fight again.
“The violent acts of the backcountry rebels were similar to risings in North Britain. Federal officers (themselves often borderers with names like Graham, Johnson, Boyd, Wilson and Connor) were brutally beaten, tortured, and mutilated just as many a North British exciseman had been.
“The rising spread swiftly throughout the back settlements of Maryland, Virginia, the Carolinas, Kentucky and Tennessee. Backcountry leaders approached the governments of Britain and Spain, with plans for their own separate republic. Only President Washington’s instant application of overwhelming force prevented a major crisis which might have ended in disaster for the new republic. The backcountry rebellion ended in scenes that were also reminiscent of North Britain: marching armies, fortified houses, small skirmishes, and hundreds of ragged, barefoot captives held at bayonet-point by uniformed troops from other regions.
“Separatist movements continued to flourish in the back settlements — the Blount conspiracy, Wilkinson’s intrigue and the Burr affair. These were not marginal movements; many leading figures of the backcountry Ascendency were involved. The restlessness of the back settlements was alarming to contemporaries, who feared that the separatist spirit might spread throughout America, and every region would become a nation. The balkanization of British North America (as happened in Latin America) would have been catastrophe for the cause of freedom in the modern world.”
Watcher, if the historian is correct, you might have it backwards. Every soldier, sailor, Marine, airman, guardsman, merchant mariner, swears an oath to protect and uphold the Constitution as his or her highest duty. They do so for a reason. If you think Washington did not know the purpose of the army and militia, you are deluding yourself. At the first evidence of uprising, Washington sent the militia to put it down. Your rich fantasy life might not adhere to Jefferson’s intent when he wrote the Declaration of Independence. The founders intended to establish a nation of laws, free from the King’s arbitrary edicts, not a nation of rabble.
I am channeling Wittgenstein here, but you, Watcher, might be wise to consider his admonition: The most difficult thing in life is to not fool oneself.