Poor Sheriff Joe can't trample the constitution anymore

[islandman]

Indubitably. The sheriff of Maricopa County is responsible for upholding the various laws passed by Congress, the state legislature or the county government. I'm glad you agree with me for a change because it looked as if you didn't.

Allow me to refresh your memory: http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=63501875&postcount=5

Since you agree that all law originates with the Constitution, therefore, one cannot deny citizens their constitutional rights while simultaneously upholding federal, state and local law.

Unless, of course, you in fact do differentiate between the Constitution and the general rule of law....

...which relegates you to vetteman-status in thinking that you can pick and choose from the Constitution as much an a la carte menu.

So, which is it?

I think we can both agree that you're in dire need of further backtracking on your original point.

 

[Que]

Aren't citizens of most countries actual citizens?

 

[RobDownSouth]

Aren't citizens of most countries actual citizens?

Why yes! Yes, they are?

.....and your point is?

#Herp-A-Derp
#Deflection

 

[KingOrfeo]

Your link was broken and this is the one I read. It is a comprehensive history of Watergate and seems to have a strong anti-Nixon tenor: http://www.authentichistory.com/1961-1974/6-nixon/3-watergate/timeline/

The plumbers are mentioned prominently, and they did work for the AG, but there is nothing about any of them ever going to trial or being charged for their work as plumbers. The Watergate burglars were arrested and incarcerated and some of them may have also been plumbers, but there is no law against searching for persons who are giving info out to the press or other entities.

It's not so much that as this.

The White House Plumbers, sometimes simply called the Plumbers, were a covert White House Special Investigations Unit, established July 24, 1971, during the presidency of Richard Nixon. Its task was to stop the leaking of classified information, such as the Pentagon Papers, to the news media. Its members branched into illegal activities while working for the Committee to Re-elect the President, including the Watergate break-in and the ensuing Watergate scandal.[1]

<snip>

Operations

The Plumbers' first task was the burglary of the office of Daniel Ellsberg's Los Angeles psychiatrist, Lewis J. Fielding, in an effort to uncover evidence to discredit Ellsberg, who had leaked the Pentagon Papers. The operation was reportedly unsuccessful in finding Ellsberg's file and was so reported to the White House. However, Fielding himself stated the file was in his office; he found it on the floor on the morning after the burglary and quite clearly, someone had gone through it.[5] In a September 1971 conversation, Ehrlichman advised Nixon, “We had one little operation. It’s been aborted out in Los Angeles which, I think, is better that you don’t know about." Eventually, the case against Ellsberg was dismissed due to government misconduct.

Aside from the Fielding burglary, there are few other activities the Plumbers were known to have been engaged in. Hunt reportedly looked into the Ted Kennedy Chappaquiddick incident and Liddy reported purported Kennedy administration involvement in the assassination of South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem.[3]

After the California break-in, Liddy, who was general counsel, finance committee of the Committee to Re-elect the President (CRP) and promoted from aide to Krogh and Yong, worked with Campaign political-intelligence operations. Ehrlichman, the Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs and Special Investigations Unit knew about Liddy’s goal to perform an intelligence gathering operation for Committee to Re-elect the President (CRP). Liddy involved Hunt in the operations which would later include the Watergate burglary.[6]

And, more generally, this.

"Ratfucking" was a term used by Richard Nixon's campaign insiders to describe electoral fraud and dirty tricks they used against their opponents. The term was coined by political operative Don Segretti, who claimed it had come from his college days when he stuffed ballot boxes for student government candidates. Segretti was hired by the Committee to Re-elect the President (CREEP) to work his ratfucking magic for Nixon in the 1972 elections and funded by laundered money coming in through CREEP slush funds. Segretti and a number of other ratfuckers worked from CREEP to destroy the campaigns of Democratic opponents. Their methods included distributing faked letter and press releases, astroturfing "activists" and "protestors," disrupting political conferences using the old "order a hundred pizzas in someone else's name" trick, vote contracting (literally paying people for votes), espionage tactics, and general dickery. One of the ratfuckers happened to be Karl Rove, who was the head of the College Republicans at the time (they teach 'em early).

The most infamous incident related to the ratfucking techniques, besides the Watergate break-in itself, was the release of the "Muskie letters." CREEP members had gotten hold of Senator Edmund Muskie's letterhead and started "leaking" letters ostensibly addressed to other Democrats insulting various other Congressmen. One of the Muskie letters, called the "Canuck letter," implied that Muskie was bigoted toward Americans of French-Canadian descent (Muskie was from Maine). This FUD campaign reached its heights right in the middle of the 1972 primaries and Muskie's campaign imploded after his speech denying his authorship of the letters. The Muskie letters were ultimately the starting point that led Washington Post reporters Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward to begin to unravel the Nixon campaign's ratfucking methods and uncover the Watergate break-in.

Nixon's personal at-the-time knowledge/complicity in all of the above is debatable, but nothing else about it is.

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

You said Nixon directed the Plumbers, I said prove it, you couldn't because it is a known fact that he didn't.

Did he "direct" CREEP? Doesn't matter, he bears responsibility.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Killswitch]

Arpio and Wrinkles Brewer make a great couple.

 

[Boxlicker101]

It's not so much that as this.


The White House Plumbers, sometimes simply called the Plumbers, were a covert White House Special Investigations Unit, established July 24, 1971, during the presidency of Richard Nixon. Its task was to stop the leaking of classified information, such as the Pentagon Papers, to the news media. Its members branched into illegal activities while working for the Committee to Re-elect the President, including the Watergate break-in and the ensuing Watergate scandal.[1]

<snip>

Operations

The Plumbers' first task was the burglary of the office of Daniel Ellsberg's Los Angeles psychiatrist, Lewis J. Fielding, in an effort to uncover evidence to discredit Ellsberg, who had leaked the Pentagon Papers. The operation was reportedly unsuccessful in finding Ellsberg's file and was so reported to the White House. However, Fielding himself stated the file was in his office; he found it on the floor on the morning after the burglary and quite clearly, someone had gone through it.[5] In a September 1971 conversation, Ehrlichman advised Nixon, “We had one little operation. It’s been aborted out in Los Angeles which, I think, is better that you don’t know about." Eventually, the case against Ellsberg was dismissed due to government misconduct.

Aside from the Fielding burglary, there are few other activities the Plumbers were known to have been engaged in. Hunt reportedly looked into the Ted Kennedy Chappaquiddick incident and Liddy reported purported Kennedy administration involvement in the assassination of South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem.[3]

After the California break-in, Liddy, who was general counsel, finance committee of the Committee to Re-elect the President (CRP) and promoted from aide to Krogh and Yong, worked with Campaign political-intelligence operations. Ehrlichman, the Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs and Special Investigations Unit knew about Liddy’s goal to perform an intelligence gathering operation for Committee to Re-elect the President (CRP). Liddy involved Hunt in the operations which would later include the Watergate burglary.[6]
And, more generally, this.



Quote:

"Ratfucking" was a term used by Richard Nixon's campaign insiders to describe electoral fraud and dirty tricks they used against their opponents. The term was coined by political operative Don Segretti, who claimed it had come from his college days when he stuffed ballot boxes for student government candidates. Segretti was hired by the Committee to Re-elect the President (CREEP) to work his ratfucking magic for Nixon in the 1972 elections and funded by laundered money coming in through CREEP slush funds. Segretti and a number of other ratfuckers worked from CREEP to destroy the campaigns of Democratic opponents. Their methods included distributing faked letter and press releases, astroturfing "activists" and "protestors," disrupting political conferences using the old "order a hundred pizzas in someone else's name" trick, vote contracting (literally paying people for votes), espionage tactics, and general dickery. One of the ratfuckers happened to be Karl Rove, who was the head of the College Republicans at the time (they teach 'em early).

The most infamous incident related to the ratfucking techniques, besides the Watergate break-in itself, was the release of the "Muskie letters." CREEP members had gotten hold of Senator Edmund Muskie's letterhead and started "leaking" letters ostensibly addressed to other Democrats insulting various other Congressmen. One of the Muskie letters, called the "Canuck letter," implied that Muskie was bigoted toward Americans of French-Canadian descent (Muskie was from Maine). This FUD campaign reached its heights right in the middle of the 1972 primaries and Muskie's campaign imploded after his speech denying his authorship of the letters. The Muskie letters were ultimately the starting point that led Washington Post reporters Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward to begin to unravel the Nixon campaign's ratfucking methods and uncover the Watergate break-in.


Nixon's personal at-the-time knowledge/complicity in all of the above is debatable, but nothing else about it is.

This was all part of the ordinary eye-gouging and groin-licking of politics. Nixon didn't invent it but he did practice it. So did JFK and LBJ, and probably every president before and since. Nixon was hated by the news media at the time, so we heard more about him than anybody else.

BTW, did you ever hear of a guy named Dick Tuck?

 

[mikey2much]

Sometimes you just can't help them

He took responsibility and resigned, Obama could take a lesson, but he did not personally direct the Plumbers. Mikey lies.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

You can lead a whore to culture but you can't make her think.

But trying to educate a marine, is a much harder thing.

They can repeat the words but the lesson doesn't last.

The only way to to get knowledge in them, is to shove it up their ass.

Trying to teach vette anything is like trying to teach a hog to sing.

Though he earned a fail, on this history lesson tale.

I think I speak for all of us when I say, we give thanks.

He is merely stupid now and not a part of national defense.


Vette is so classically stupid, I hate to put him on ignore.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[Boxlicker101]

Allow me to refresh your memory: http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=63501875&postcount=5

Since you agree that all law originates with the Constitution, therefore, one cannot deny citizens their constitutional rights while simultaneously upholding federal, state and local law.

Unless, of course, you in fact do differentiate between the Constitution and the general rule of law....

...which relegates you to vetteman-status in thinking that you can pick and choose from the Constitution as much an a la carte menu.

So, which is it?

I think we can both agree that you're in dire need of further backtracking on your original point.

Not all laws originate with the Constitution, except very indirectly. For instance, if I drive my car at an unsafe speed, I am breaking the law, but there is nothing in the Constitution telling me how fast I can drive. That kind of thing is passed on to the individual states and sometimes to local jurisdictions. Lately, Obama has been passing laws on his own, and I doubt they would pass Constitutional muster. Likewise, court decisions and bureaucratic regulations have the force of laws, even if they are not laws that were passed the way the Constitution says they should be.

In any event, all I am saying is that state and local police or sheriff's departments have an obligation to enforce all laws, including federal and state, and that is what Joe Arpaio is trying to do.

 

[unregistered]

 

[mikey2much]

the link

How about that link, genius?

I have sent you the link and I have made fun of you for not reading it.

If you had read it you would have seen that Nixon approved the checks from mexico that were used to pay them and he sent them on several missions, all illegal.

But the link don't help if you don't read the info.



BTW why do you think Nixon left office early?

 

[unregistered]

 

[islandman]

Not all laws originate with the Constitution, except very indirectly. For instance, if I drive my car at an unsafe speed, I am breaking the law, but there is nothing in the Constitution telling me how fast I can drive. That kind of thing is passed on to the individual states and sometimes to local jurisdictions. Lately, Obama has been passing laws on his own, and I doubt they would pass Constitutional muster. Likewise, court decisions and bureaucratic regulations have the force of laws, even if they are not laws that were passed the way the Constitution says they should be.

In any event, all I am saying is that state and local police or sheriff's departments have an obligation to enforce all laws, including federal and state, and that is what Joe Arpaio is trying to do.

That's a lovely song and dance, but it doesn't answer my original question: how does one enforce all laws while simultaneously violating citizens' constitutional rights?

I believe this is the fourth time I'm asking and you have yet to give me a firm answer. Do you even have one or are you going to give me more Sheriff Joe talking points?

Islandman has never heard of the Ninth and Tenth Amendment.

That's a foolish statement coming from a man who regularly decries and applauds the judicial branch based solely on the leanings of whatever Briebart article happens to be open in front of him at the time.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Islandman has never heard of the Ninth and Tenth Amendment.

Oh, that . . .

Tenther movement

In recent history, the mantra of "states' rights" has found a new suit to wear: The Tenthers.[5] Because they take an originalist interpretation of the Constitution, they believe that any power not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution belongs to the states, and that most of existing federal law is therefore invalid. They are named after the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which says:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Though the term "states' rights" is still bandied about, the Tenthers have gotten more traction as the former term has become seen as an increasingly racist dog-whistle. Tenthers tend to be conservative or libertarian, although the movement seems to have attracted many with a narrow agenda against some federal law, like those who oppose the War on Drugs, religious dominionists who want to bring back state religions, tax protesters and even some gay activists. The Teabaggers of course, have latched onto this movement to conveniently declare any law they don't like unconstitutional. The Tenthers have even invoked the language of nullification, i.e. the ability of a state to ignore or override federal law. Apparently, they know their case law better than all the Supreme Courts that have declared nullification invalid since the 19th century, starting with Prigg v. Pennsylvania[wp][2] in 1842 - though on certain issues like the War on Drugs there's no constitutional issue, as the Supreme Court has determined that states have no obligation to assist in the enforcement of federal law. They also seem to know better than the Constitution itself, having overlooked these clauses:
The Necessary and Proper Clause:

"The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

The Taxing and Spending Clause:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

The Commerce Clause:

"The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;"

Oh, and of course, there's a whole bunch of case law against this notion. For starters, in 1819, SCOTUS ruled that the Necessary and Proper Clause gave the federal government implied powers in the case of McCulloch v. Maryland.[wp] The Court ruled against secession in Texas v. White.[6] In United States v. Darby,[7] the court had this to say:

"The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment, or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers."

However, while the above clauses have been cited to expand federal powers to a ludicrous extent, such as empowering federal involvement in the War on Drugs, it has never been the law that Congress has plenary power to do what it pleases. Such a reading would mean that most of Article I, § 8 is just redundant verbiage, a position that no one is willing to admit to taking. Instead, the Tenth Amendment has been used to strike down such provisions of federal law as § 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act.

Everything is unconstitutional!

Some things not found in the Constitution we'd have to live without:
NASA
Social Security
Medicare/Medicaid
The Air Force
Primary elections
The FDA and EPA
The state of Louisiana

 

[Boxlicker101]

That's a lovely song and dance, but it doesn't answer my original question: how does one enforce all laws while simultaneously violating citizens' constitutional rights?

I believe this is the fourth time I'm asking and you have yet to give me a firm answer. Do you even have one or are you going to give me more Sheriff Joe talking points?

(Snip)

That's a meaningless question. If a law has been found by SCOTUS to be unconstitutional, it is unenforceable. I presume you are referring to laws in AZ. Do you have any specific law in mind that has been declared to be contrary to the Constitution but is still being enforced?

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[cjh]

The Constitution authorizes Congress to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” Art. I, § 8, cl. 3. Our precedents read that to mean that Congress may regulate “the channels of interstate commerce,” “persons or things in interstate commerce,” and “those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce.” Morrison, supra, at 609, 120 S.Ct. 1740 (internal quotation marks omitted). The power over activities that substantially affect interstate commerce can be expansive. That power has been held to authorize federal regulation of such seemingly local matters as a farmer's decision to grow wheat for himself and his *2579 livestock, and a loan shark's extortionate collections from a neighborhood butcher shop. See Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 63 S.Ct. 82, 87 L.Ed. 122 (1942); Perez v. United States, 402 U.S. 146, 91 S.Ct. 1357, 28 L.Ed.2d 686 (1971).1112 Congress may also “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.” U.S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 1. Put simply, Congress may tax and spend. This grant gives the Federal Government considerable influence even in areas where it cannot directly regulate. The Federal Government may enact a tax on an activity that it cannot authorize, forbid, or otherwise control. See, e.g., License Tax Cases, 5 Wall. 462, 471, 18 L.Ed. 497 (1867). And in exercising its spending power, Congress may offer funds to the States, and may condition those offers on compliance with specified conditions. See, e.g., College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Ed. Expense Bd., 527 U.S. 666, 686, 119 S.Ct. 2219, 144 L.Ed.2d 605 (1999). These offers may well induce the States to adopt policies that the Federal Government itself could not impose. See, e.g., South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 205–206, 107 S.Ct. 2793, 97 L.Ed.2d 171 (1987) (conditioning federal highway funds on States raising their drinking age to 21).The reach of the Federal Government's enumerated powers is broader still because the Constitution authorizes Congress to “make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers.” Art. I, § 8, cl. 18. We have long read this provision to give Congress great latitude in exercising its powers: “Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional.” McCulloch, 4 Wheat., at 421.1314 Our permissive reading of these powers is explained in part by a general reticence to invalidate the acts of the Nation's elected leaders. “Proper respect for a coordinate branch of the government” requires that we strike down an Act of Congress only if “the lack of constitutional authority to pass [the] act in question is clearly demonstrated.” United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629, 635, 1 S.Ct. 601, 27 L.Ed. 290 (1883). Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation's elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.

Nat'l Fed'n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 132 S. Ct. 2566, 2578-79, 183 L. Ed. 2d 450 (2012)

 

[cjh]

The Federal Government undertakes activities today that would have been unimaginable to the Framers in two senses; first, because the Framers would not have conceived that any government would conduct such activities; and second, because the Framers would not have believed that the Federal Government, rather than the States, would assume such responsibilities. Yet the powers conferred upon the Federal Government by the Constitution were phrased in language broad enough to allow for the expansion of the Federal Government's role. Among the provisions of the Constitution that have been particularly important in this regard, three concern us here.First, the Constitution allocates to Congress the power “[t]o regulate Commerce ... among the several States.” *158 Art. I, § 8, cl. 3. Interstate commerce was an established feature of life in the late 18th century. See, e.g., The Federalist No. 42, p. 267 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (“The defect of power in the existing Confederacy to regulate the commerce between its several members [has] been clearly pointed out by experience”). The volume of interstate commerce and the range of commonly accepted objects of government regulation have, however, expanded **2419 considerably in the last 200 years, and the regulatory authority of Congress has expanded along with them. As interstate commerce has become ubiquitous, activities once considered purely local have come to have effects on the national economy, and have accordingly come within the scope of Congress' commerce power. See, e.g., Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294, 85 S.Ct. 377, 13 L.Ed.2d 290 (1964); Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 63 S.Ct. 82, 87 L.Ed. 122 (1942).Second, the Constitution authorizes Congress “to pay the Debts and provide for the ... general Welfare of the United States.” Art. I, § 8, cl. 1. As conventional notions of the proper objects of government spending have changed over the years, so has the ability of Congress to “fix the terms on which it shall disburse federal money to the States.” Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 451 U.S. 1, 17, 101 S.Ct. 1531, 1539, 67 L.Ed.2d 694 (1981). Compare, e.g., United States v. Butler, supra, 297 U.S., at 72–75, 56 S.Ct., at 322–323 (spending power does not authorize Congress to subsidize farmers), with South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 107 S.Ct. 2793, 97 L.Ed.2d 171 (1987) (spending power permits Congress to condition highway funds on States' adoption of minimum drinking age). While the spending power is “subject to several general restrictions articulated in our cases,” id., at 207, 107 S.Ct., at 2796, these restrictions have not been so severe as to prevent the regulatory authority of Congress from generally keeping up with the growth of the federal budget.The Court's broad construction of Congress' power under the Commerce and Spending Clauses has of course been guided, as it has with respect to Congress' power generally, by the Constitution's Necessary and Proper Clause, which *159 authorizes Congress “[t]o make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers.” U.S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 18. See, e.g., Legal Tender Case, 110 U.S. 421, 449–450, 4 S.Ct. 122, 131, 28 L.Ed. 204 (1884); McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat., at 411–421.Finally, the Constitution provides that “the Laws of the United States ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land ... any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” U.S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2. As the Federal Government's willingness to exercise power within the confines of the Constitution has grown, the authority of the States has correspondingly diminished to the extent that federal and state policies have conflicted. See, e.g., Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85, 103 S.Ct. 2890, 77 L.Ed.2d 490 (1983). We have observed that the Supremacy Clause gives the Federal Government “a decided advantage in th[e] delicate balance” the Constitution strikes between state and federal power. Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S., at 460, 111 S.Ct., at 2400.The actual scope of the Federal Government's authority with respect to the States has changed over the years, therefore, but the constitutional structure underlying and limiting that authority has not. In the end, just as a cup may be half empty or half full, it makes no difference whether one views the question at issue in these cases as one of ascertaining the limits of the power delegated to the Federal Government under the affirmative provisions of the Constitution or one of discerning the core of sovereignty retained by the States under the Tenth Amendment.

New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 157-59, 112 S. Ct. 2408, 2418-19, 120 L. Ed. 2d 120 (1992)

 

[Busybody]

we don't recognize "law" written by WHITE OLD MEN

 

[unregistered]