Oathkeeper and LA County Sheriff Leroy Baca: The Law Is What I Say It Is

[JoshLowry]

The Law Is What I Say It Is - “Proposition 19 is not going to pass, even if it passes”

Author of article has a chip on his shoulder, but I thought this was interesting and worth sharing.

What would the DA do with all the useless casework if Baca continued arresting people after prop 19 passed?

Thoughts on constitutionality?

 

[pcosmar]

They need a new Sheriff. And that man need a new job.
Perhaps raking shit at a sewage treatment plant.

 

[Dr.3D]

They need a new Sheriff. And that man need a new job.
Perhaps raking shit at a sewage treatment plant.

I understand the government has been hiring people to count the used condoms at the sewage treatment plants. Perhaps he would qualify for that job.

 

[Travlyr]

The legal battles could get interesting. Leroy Baca needs to be taught a lesson. He will be out of work when his term is up.

 

[JoshLowry]

I'd like to ask Sheriff Baca why alcohol needed a constitutional amendment to be outlawed.

 

[Danke]

I'd like to ask Sheriff Baca why alcohol needed a constitutional amendment to be outlawed.

We still have dry counties.

 

[Travlyr]

I'd like to ask Sheriff Baca why alcohol needed a constitutional amendment to be outlawed.

People of LA county should be asking specifically for Sheriff Baca to publicly show them the language for his judgment call of unconstitutionality.

"Proposition 19 is not going to pass, even if it passes,” Baca said at a news conference today. The Sheriff says he and his deputies will continue enforcing current marijuana law, even if Proposition 19 changes it.

He claims to have the authority to do this based on his judgment that the proposition is unconstitutional. An interesting take, since his oath of office required him to “uphold and defend it” not “decide what it says.”

 

[Dr.3D]

I'd like to ask Sheriff Baca why alcohol needed a constitutional amendment to be outlawed.

Some folks have been inhaling government pickle-smoke for so long, they can't distinguish between what is and isn't true. Seems that poor lad has been brainwashed.

 

[brandon]

Wait a year or two and this guy will be a high level bureaucrat for some federal agency. I'm sure there was some kind of deal made.

 

[Lucille]

Are Baca and Cooley in stir yet?

 

[johngr]

Too bad he's not sheriff in an Arizona border county. Of course, the feds got his back on this one.

 

[furface]

It's the police unions talking. Government unions control a large part of California government. Californians are slowly waking up to this fact, but there are still problems with even talking about the issue. Every time some sort of discussion comes up about government salaries and pensions, it's always prefaced with "we know police and firefighters are putting their lives on the line for us ..."

You want a revolution? Police, fire fighters, soldiers, government workers in general are not your friends. If Oathkeepers want to discuss the problems of sanctifying soldiers, which leads to war, and police & fire fighter unions, which lead to oppressive taxation & prison/industrial states, then I'm all for them.

In the best form of consensual government these occupations would be volunteer based.

 

[Anti Federalist]

The Law Is What I Say It Is - “Proposition 19 is not going to pass, even if it passes”

Author of article has a chip on his shoulder, but I thought this was interesting and worth sharing.

What would the DA do with all the useless casework if Baca continued arresting people after prop 19 passed?

Thoughts on constitutionality?

Help me out on the title of your post Josh.

Is Baca an OathKeeper? I see in the story a reference to his oath of office but nothing about belonging to OathKeepers, the organization.

And I'd be inclined to think that person who has the chip on his shoulder is Baca, not the author.

Constitutionality? These people wouldn't know the constitution if they fell over it.

Makes it pretty clear who the boss is though, doesn't it?

Of, By and For the people, my aching ass.

 

[JoshLowry]

Help me out on the title of your post Josh.

Is Baca an OathKeeper? I see in the story a reference to his oath of office but nothing about belonging to OathKeepers, the organization.

Yea, that's why I found the thread worth posting.

http://oath-keepers.blogspot.com/2009/06/sheriff-leroy-baca-advocates-that-he.html

And I'd be inclined to think that person who has the chip on his shoulder is Baca, not the author.

Leaning that way as well. When I saw he was an OathKeeper I thought maybe he was referencing something of importance. He probably just gave OathKeepers lip service for support.

 

[Dr.3D]

This is what happens when an Oathkeeper doesn't understand what the Constitution says.
Seems there will be a conflict as to what the Constitution says, till it is explained to the satisfaction of all concerned.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Yea, that's why I found the thread worth posting.

http://oath-keepers.blogspot.com/2009/06/sheriff-leroy-baca-advocates-that-he.html

Leaning that way as well. When I saw he was an OathKeeper I thought maybe he was referencing something of importance. He probably just gave OathKeepers lip service for support.

I'll be goddamned...

Nice find.

I'm not sure what the hell to make of this...

 

[awake]

I guess he is an Oathkeeper in the same sense that Obama is?

 

[Travlyr]

Swearing the Oath does not really mean anything if public officials are not legally bound to it. Swear to abide by the Constitution today, forget it tomorrow.

This is why Kenneth Gomez and others are challenging this (penal bond) legal matter in the courts and bringing it to the people.

 

[furface]

This is what happens when an Oathkeeper doesn't understand what the Constitution says.

It's not enough to simply claim to follow the constitution. You need to say how you're going to interpret the Constitution. Oathkeepers do a decent job of explicitly saying what they're not going to do.

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2009/03/03/declaration-of-orders-we-will-not-obey/

The problem is what they leave out.

1. That they will uphold the law in the local jurisdiction they serve.

That goes without saying, but not for Baca.

A little more controversial:

2. That they will support efforts to minimize the size of government, including military, police, & firefighting.

 

[nobody's_hero]

It's the police unions talking. Government unions control a large part of California government. Californians are slowly waking up to this fact, but there are still problems with even talking about the issue. Every time some sort of discussion comes up about government salaries and pensions, it's always prefaced with "we know police and firefighters are putting their lives on the line for us ..."

You want a revolution? Police, fire fighters, soldiers, government workers in general are not your friends. If Oathkeepers want to discuss the problems of sanctifying soldiers, which leads to war, and police & fire fighter unions, which lead to oppressive taxation & prison/industrial states, then I'm all for them.

In the best form of consensual government these occupations would be volunteer based.

Sanctifying soldiers doesn't lead to war. Sanctified politicians lead to war.