In Montana, a plan to empower local sheriffs

They'd arrived for a public hearing on the so-called "Sheriffs First Act," a Montana senator's proposal to make sheriffs the supreme authorities in their counties. Federal agents would be required to obtain written permission from a sheriff before conducting a search, seizure or arrest in a county.

...

Jessica Fehr, spokeswoman for the U.S. attorney in Montana, declined to comment on whether such a bill is enforceable or how it might affect federal operations in Montana. But, prompted by a lawmaker's question, Gallatin County attorney Marty Lambert suggested there are questions over whether the bill violates the supremacy clause, which says the Constitution and federal law is "the supreme law of the land."

...

Under the bill's provisions, any federal employee — such as an agent of the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Agency or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms — would need to get written permission from the sheriff before making an arrest, search or seizure in that sheriff's jurisdiction. If a federal agent failed to get permission, the county attorney would be required to prosecute that person for kidnapping, trespassing, theft or even homicide, if a loss of life occurs.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/...212b853b72

Wow, I'm not sure what to think about this. On one hand, I can kind of understand the intent... On the other, this seems like a bunch of bureaucratic red tape that will need to be dealt with before a federal investigation can occur. I'm interested to see others' opinions on the matter. I'm not entirely sure I could support this if it were my state.

Supreme court would throw it out. Besides, who gives a rat's ass about Montana anyhow?

Don't they already have this?



And seriously, like this is gonna stand up...

Seems like federal pre-emption would take over here.

Yeah, I think the supremacy clause would trump it... But what does everyone think about the notion behind it? I don't think it's right that a Sheriff would be given power over the federal authorities... I'm not sure why people would think it's worth it in the long run. Is a Sheriff really gonna deny the feds jurisdiction?

Quote from PaintTheSkyGrey : Wow, I'm not sure what to think about this. On one hand, I can kind of understand the intent... On the other, this seems like a bunch of bureaucratic red tape that will need to be dealt with before a federal investigation can occur. I'm interested to see others' opinions on the matter. I'm not entirely sure I could support this if it were my state.

A few states, Montana in particular, have been enacting a lot of legislation in the past few years with the goal of empowering states rights and shifting power back to the more localized level. These are people that understand that the rights of people and the states are being run roughshod by this ever expanding behemoth of a federal government. IMO, good for them for challenging a federal government that has been progressively overstepping it's bounds more and more over the last 100 years or so.

Quote from PaintTheSkyGrey : Yeah, I think the supremacy clause would trump it... But what does everyone think about the notion behind it? I don't think it's right that a Sheriff would be given power over the federal authorities... I'm not sure why people would think it's worth it in the long run. Is a Sheriff really gonna deny the feds jurisdiction?

The point is to challenge the Constitutionality of the actions of the federal government.

Quote from PaintTheSkyGrey : Yeah, I think the supremacy clause would trump it... But what does everyone think about the notion behind it? I don't think it's right that a Sheriff would be given power over the federal authorities... I'm not sure why people would think it's worth it in the long run. Is a Sheriff really gonna deny the feds jurisdiction?

Quite possibly, especially if the Sheriff is trying to uphold a competing state law...

Montana Medical Marijuana Program [mt.gov]

In November 2004, Montana passed Initiative 148, allowing certain patients with specific medical conditions to alleviate their symptoms through the limited use of marijuana under medical supervision.

Who investigates the sheriff if he's corrupt?

Quote from Rebound : Who investigates the sheriff if he's corrupt?

The FBI, if they ask nicely.

The closer power is to the people, the more power the people will have. Although I am not sure about the sheriff having rights over the feds.... just think if something like taxation was "closer" to the people. I'd bet town hall meetings would be packed.

Quote from Dr. J : The closer power is to the people, the more power the people will have. Although I am not sure about the sheriff having rights over the feds.... just think if something like taxation was "closer" to the people. I'd bet town hall meetings would be packed.

There's plenty of locally enacted and collected taxes. Why aren't the town hall meetings already packed to consider those?

Quote from redmaxx : The FBI, if they ask nicely.

How can the FBI investigate the Sheriff if the Sheriff is the supreme authority in the County? Who "asks" the FBI to investigate? How does the FBI investigate if they have to get permission from the Sheriff before they investigate him?

Quote from Rebound : How can the FBI investigate the Sheriff if the Sheriff is the supreme authority in the County? Who "asks" the FBI to investigate? How does the FBI investigate if they have to get permission from the Sheriff before they investigate him?

You thought I was serious. How cute.

Quote from smegalicious : Quite possibly, especially if the Sheriff is trying to uphold a competing state law... Montana Medical Marijuana Program [mt.gov] In November 2004, Montana passed Initiative 148, allowing certain patients with specific medical conditions to alleviate their symptoms through the limited use of marijuana under medical supervision.

Under the current presidential administration, I don't think this will be an issue. It certainly could rear its head again though under a more socially conservative admin though.