Law enforcement shouldn’t arbitrarily decide what laws are just

Posted 1 March 2019 at 8:56 am


Ms. Larkin, since when the does the Constitution allow the Executive Branch (law enforcement) to usurp the powers of the Judiciary? That is, the authority to interpret our laws as being constitutional or not constitutional? Or, as you so eloquently stated here, oppressive or unoppressive?

How did I miss the revolution that flushed the Legislative Branch consisting of my elected officials (along with the rest of “We the People”) down the toilet – enabling law enforcement to arbitrarily decide which laws best serve our interests and those that do not?

More importantly, how may I become deputized so that I too can pick and choose those laws I need obey or disrespect based on my own personal interpretation of the Constitution?

Even if you agree with the principles behind the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, as you said, the Sheriff remains the CLEO, or … “Chief Law ENFORCEMENT Officer” and is not a legislator, interpreter or amender of the law.

Any law-abiding, elected Sheriff (constitutional or otherwise) will tell you that “law enforcement” has just one job regardless of level of government. Any guess what that might be?

Finally, when does law enforcement start to look and sound like a police state? I’ll give you a hint Ms. Larkin, it’s when law enforcement has the power to say that you are bound by the law and that others (including themselves) are not.


Tom Graham, AHS ‘78