Residents had every right to state opinions, publicly back candidates in sheriff’s race

Editor:

In response to Mr. Organisciak: For the first time in years, we had a choice for sheriff, and yes, sometimes the competition got silly with shirts and signs.

Candidates were working with a jaded, apathetic public, and they used whatever honest methods they could to show that this race was different.

A Constitutional Sheriff is not an ordinary lawman. He is elected, not mandated by paycheck, and he keeps the people in focus for everything he does. This is not such a radical idea. It is how the office of sheriff was always supposed to work before we were indoctrinated that he had to be a superior law officer.

Even the state regulations recognize that someone with administrative and managerial skill, such as David Green had, but no physical “on the road” skill, can be sheriff.

Concerning the “mud-slinging”: would you deny people their right to free speech? None of the comments came from either Mr. Drennan or Mr. Bower, but from people stating their opinions. The public has the right to know what goes on in an elected office. So kudos to those who had the guts to speak out, and to both candidates for not participating actively in that.

Any sheriff who swears to uphold the Constitution and then does not is a fraud. We have procedures for passing laws, and to bypass those is unConstitutional and corrupt. The SAFE Act was passed just this way.

There are other “laws” on the books like it, and the sheriff must examine these in light of the Constitution itself and make a decision concerning enforcement. To blindly accept that another elective office supersedes the sheriff’s office is folly.

If you follow that reasoning, then the state and federal agencies can swoop on any citizen, and punish him at any time, even for nothing other than disagreeing with them. (This “law” is on the books as the NDAA). It is the sheriff’s duty to protect his citizens from such an encroachment, unless there is just cause.

This race was definitely based on popularity – the close results showed that. But it was also based on who was listening to the people. The people don’t necessarily want another law enforcement officer as the supreme law of the land, but someone who will protect their Constitutional rights and interpose himself between the people and entities who will infringe on their rights. They want someone who can use the power of the political parties – because that’s how our system is set up – without being enslaved to them.

They want someone they can trust and depend on when they need extra help, someone who will answer their questions and concerns. Is Mr. Bower that person? We don’t know yet. He said he is, and it is up to us, as citizens, to make sure he follows through.

We will be keeping him accountable, and we hope that in time, even his political opponents will start to see the freedom that a Constitutional Sheriff can bring.

Judith Larkin
Ridgeway