You never did explain, if citizens are sovereign, why sheriffs are the arbiter of Constitutionality and not the citizens themselves.
I think you missed a few posts if you're asking this...
No, I've read them all. Here's wmLambert's problematic declaration:
Just so you understand fully: We are a nation where the individual is sovereign - not a mayor, a governor, nor a president. An individual Sheriff must follow what he knows to be the law, regardless of what a politician says.
...and my two problems with it are:
1. What does it mean to be a sovereign individual? I don't think he means that everyone has the right to control what happens to their own body, which is used to justify a woman's rights to an abortion. It's more likely he means something like "sovereign citizen", for which this is a common interpretation:
Self-described "sovereign citizens" see themselves as answerable only to their particular interpretations of the common law and as not subject to any government statutes or proceedings. In the United States, they do not recognize U.S. currency and maintain that they are "free of any legal constraints".
If he meant something else, he should be able to say what that is, which he hasn't yet done.
2. His interpretation of a sheriff's authority is "An individual Sheriff must follow
what he knows to be the law, regardless of what a politician says."
Laws are made by governments, not politicians. Mayors, Governors and the President aren't politicians, they are dutifully elected officers of government. wmLambert hasn't explained where sheriffs get the authority to override a lawfully elected official exercising their own authority to execute laws. Whitmer hasn't told any Michigan sheriff to execute an "illegal law," because there is no such thing. I think he means "a law they know to be unconstitutional," but that's equally problematic because that turns every sheriff (and, of course, every other person burdened with the obligation to enforce laws) into their very own Constitutional skoller. What Whitmer has done is exercise her authority to issue Executive Orders in a time of a public health emergency, which she is legally authorized and required to do. If a sheriff doesn't feel like following those orders, they are breaking the law, not following some other law.
To sum up the two problems I have with what wmLambert said, a sheriff enforces the laws that are on the books and the
individual exercises his/her rights to challenge the appropriateness, legality or Constitutionality of the application of the law to themselves.
wmLambert's argument and his explanations so far are both muddled and wrong, unless of course he can explain what he means in a way that makes sense.
