« Administrivia – 14sep13 | Main | Ruminations – 18sep13 (updated 19sep13) »

16 September 2013

Comments

Gerry Fedor

It's rather humorous that our Elected Sheriff is going to introduce Mr. Mack.....

You remember our Sheriff, the one's who's waste millions of our counties dollars on his petty mmj ordinance. The one who continues the keep driving this ordinance built on lies forward.

We all need someone who's a bit more "honest" rather than our Sheriff Royal!

Gerry

MikeL

Gerry, I know this is a bit off topic but I still wanted to know how you are able to make so much money from your, I think you said 7.5 kilowatt, solar system.

If your sheriff, the highest elected offical of the local executive branch, is making laws then that is a problem, but I doubt that he is doing this. I am sure that you have an equal problem when the Califonia Governer decides to not enforce law or when the US President makes laws.

Ken Jones

One issue is the Union describing this as a nonpartisan event. Hardly. Our sheriff is displaying his politics and bias. Don't believe this is why he was elected.

stevenfrisch

No one, least of all Mr. Pelline, was suggesting proscribing Sheriff Royal from speaking. You are putting words in peoples mouths again. But the Sheriff needs to know that introducing Mr. Mack, and being a 'Constitutional Sheriff" with all of its trappings and nullification minded rhetoric, is going to cost him politically.

The law is a tricky thing...we craft it through legislation, court challenge and careful testing...for one man IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SHERIFF to determine which laws they will enforce and which they will ignore is not hat the voters of Nevada County voted for.

Michael Anderson

George, I am absolutely ecstatic that "Sheriff" Mack is coming to town. I'll be there with bells on my toes, just as I'm sure you would be if it were Maxine Waters speaking.

But just as you would be trumpeting from the tree tops who Waters is and what she stands for, so is Pelline, myself and others, doing the same with "Sheriff" Mack.

Have a quick read of this SPLC report, there's some allegations in there I'd like to see refuted (if possible): http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2012/winter/resurrection

Russ Steele

Ken Jones@07:29AM

Non-partisan -> everyone is invited: Democrat, Green, Independent, Republican, Libertarian, and any other political flavor that resides in the County. There will be no one checking your voter registration at the door. The only thing preventing your attendance will be your own narrow minded thinking.

George Rebane

re stevenfrisch 759am - "The law is a tricky thing...we craft it through legislation, court challenge and careful testing...for one man IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS (President of the United States or Governor of California) to determine which laws they will enforce and which they will ignore is not what the voters of Nevada County voted for."

stevenfrisch

So when California Sheriffs like Keith Royal stop enforcing the law I fully expect them to be prosecuted to the fullest extent possible by the Justice Department and make their Counties liable for civil suit from the victims of the laws they did not enforce.

I can see it now....Nevada County citizens killed by deranged gunman who the Sheriff refused to do a background check on or enforce gun control laws on...who do you think is going to pay for that?

The theory of nullification has been rejected repeatedly by the courts, and it has never been legally upheld. You may think it is a right granted by our Constitution, but the Supreme Court of The United States disagrees. Instead nullification led to civil war and the death of more than 600,000 Americans.

Face it George, the whole "Constitutional Sheriff" movement is nothing but political kabuki theater.

If I were Sheriff Keith I would be very concerned about that SPLC report.

Joe Koyote

So if it is OK for constitutional sheriffs to pick and choose which laws to abide by and which to discard, does that make it OK for the rest of us as well?

Gregory

Nullification is real, Frisch, though justices keep wanting it to go away. It even forced the repeal of Prohibition as prosecutors couldn't get 12 people to convict.

Even Obama is picking and choosing which of his own laws his administration will enforce in order to keep Obamacare from imploding. How is that different? Is it because the President is above the law? How Nixonian of you!

Gregory

"So if it is OK for constitutional sheriffs to pick and choose which laws to abide by and which to discard, does that make it OK for the rest of us as well?"

It isn't illegal to not make an arrest so they aren't picking which laws to abide by. Not enforcing a given law isn't illegal.

fish

The law is a tricky thing...we craft it through legislation, court challenge and careful testing...for one man IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SHERIFF to determine which laws they will enforce and which they will ignore is not hat the voters of Nevada County voted for.

I guess the sheriff isn't a TOP MAN like the wise legislators who craft our laws...eh Steve?

Ken Jones

Russ the speaker is hardly nonpartisan nor our sheriff. I consider those two and the extreme right having captured the market on narrow minded thinking.

Paul Emery

Our Sheriff has no problem enforcing Federal Marijuana Laws which are contrary to State law. So much for States Rights in that issue. Perhaps it's the Federal bucks that roll in that temper his idealism.

Gregory

Paul, it's also possible he just doesn't like pot.

Bill Tozer

Thought is was up to the Counties to enforce/interpret the medical marijuana laws. Like if it ok or not to grow where visibly seen by kids at a school bus stop or too close to a neighbor. And the Supes put that enforcement duties squarely on the shoulders upon our local lawmen..Yep, they have been doing compliance checks and writing fix it tickets. Shame on them.

The real rub is when they are performing their compliance checks, they come across some with warrants, some felons with firearms, and some that are out of their minds on meth and have to cite em for child endangerment, aka, the bad apples.

Sheriff Joe got in hot water cause he chose to enforce laws of the land, like catching and detaining people who enter US soil unlawfully. Imagine that. There should be a law against enforcing those laws.

Let's not be native here. How many of your have been pulled over for some traffic violation, acted respectfully to the officer, and were given a warning to slow down next time or take care of that brake light? I know I have on many an occasion, by the Sheriffs and the Nevada City Police, and even the GVPD.

Its been years since I got an actual ticket. I should have received more. Was running late to the airport and heading through an Auburn construction zone. The Auburn police officer asked it I did not see that 14 foot flashing sign that said SLOW DOWN--25MPH. I told him I honestly didn't. He asked me how fast was I driving. I replied 50mph. He ran the checks and came back and gave me a choice. I could either accept the speeding ticket or be cited for the broken windshield. Figuring I have to fix that darn windshield anyway, I opted for the fix it ticket. He said he was offering me that choice only cause I told him the truth about my speeding. Actually, I was going 53mph and he knew that and I knew that, but lets just round it off.

Think people are pissed off that our Sheriff's are actually enforcing the County Medical Marijuana part of the pot grows. Go ahead, disagree. Used to be a law against spitting on the sidewalk in CA. Don't know if it is still on the books, but some would cry foul if ever cited for it. Only ones cited for that would be those who are confrontational SOBs.

Funny how people flaunt the law with impunity, then suddenly become jailhouse lawyers caring deeply about the laws of the land when busted. Always working an angle.

On a very local level, it is the Sheriff that calls the shots in a way. Arrest or cite? In Louisiana's Parishes, the Sheriff says what bars can stay open past last call and is pretty powerful.

Also, on a local level, its the local Judges that tell law enforcement what to do. A warrant is an order from the judge to physically bring a person before the court. Physically. That usually means arrest and booking, no matter how much the person complains about his/her rights or cites the law. Always best to be nice to those who can make you late for supper.

Paul Emery

Bill

You cannot ignore the influence of the Billions of Federal dollars distributed to local agencies to enforce the failed "War On Drugs".

Paul Emery

Also Bill California's Medical Marijuana Laws are State Law. The so called local measure is a Nuisance Ordinance intended to circumvent State law and deny access to those with legitimate MM recommendations. It will likely be overturned at the election booth with a special election next spring. Proponents have gathered thousands of signatures for the revised ordinance which will increase access and throw out the ill advised current regulation.

fish

You cannot ignore the influence of the Billions of Federal dollars distributed to local agencies to enforce the failed "War On Drugs".

OMG....Agreeing with Paul Emery? See kids miracles do happen!

stevenfrisch

There is a fundamental difference between nullification by a jury and nullification by an elected official. If one does not want to enforce the laws they should not run for Sheriff. In the case of the "Constitutional Sheriffs" they are saying "if you pass this law we will not enforce it". That is a violation of their oath of office and 'nullification' on an institutional level. That is what we fought a civil war over.

stevenfrisch

In many cases "not enforcing a law" is illegal. What if a Sheriff decided not to enforce child sodomy las because they are a member of NAMBLA, would we say, "hey they get to act on conscience"?


Second problem, as a citizen I am due equal protection; so enforcing a law against one class of citizen and not enforcing it against another is a violation of equal protection. If there were a law that said "semi-automatic weapons are illegal" do you expect the Sheriff to not take semi-automatic weapons out of the hands of people they believe are a threat? If as Greg alleges enforcement is discretionary, then why do law enforcement agencies regularly lose equal protection cases? The proof would be in the pudding, who would law enforcement enforce the law against? Does the Tea Party contingent here profess taking that power out of the hands of the people as expressed by the legislature?

The third problem is that if the legislature of my state or the US Congress passes a law, as a citizen I have a right to have that law enforced. If one does not enforce the law and as a result of that negligence something that harms me ensues, the state (in this case the county) can be liable.

Finally, allowing Sheriffs the latitude to decide which laws they are enforcing violates separation of powers. If Sheriffs as elected officials are the "highest executive authority in the county" as Richard Mack contends, then by refusing to enforce laws passed by the legislature they are in violation of their constitutional oath.

In short, this entire idea is intellectually bankrupt, historically flawed, and dangerous for other local government entities who would either cede power or assume liability. Crackpot bullshit.

rlcrabb

In 2008, the citizens of California passed Prop 8. The state's top law enforcement officer, Attorney General Kamala Harris, refused to defend the will of the electorate in the Supreme Court case. It doesn't matter whether or not you agree with the ban on gay marriage, it's the AG's job to carry out the law. So who is it that picks and chooses which laws they want to enforce?

fish

In short, this entire idea is intellectually bankrupt, historically flawed, and dangerous for other local government entities who would either cede power or assume liability. Crackpot bullshit.

I love it when you get the vapors!

Sheriffs have to be selective all the time due to budget and manpower issues as well as a whole host of other constraints.

You don't like Macks politics....were he more in line with the Steve Frisch I bet you would cut him more slack.

Gregory

"What if a Sheriff decided not to enforce child sodomy laws" -Frisch

There's a victim involved there, Steve, your disingenuity is showing. The victims identified by the constitutional sheriff types are, for example, the folks who might have an ugly rifle that the Feds (or Jerry Brown) think the sheriff should arrest for merely possessing such an icky thing. Only politician's bodyguards need them.

Victimless crimes, Steve. Try a'gin.

RL, nope, there is no law forcing the AG's office to actually provide a vigorous defense of a proposition passed by the will of the people. I don't have a problem with that (a principled "there is no good defense" should be enough of a fig leaf); but proponents of the measure should have standing to defend the law in court if the AG won't.


Bill Tozer

When I sued the Clinton administration in 1994, I never imagined that Justice Scalia - the author of the ruling for the majority - would be so profound and powerful with his defense of the Tenth Amendment. Not only did Scalia say that the "States are not subject to federal direction" and that the US Congress only had "discreet and enumerated powers" and that federal impotency was "rendered express" by the Tenth Amendment, he also proclaimed that the States "retained an inviolable sovereignty." You would think that these statements alone would be monumental enough and would provide sufficient ammunition for all state and local officials to stand against any governmental tyranny without any hesitation. Nevertheless, Scalia went even further in this landmark decision, one in which two small-town sheriffs headed the Feds "off at the pass" and sent them on their way. Scalia, in his infinite obligation to the Constitution, took this entire ruling to the tenth power when he said, "The Constitution protects us from our own best intentions...so that we may resist the temptation to concentrate power in one location as an expedient solution to the crisis of the day."

Seems to me that Sheriff Mack is against the enemey of the Constitution of the United States, aka, a Centralized Federal Government that exceeds Constitutional Authority. My enemy as well. We all should be praising his stand on State's Rights.

Me thinks the undie knotting here is about Sheriff Royal, not Mack. About access to medicine, not some lawbreaker dude hauling 250 lbs of dope across state lines. Don't be a bunch of dopes. "Crisis of the day" is spot on Justice Scalia.

Bill Tozer

"In short, this entire idea is intellectually bankrupt"

Me thinks the Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you there Mr. Stevenfrisch, just like the Supreme Court disagreed with the current administration and others that Obamacare fell under the wide reaching Commence Clause.

stevenfrisch

Yeah, Greg, the victim in not enforcing state and federal gun laws is the poor sap who gets shot in the head.

Bill Tozer, nullification has been tested in the SCOTUS several times...if you can cite your facts re: the SCOTUS disagreeing with my position please do so.

Walt B

I do hope the constitutional sheriffs stick to their guns
and refuse to "obey" unlawful laws.(blatantly unconstitutional)
It's no different than what others here have pointed out about
"O" and Moonbeam picking and choosing which laws to ignore.

I have my doubts about our own sheriff. I tried to find out his stance
on this more than once, without an answer.
I was asking the question even before the new state laws had been drafted.
( I knew full well Jerry's kids were going full steam to attack the 2ND,, in spades.) Well, here they are all 12, sitting on Moonbeam's desk.
Again I ask,, are you going to hold fast, hold your head high and give Brown the finger? Or cave and go polish your badge?
One thing will be certain if Brown signs those Bills. There will be plenty
of brand new criminals, just with a signature.
Not many are going to register those weapons. Then there are those that will lose the right to own guns.( overnight) But they are not felons. A misdemeanor
will be good enough. 10 years is a long time to be defenseless when you don't deserve to.

Then there is AR "fix" Leave it to Ca. to demand gun makers to build another " California special" That should cost a pretty penny.
The same goes for ammo. when the anti lead ban takes hold. Price it right out of reach.
You can bet that reloaders will be next on the hit list. Get caught reloading your own without a license, or what ever else they dream up, and your life becomes a nightmare.

Gregory

"Yeah, Greg, the victim in not enforcing state and federal gun laws is the poor sap who gets shot in the head."

Wouldn't it be easier, not to mention constitutional, to make shooting people in the head illegal?

Already is? Good. What about not letting felons or people adjudicated to be mentally ill? Already is. Hmmm, so what law (real or proposed) is the problem?

Gun show loophole? Doesn't exist. It's a federal felony to be in the business of buying and selling firearms without a Federal Firearms License, and it remains in effect wherever they go. The meat of the current background check for everyone kerfuffle is transfer between family members, and I think you'd have a hard time getting a jury to convict anyone for giving their son or daughter one of the family firearms, assuming they aren't forbidden due to criminality or mental illness.

I think you'll find Mack & friends are not against very many gun laws currently on the books. Can you name one for discussion?

Paul Emery

For those of you that consider public assembly an important right you should check out the regulations proposed today by the Sheriff and County Council placing strict requirement to public gatherings in the unincorporated areas of Nevada County. The BOS punted on the proposal but it will be back.

Gregory

Golly, Steve, refusal to enforce a federal law isn't nullification by this treatment in the wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_%28U.S._Constitution%29#State_Refusals_to_Assist_in_Enforcement_of_Federal_Law

It does appear Mr. Frisch has his head up his ass. Perhaps he can pop it out to revise and extend his remarks.

Joe Koyote

America has more people in prison (per capita) than anyone else in the world. It seems as though we, as a people, must be a fairly criminal bunch with so many of us in jail. If law enforcement itself is picking and choosing which laws to obey and which ones not to obey, wouldn't that set a bad example for the rest of the population? Wouldn't John Q. Citizen say to himself, "Hell, if the sheriff can do it so can I?" Can a soldier decide which enemies to fight and which ones not to fight? Allowing these kinds of antics from law enforcement officials sets a bad precedent and could lead to more general lawlessness than our over-populated prisons can already hold. Sheriff is supposed to be a non-partisan office and political ideology should not play any role what-so-ever in the process of implementing and enforcing the laws of the land as created by the representatives of the people. This is especially true when a sheriff holds extreme viewpoints not in conjunction with the general population they serve. If that becomes the case then anyone arrested for anything can find a lawyer who will argue political bias or discrimination of some kind or another.

When a sheriff or any other law enforcement officer puts on his/her uniform they need to leave their politics at home and enforce the laws even when they politically disagree.. it's their job. If they don't like it, tough crap, find another occupation or work to get the law changed like the rest of us. This isn't an effort to champion the constitution, it is an effort to destroy it.

Michael Anderson

Greg wrote: "I think you'll find Mack & friends are not against very many gun laws currently on the books."

So "Sheriff" Mack's appearance is about nothing more than some hypothetical gun laws, not yet on the books?

Paul Emery

From the proposal:
"The proposed Ordinance would expand the definition of
an "Outdoor Festival"to include any outdoor gathering of 100 people or more for the purpose of attending a "commercial, recreational, civic or social function"

It seems lik the "Conservastives" are leading the charge on this regulation that would require a permigt from the sheriff for any gathering over 100 and of course would incorporate appropriate fees and conditions. Here is the full pdf. It doesnt cut and paste well. Check it out.

http://www.mynevadacounty.com/nc/bos/cob/docs/Board%20of%20Supervisors%20Supporting%20Documents/2013%20Supporting%20Documents/09-17-2013/14.pdf



Bill Tozer

Thanks Paul for being on top of this. I have to get a permit before the boyz get together for the yearly huge gathering of paint ball wars up in them thar hills.

Dr. Rebane, I would like to go see Maxine Waters here. Would even pay. Just to see if the old adage "like a fine wine just gets better with time" is true. Would love to see Harry Belafonte as well. Loved his tally me banana song...er...banana boat song. Enjoyed how that song was used in Beatlejuice. Brilliant. Maybe Harry will be long winded as usual and we can can sing "Daylight come and I want to go home" as an encore.

Paul Emery

Bill

The proposed ordinance would would also include wedding receptions and partiesof over 100 on private property for example. I really don't understand why our Sheriff is gong in this direction. The proposal from County Council had his approval and, to my understanding, was proposed by him.

Keith Royal has been a rally good Sheriff for Nevada County but he seems to want to write laws himself. Having cops write laws is like having doctors invent diseases.

Bill Tozer

Paul, were have you been? I don't know where you live, but the County has been turning the screws on the unincorporated areas since before the 49er fire. Writing laws? Heck, we have people writing laws every darn day at every level of government. That's all they do is write laws. Some call them lawmakers. The only time we get a reprieve from the onslaught is when Congress or the State Legislature is on recess. Then they come back with a vengeance. While Congress is out on recess, the departments are busy writing regulations with the force of law behind the regs. Its for our own good.

I don't think this will be an issue until SYRCL or The Sierra Club meets on somebody's spread for a shin-ding social event and are busted for not having a permit. Might even affect some little old ladies annual sewing bee or some ice cream social at Mr. Redwood Deck's Save the Whirled Peas Casa Blanco.

Stay on top of it, Paul This smells of an anti-Hell's Angels love fest gathering. I already posted once that there is talk in a nearby county to start taxing well water. Our lords and masters are turning over single every rock looking for a greenback. County Livin' in God's Country.

Michael Anderson

Paul, it seems like Sheriff Royal is really going off the deep end. As the main resident KVMR journalist for the KVMR news team, please investigate what is going on here. I completely don't understand what he is intending with a whole lot of his newest initiatives, it is almost like he has Tourettes.

I do understand the new Large Gathering initiative, but it needs to be thought out through and through, and there needs to be multiple public comment periods to vet it.

The main thing, going back to Sheriff Royal, is that he is seeming to vigorously support the appearance of "Sheriff" Mack in October. Does Sheriff Royal support every and all of "Sheriff" Mack's diatribes and associations?

Having an answer to this question is not just a nice thing to know, it is the key to our governmental system. If I do not get a satisfactory response to my question in these various Internet forums I will meet with Sheriff Royal personally and get back to everyone with his response.

Yours, in service...

M.

Paul Emery

I agree Michael. Keith Royal has been a fine Sheriff for Nevada County with a disciplined and well managed organization. I don't know if he's bored or is trying to please the wrong people but this proposal, which has his support, is way off the charts especially for a "conservative" that claims to be opposed to new regulations and increased fees and taxes.

My guess is that the proposal for this ordinance came from his office but it's only a guess at this point.

Bill Tozer

Paul, I read the ordinance. Every word. Seems more targeted at a music venue that anything else. Just reading the ordinance I fail to find the source as the Sheriff's Department as you cite. However, if Bob Dylan or even Country Joe MacDonald and the Fish were to play under the stars around Bowman Lake on private property, yeah, a permit would be reasonable.

What always pops out is the fees for inspection (not stated), re inspection and all the departments that have to sign off...that is a lot of pencil pushers poking around. Only a $100 fine (with the usual threat of 6 months in the clink) but another clause of a 5k penalty on top of the misdemeanor.

Do like the requirement for a handicap toilet to conform with all federal laws (ADA and Clean Water Act, and, and, and)for groups over 125. Guess if you keep it to 99 attendees. you can screw the handicap Johhny of the Spot.

Hey, just keep everything to 99 attendees. First come, first serve. Sorry Charlie, you can't come in.

Costs of the old back yard wedding just went up, even if you played pre-recorded CD's. Can't catch a break.

stevenfrisch

Posted by: Gregory | 17 September 2013 at 06:45 PM

I read the cases cited, Prigg v. Pennsylvania and Printz v. United States last night and they clearly do not cover the issue I brought up. They cover whether or not the federal government can compel the State (not a single elected official). It also does not apply to the issue as stated by the "Constitutional Sheriffs" who are also objecting to State laws restricting guns.

You even point to the sentence, "States therefore may refuse to use their legislative or administrative resources to enforce federal law", without even stopping to think what it may mean.

In short, you don't know what the heck you are talking about.

fish

This isn't an effort to champion the constitution, it is an effort to destroy it.

No worries Joe.....been dead for years!

stevenfrisch

Fish: Joe is entirely correct, the "Constitutional Sheriff" movement is an attempt to intervene in governance by determining which laws are enforced and which are not. The proponents elevate 2nd amendment rights over state sovereignty or other enumerated or implied rights like equal protection and general welfare. These decisions are made by courts, not Sheriffs. You may speculate about me 'cutting more slack' to one who represents my views, but the genera; effect of granting these rights to Sheriffs would be that everyones individual rights are diminished.

fish

I stopped reading after, "Joe is entirely correct".

George Rebane

Regarding this comment stream, I draw your attention to the 18sep13 update to the post.

Paul Emery

You neglect to say that the " untold misery in job destruction and economic malaise nationwide" happened when Bush was head of state. He was either asleep at the wheel or knew what was coming down and was unable or unwilling to do anything about it. Much like your hero Calvin Coolidge in '29 who fiddled while America burned..

Paul Emery

That comment was for George

Joe Koyote

Reading these commenters and their lines of argument is truly and education in the study of our polarization and the widening gulf that divides us.--

Perhaps the gulf widens because the extreme right wing, as expressed in these posts, is so far out of touch with most Americans as to be laughable. Yet you want to put the blame on the left, on "socialist or collectivist" ideas rather than your own extremism. It is your positions that widen the gap. Free Market Capitalism was the economic engine that fueled the industrial revolution and moved much of the world's population from subsistence farming to subsistence wage earners while the elite still ate cake as they did in feudal times. At least people could feed themselves while still down on the farm. Now many have to rely on charity either from gov't or private sources when the economic elite decide their profit margins are too slim to invest in jobs (at least in American jobs). Perhaps it is time for open minds to consider other economic models that might serve the needs of a planet with increasing population and decreasing resources better. Or are your ideological positions so ensconced as to limit your thinking as to other possibilities?

George Rebane

PaulE 949am - The origins of the Great Recession have been much debated with no agreement in sight - for now we'll have to leave it there since you will acknowledge no liberal involvement. But after the Obama's ascendancy the economic malaise and job destruction (that continues to this day, and invisible to the naifs in statistics and data analysis) belongs to no one but Team Obama whose members labor in the administration and Congress. It is all of part of the fundamental transformation as I and many others have reminded readers.

You are apparently unfamiliar with the economic history of the 1920s to the extent of not knowing that Calvin Coolidge was long gone from the White House when Black Tuesday (29 October 1929) occurred. And as any mildly interested student of the 1930s depression will tell you, it was the monetary and regulatory policies rushed into place under Hoover and doubled down on by FDR that really caused and maintained the Great Depression, giving rise to SecTreas Henry Morgenthau's famous 1939 lament to Congress when unemployment was higher than when FDR took office.

Paul Emery

Well spoken Joe. What is never discussed is that in the last depression (yes I call it that) nearly 30% of our population still lived on small farms so they were able to grow their own food and take care of their families. Not so today with less than 2% living on farms.

George Rebane

JoeK 1014am - Indeed my ideological position is so "ensconscd" on the side of sanity that I will not support the umpteenth redo of demonstrated socialist (cum communist) error and misery. Large scale collectivism in any of its forms is a slippery slope and a confirmed scourge to humanity. You guys should really abandon your own sclerotic ideological tenets and again give liberty, individual responsibility, and entrepreneurship a chance.

Carping that 'next time we'll get it right' only works with the sheeple. But then again, therein lies the strength of your message.

Paul Emery

George

Calvin Coolege was President when buying stocks on the margin became legal therefore resulting in what was a significant but not catastrophic decline in the market-around 15% turning into a catastrophe when the stocks were recalled by the lenders. In my view that was indeed a bubble and he sat on his hands and did nothing much like Bush. Money was flying around and fortunes were made and there was no leadership to guide the country.

" Buying stocks on margin means that the buyer would put down some of his own money, but the rest he would borrow from a broker. In the 1920s, the buyer only had to put down 10 to 20 percent of his own money and thus borrowed 80 to 90 percent of the cost of the stock.

Buying on margin could be very risky. If the price of stock fell lower than the loan amount, the broker would likely issue a "margin call," which means that the buyer must come up with the cash to pay back his loan immediately. "

http://history1900s.about.com/od/1920s/a/stockcrash1929.htm

George Rebane

PaulE 1029am - that kind of argument gets you nowhere. Free markets to tend to oscillate and correct themselves very quickly when allowed to clear (it's systems science thing). It is the subsequent intervention that deepens and prolongs the misery, and more so when the central planners decide they know enough to prescribe draconian rules intended to smooth out future bubbles and dips. The only smoothing there that has worked is nationally uniform economic destitution resulting from such prescriptions from collectivist governments.

fish

" Buying stocks on margin means that the buyer would put down some of his own money, but the rest he would borrow from a broker. In the 1920s, the buyer only had to put down 10 to 20 percent of his own money and thus borrowed 80 to 90 percent of the cost of the stock."

I agree....Calvin Coolidge was the main reason people in the 1920's were stupid.

Or are your ideological positions so ensconced as to limit your thinking as to other possibilities?

I'm all ears Joe...what do you propose?

Gregory

"You even point to the sentence, "States therefore may refuse to use their legislative or administrative resources to enforce federal law", without even stopping to think what it may mean. In short, you don't know what the heck you are talking about." Frisch 4:04AM

Frisch, you keep refusing to think about what it means. There is apparently no law that compels sheriffs to use their administrative resources to enforce laws they believe to be unconstitutional, and they answer to the voters of their county. If the state, or the feds, want something done, they remain free to do it themselves.

Your perversion of equal protection is particularly odious; prior restraint against millions of people on the slim chance that one of them is likely to shoot Steven Frisch in the head if they were allowed to own an icky semi-automatic rifle that has been widely available for the better part of a century isn't "equal protection" any more than forbidding unregistered printing presses (or web servers) would be an equal protection case for people concerned about libel.


" effect of granting these rights to Sheriffs would be that everyones individual rights are diminished."

Frisch, they have the right to prioritize enforcement now. Putting the enforcement of laws the sheriff doesn't think constitutional below doughnut, coffee and potty breaks appears to be the sheriff's prerogative.

stevenfrisch

Re: George's Update:

Proof point: "Hey, screw you Washington, I don't believe in Brown versus the Board of Education of Topeka Kansas, thus I refuse to enforce it. Let little brown ones live with separate but equal." Response: National Guard de-segregates schools.

Selective enforcement may be PRACTICED but it is not legal...as found by the SCOTUS and backed by force if necessary. If a state legislature passes a law banning assault weapons, and the courts uphold it, the Sheriffs have to follow it, no matter whether they BELIEVE it is un-Constitutional or not, just like a school board or a governor has to follow a de-segregation order, or they will go to jail...and all your [and Greg's] exhortations that you think you know better don't mean crap.

Paul Emery

A reliable source informed me that the hammer to squash a bug proposal on outdoor gatherings was initiated by Sup Nate Beason because of a noisy party on Cement Hill earlier this summer. Typical Conservative motive. Oppose regulations unless it is to support the convenience of your friends.

George Rebane

PaulE 1258pm - that would indeed be a surprise if Nate "initiated" that ordnance. Any government stricture to prevent, control, limit public gatherings should be carefully reviewed, and opposed if there is a shadow of a doubt that it can be misused by overzealous govt agents/agencies. Is it a secret to reveal which Supervisor originates which such initiative; in short, why is that not an item of public information???

Gregory

Regarding bureaucrats writing laws, I recall one where they just made them up. A Rude Center employee, asked circa 2000 about the yard sales in unincorporated areas of Nevada County, said 'Technically, they're illegal because we don't issue permits for yard sales'.

I hope they were bitch-slapped by their superiors for that one, but I doubt it happened.

fish

Selective enforcement may be PRACTICED but it is not legal...as found by the SCOTUS and backed by force if necessary. If a state legislature passes a law banning assault weapons, and the courts uphold it, the Sheriffs have to follow it, no matter whether they BELIEVE it is un-Constitutional or not, just like a school board or a governor has to follow a de-segregation order, or they will go to jail...and all your [and Greg's] exhortations that you think you know better don't mean crap.

Probably wouldn't go to jail....might be removed from office. Still if a sheriff had the stones it would be a welcome change from the useless tits that seem to predominate now.

Not to worry Steve....there will always be somebody above you to direct you and order your daily existence. I'm sure that will come as a great relief.

Gregory

Steve, you keep proving my point. Brown v. Education was (and remains) a valid equal protection case and the Feds acted appropriately with rogue local officials harming children, while your rabid defense of so-called Assault Weapons bans is not. What you want is a prior restraint on my and everyone else's rights over a weapon that is, at best, used in 4% of violent crime (the number for rifles of all kinds).

The latest, on Governor Brown's desk (or on its way) redefines Assault Weapon as any semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine. All the pretenses of it being a military weapon on the streets is now stripped away, thanks to a California State Legislature Gone Wild. We shall see if Brown is "feeling lucky" or has one eye on the Colorado recalls.

Paul Emery

George

Supervisors do encourage legislation based on what they perceive is the needs of their constituents by directing staff to propose solutions to present to the whole board. This one appears to be dead in the water as written but we'll see what happens.

Bill Tozer

Seems Keith Royal is not the bad guy for trying to bust up back yard weddings. Paul (who is abreast of these kind of things) is probably correct that he runs a well disciplined force. I am not privy to know for sure since my dealing with law enforcement is limited to an occasion traffic stop, which is growing less frequent through the years since I stopped driving $400.00 cranksta gangsta cars with red tape for taillights. And I intend to keep it that way. Amerika has been berry berry good to me.

Wasn't it President Andrew Jackson that said (some say he didn't say it) of a Supreme Court ruling he disagreed with: "They have made their decision, now let them enforce it." On the last day of the presidency, Jackson admitted that he had but two regrets, that he "had been unable to shoot Henry Clay or to hang John C. Calhoun." His supporters later formed the Democrat Party.

Digression over: We are talking roles of local lawmen. We are not talking about breaking existing laws, but rather enforcing/not enforcing laws deemed unconstitutional. Those who are old enough can remember when Pat Brown closed all the Houses of Ill Repute in CA. Whether a local lawman here or there gave the blind eye for such places and didn't shutter the doors may have happened. Either way, they got closed in due time. Pragmatic people understand that you just don't snap your fingers and it is done tomorrow. Even that no smoking in bars was not complied with overnight.

Sheriff Mack's beef apparently was with the Federal Government, not local or State laws. When the people's rights are infringed upon, anyone can address their grievances through our 3rd Branch of Government, which Mr. Mack did. He did it for you and me, the little people.

stevenfrisch

Greg, only you are making this about guns, I merely used it as an example..frankly a better example would be child sodomy laws. NAMBLA actually has made the case that it is violation of constitutional rights. My point is that a Sheriff does not make the laws, they enforce them. Pure and simple.

Todd Juvinall

I wonder what happened to our outdoor rock concert rules from the 80's when big names came to Boreal and other laces.

Bill Tozer

Good recall Todd. Deadheads showed up here in troves for a little drugs, sex, and rock and roll (or so I was told). Can't remember, hahah.

Gregory

"Greg, only you are making this about guns, I merely used it as an example" -Frisch 4:29PM today

"I can see it now....Nevada County citizens killed by deranged gunman who the Sheriff refused to do a background check on or enforce gun control laws on...who do you think is going to pay for that?"
-Frisch 8:49AM yesterday

You were the first to bring up guns on this thread, Steve. Your disingenuousness is again showing.

The constitutional sheriff types have made it clear its substantially about guns, as have the people who are supporting them. This all started gaining momentum with the alarm about huge ammunition buys by the Feds and the push in Congress to dip hands in the blood of Newtown children to again try to ban more guns. Period.

Tozer, Local Poe-leeese in various California venues were remarkably cool with what went on at Grateful Dead concerts. A long history of peaceful crowds who didn't drink till puking or weren't taking drugs recklessly had a lot to do with it. I recall a concert venue first aid provider, the Haight-Ashbury Free Clinic, chatting with a reporter... Grateful Dead concerts were a non issue, the occasional old hippie wandering in when they realized their dose was more than they wanted to handle outside of a safe place, but Led Zeppelin concerts were referred to as "pukefests", kids just downing anything that was handed to them.

stevenfrisch

It is an example you frigging buffoon.....the other points I made used other examples.....you Greg are a complete ass. If you support nullification on guns you set the precedent to support it on pedophilia....lets just have law enforcement pick all their own pet laws to ignore...

Gerry Fedor

Mike L - I laughed at the calculations that were made as they forgot one inportant thing....

Our system is on the top of a hillside and we have sun from 15 minutes after sunrise until 15 minutes until after sunset. The calculations that you were referencing and I was disputing were for (if I remember right) for 6 hours of sunlight exposure, while we get (on June 15th) exposure from 5:30am until @8:00pm - This is one of the longest days, but we were getting @17 1/2 hours of exposure.

I know that today we had (directly from the read out on the front of our inverter) 54.4 KWHr and at @5:50pm we are still generating @3945 watts.

This system has been extremely efficient, but again we have excellent sun and the tracking system helps too!

Gerry Fedor

Opps, I meant 15 minutes before sunset.....

Gregory

Buffoons are as buffoons do. Frisch, your buffoonery is showing.

The difference between the 2nd Amendment crowd and NAMBLA is that the gun nuts have a SCOTUS ruling that the 2nd really does confer an individual right to own and carry guns, while even in Frisco, NAMBLA hasn't convinced anyone who isn't interested in buggery themselves.

Hint: if you want to screw boys under 18, run for Congress and play with the congressional pages... the age of consent in D.C. is 16, and at least one Democrat congresscritter was celebrated in death despite all the pages he banged. Go for it, just not in Nevada County, where at least one former County politico is said to have been caught in flagrante delicto with a young boy and given the choice of either staying out of local politics forever, or going to jail.

Gregory

One sentence in my 6:09PM should have read "NAMBLA hasn't convinced anyone who isn't interested in child buggery themselves."

rlcrabb

Don't know about Boreal, but the Dead concert at the fairgrounds in 1984 made quite an impression on Grass Valley. Local officials, from the city council to the Board of Supes, were horrified by the freaks who showed up. It was the beginning of the end for the big shows at the fairgrounds. Not long afterward, the Supes tried to stop a concert by Crosby, Stills and Nash because of David Crosby's high profile drugs and weapons bust in Texas. They weren't successful, but it was one of the last rock shows in GV.
Crosby later went straight after he needed a liver transplant. He looked pretty good when I saw him at the Vet's Hall last year. Don't know if he's still into handguns.

Bill Tozer

Mr. Gregory and Mr. Crabb: Not that it matters much, but I did not mean to say Deadheads were a bunch out of control drug crazed freakazoids like one would see at an AC-DC venue. Not even close. Or even like moi.

Although I never followed the Dead, I met many a groupie that would follow them everywhere. Like it was a full time job or something. You could blow them over with a deep breath they were so mellow. Also, those groupie chicks taught me a thing or two when I would run across them on occasion on life's journeys.

Once I was at a Boy Big Boy's restaurant in Toluca Lake one late evening and fine younger lady I was with said "Don't look now, but Jerry Garcia just sat down right behind us!" I turned at saw a fat white bearded dude sitting back to back to my booth and asked "Who is Jerry Garcia?" I was looking around for somebody famous, not that old hippie dude shoving a Big Boy into his mouth behind me, lol. Boy o boy, my date sure was pissed at me for asking "Who is Jerry Garcia?" Guess when she said the Dead, I must have been thinking the Dead Kennedys, who were fun to slam dance with her while drunk the week before. Was it something I said? She thought I was out of touch. Imagine that. Moi?

Bill Tozer

Concerning Sheriff Mack: "One man of courage is a majority" Andrew Jackson

Paul Emery

Following up on this weeks Supes meeting with a reminder that the public gathering ordinance proposed was far more encompassing that just rock concerts. It reads that ""The proposed Ordinance would expand the definition of
an "Outdoor Festival"to include any outdoor gathering of 100 people or more for the purpose of attending a "commercial, recreational, civic or social function"

It also includes extensive background checks on all "applicants" and police clearance before a license is issued. Makes me wonder where our local "property rights" advocates were and how they let this slip by.

George Rebane

PaulE 113pm - excellent point about CABPRO. I will ask Chuck Shea.

Paul Emery

Just to let you know in advance I'll be interviewing Sheriff Mack probably the week before he speaks in Nevada County. I'll let you know the exact date and time.

Michael Anderson

Paul, be sure to ask "Sheriff" Mack if he is willing to go to jail in support of his civil disobedience.

Gerry Fedor

Gregory - you sure seem to have a real "fix" with Buggery and MAMBLA

Telling?

Todd Juvinall

I think yhlou mean Frisch and MichaelA. Gregory is a nice famiy man.

stevenfrisch

I merely mentioned NAMBLA as an example of an aberrant sub-culture claiming constitutional rights. Now personally I don't claim any particular moral superiority, as you do, nor do I judge other adults personal sexual mores. But seeing your behavior here Todd, I doubt you have much of a leg to stand on when defining a 'family man'.

Todd Juvinall

k,SteveF, I unlike you have raised a very nice family. You know nothinbg about family that is why you use things like NAMBLA as an example. So sorry to burst your bubble but I am the normal one here SteveF.

stevenfrisch

"He who is without sin amongst you, let him cast the first stone..." John 8:7

The correct response to Greg Fedor would have been that it is unfair to cast such an aspersion on Gregory, not continue the practice yourself Todd. I am frankly shocked that your stated values and your behavior are so divergent.

stevenfrisch

I do however think we should just stop this side thread and get back to the point of the comments...the contention that an elected Sheriff has standing to defy the law and not enforce the laws of the nation he is sword to uphold.

Todd Juvinall

I never cast the first stone SteveF, you seem to do that all the time.

Regarding the laws. I think your pal Obama is disregarding the laws all the time and has set an example for all to follow. ICE overlooks and Arizona has to pass a law to enforce Federal laws that the Holder and O refuse to enforce. There are more. I would suggest the Sheriff is the Patriot here.

Todd Juvinall

h and Fedor is a simpl minded chump with no scruples about lying as to his solar income. Too funny. On to the airport. Adios CCE.

Gregory

"I merely mentioned NAMBLA as an example of an aberrant sub-culture claiming constitutional rights."

And the fallacy of that was, of course, that you were trying to use it to draw a parallel to gun groups, which you obviously think is also an aberrant sub-culture despite gun owning households to be the rule not the exception in the county in which you have chosem to live and work, and they not only claim constitutional rights but those rights have been upheld by the SCOTUS.

In fact, unlike many of the most sacred rights of the hard left, this particular right is even found stated plainly. In the first 10 fixes to the Constitution no less.

Frisch, a sheriff who does not enforce a particular law, especially if they believe a successful court challenge is likely, is not defying it. Defying that law would be doing it themselves.

Is Obama "defying" the Affordable Care Act by not applying certain clauses to groups he favors?

Michael Anderson

"On to the airport."

Ick. So Todd, when you're in the stall, tell us how that whole hand-waving thing works.

George Rebane

Just a note that no liberal here has picked up on the observation (see 18sep13 update) that POTUS and Moonbeam are national champions in selecting which laws to enforce, sidestep, ignore, and regulate around. Only crickets.

George Rebane

MichaelA 1006am - Behave yourself Michael.

Bill Tozer

"I merely mentioned NAMBLA as an example of an aberrant sub-culture claiming constitutional rights."

If you are so interested in NAMBLA, become a CA public school teacher. A free flowing exchange of ideas is the foundation of education, is it not. That's what I was told. Part of the self discovery thing. Conservatives and other closed minded bigots not welcome.

http://granitegrok.com/blog/2013/07/california-democrats-on-track-to-pass-public-school-pedophile-protection-act

Bill Tozer

http://granitegrok.com/blog/2012/10/because-someone-asked-for-it-public-school-sex-abuse-for-the-record

All's quiet on the Western Front, indeed.

Gregory

Tozer, say what you want about pedophiles, but at least they drive slowly in school zones and near parks.

Bill Tozer

Oh Mr. Gregory, excellent reply. Two thumbs up. From the Balls of Montezuma to the shores of West Berkeley.

stevenfrisch

Posted by: Gregory | 21 September 2013 at 09:57 AM


No Gregory, I mentioned gun laws because the Constitutional Sheriffs sent letters to the federal government stating that they would not enforce new gun laws if they were passed.

Paul Emery

Stephen

I wounder if they also won't enforce Civil Rights laws because they also might feel they are a violation of States Rights.

"Today I have stood where Jefferson Davis stood and took an oath to my people. It is very appropriate then that from this Cradle of the Confederacy, this very heart of the great Anglo-Saxon Southland, that today we sound the drum for freedom. . . . In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny. And I say, Segregation now! Segregation tomorrow! Segregation forever!"

George Wallace, 1962 Governor's Inaugural Address

Gregory

"Greg, only you are making this about guns, I merely used it as an example" -Frisch at the top of the thread

"No Gregory, I mentioned gun laws because the Constitutional Sheriffs sent letters to the federal government stating that they would not enforce new gun laws if they were passed." -Frisch now

Make up your mind.

George Rebane

PaulE 1145am - And your point? (also see my 18sep13 poem)

The comments to this entry are closed.