Effort to abolish local sheriffs a stealth federal power grab?

[Ross]

I know there is a lot of fear mongering going on through out our country.
But I feel it is our responsibility as citizens to pay attention, perhaps I'm wrong, I don't know.

I just recieved an e-mail forom a friend that appears to perhaps be just that.
I have sent off a copy of the following to Snopes to see what information they may provide,
after I hear from them I may check other sources.

Anyway just for what it's worth here is the story for your information.

 

Effort to abolish local sheriffs a stealth federal power grab?

A news report has been quietly making its way around the alternative media, under the radar screen, concerning a Delaware legal decision to strip county sheriffs of their arrest powers in the state.
The mainstream media has not reported the story, but the son of Vice President Joe Biden, who serves as Attorney General for the state of Delaware, has issued a mandate to county commissioners informing them that sheriffs in the state's three counties no longer have arrest powers.
When the information reached this reporter late yesterday evening, further investigation revealed that there is a nationwide effort to strip local sheriffs of most of their enumerated powers that are mandated in the state constitutions of the various states. Such a move would have the net effect of abolishing local sheriffs departments and strengthening the power of federal law enforcement agencies.
And this is not the first time such an effort has been launched.
In the 1970s an initiative was launched by county supervisors in California to eliminate the office of sheriff, but one supervisor instead was able to persuade two state legislators to get a question placed on the California ballot as to whether or not the office of the sheriff should be an elected office. The measure passed overwhelmingly, and the mandate for elected sheriffs was placed in the state constitution.
And in 1935 President Franklin D. Roosevelt was set to eliminate all of the 48 states in order to implement nine regional governments that would operate as extensions of the federal government. All local law enforcement would be eliminated. The plan failed, but the fact that it was attempted points to an ever present, insidious stealth plan on the part of some within the federal government to take away the right of the people and the states to elect their own local law enforcement and to vastly strengthen the hand of the numerous federal law enforcement agencies that currently operate throughout America.
Proponents of such unconstitutional measures desire to forge a world government of sorts under the control of the United Nations. Various methods are used to expedite this plan, including the infamous 'Agenda 21' that has raised the alarm among some citizens.
The key to the success of the implementation of such plans is enforcement. How would the federal government insure compliance among the states and their citizens?
Dozens of federal agencies have their own law enforcement divisions, and those divisions are growing quickly under the Obama Administration. Homeland Security is purchasing 450 million rounds of hollow point bullets. The IRS will need roughly 16,500 new employees to implement ObamaCare. The White House has just sent $500 million to the IRS to enforce the new healthcare law. The EPA's recent penchant for using heavy handed tactics outside the authority given to it by Congress has placed businesses under the gun and stymied economic recovery. Citizens complain that the agency regularly violates private property rights.
And then there are such agencies as the FBI, ATF, DEA, ICE, and others that are under suspicion for widespread corruption in the Fast and Furious scandal, a fact that has not hampered Congressional Democrats from calling for massive new funding and expanded powers for these agencies.
The move to weaken and dismantle sheriffs offices around the country is viewed by Constitutional watchdogs as an ominous signal in a broader attempt to usurp the rights of citizens on the local level in lieu of an expanded nationalized police force under the control of a federal bureaucracy.

A news report has been quietly making its way around the alternative media, under the radar screen, concerning a Delaware legal decision to strip county sheriffs of their arrest powers in the state.
The mainstream media has not reported the story, but the son of Vice President Joe Biden, who serves as Attorney General for the state of Delaware, has issued a mandate to county commissioners informing them that sheriffs in the state's three counties no longer have arrest powers.
When the information reached this reporter late yesterday evening, further investigation revealed that there is a nationwide effort to strip local sheriffs of most of their enumerated powers that are mandated in the state constitutions of the various states. Such a move would have the net effect of abolishing local sheriffs departments and strengthening the power of federal law enforcement agencies.
And this is not the first time such an effort has been launched.
In the 1970s an initiative was launched by county supervisors in California to eliminate the office of sheriff, but one supervisor instead was able to persuade two state legislators to get a question placed on the California ballot as to whether or not the office of the sheriff should be an elected office. The measure passed overwhelmingly, and the mandate for elected sheriffs was placed in the state constitution.
And in 1935 President Franklin D. Roosevelt was set to eliminate all of the 48 states in order to implement nine regional governments that would operate as extensions of the federal government. All local law enforcement would be eliminated. The plan failed, but the fact that it was attempted points to an ever present, insidious stealth plan on the part of some within the federal government to take away the right of the people and the states to elect their own local law enforcement and to vastly strengthen the hand of the numerous federal law enforcement agencies that currently operate throughout America.
Proponents of such unconstitutional measures desire to forge a world government of sorts under the control of the United Nations. Various methods are used to expedite this plan, including the infamous 'Agenda 21' that has raised the alarm among some citizens.
The key to the success of the implementation of such plans is enforcement. How would the federal government insure compliance among the states and their citizens?
Dozens of federal agencies have their own law enforcement divisions, and those divisions are growing quickly under the Obama Administration. Homeland Security is purchasing 450 million rounds of hollow point bullets. The IRS will need roughly 16,500 new employees to implement ObamaCare. The White House has just sent $500 million to the IRS to enforce the new healthcare law. The EPA's recent penchant for using heavy handed tactics outside the authority given to it by Congress has placed businesses under the gun and stymied economic recovery. Citizens complain that the agency regularly violates private property rights.
And then there are such agencies as the FBI, ATF, DEA, ICE, and others that are under suspicion for widespread corruption in the Fast and Furious scandal, a fact that has not hampered Congressional Democrats from calling for massive new funding and expanded powers for these agencies.
The move to weaken and dismantle sheriffs offices around the country is viewed by Constitutional watchdogs as an ominous signal in a broader attempt to usurp the rights of citizens on the local level in lieu of an expanded nationalized police force under the control of a federal bureaucracy.

[Diane Amberg]

Ross, say what you want about the rest of the coutry, but the Sheffif's Dept. is different here, We've discussed this before.
  It's under the Attorney General.. They do not have or need arresting powers.They support the entire court system by serving papers ,setting up foreclouse sales and that kind of thing. They are not the supreme policing agency as they are in some states.
The sherrifs here go back to colonial times before there were regular police agencies.  As they apeared, the sherrif's duties were modified. The Sussex County sherrif for many years, was a real character,big mustash and all. He wanted so much to be able to arrest people, but the exising police agencies didn't want it and the local citizenry didn't  either.
Sussex county is still fighting it, but loses every time, hence the news paper article trying to make a big deal out of it.
Here in New Castle County, and Kent County, the next county south, everybody is happy with the way things are.  Our sherrifs here have not had arresting powers for many,many years and don't need them.
  You brought this up,or I'd never have commented, but I thought you might want to get it right. Our county sherrif is a friend. ...imagine that! I did some of his training many years ago too.

[Janet Harrington]

Kansas has laws to take care of that.

19-801a: Sheriff; election, term, bond. Except in those counties operating under the provisions of any consolidated law enforcement act, beginning with the general election in 1976, a sheriff shall be elected in each county, for four (4) years. Such sheriff shall, before entering upon the duties of the office, execute to the state of Kansas a good and sufficient corporate surety bond, issued by a company authorized to do business in Kansas in an amount fixed by the board of county commissioners of not less than ten thousand dollars ($10,000). Such bond, when approved, shall be filed in the office of the county clerk.

The Kansas Statutes, starting with 19-801a, state what the sheriff does. I didn't anything in the Kansas Constitution that says anyone has the authority to strip any elected official of their duties in the state of Kansas.

Different states have different laws. The Kansas Sheriffs' Association is a very big organization and I am sure that if an attorney general in the state of Kasnas were to try what the Deleware AG did, would have a difficult with the fine sheriffs of this state.

[kshillbillys]

Ross, say what you want about the rest of the coutry, but the Sheffif's Dept. is different here, We've discussed this before.
 It's under the Attorney General.. They do not have or need arresting powers.They support the entire court system by serving papers ,setting up foreclouse sales and that kind of thing. They are not the supreme policing agency as they are in some states.
The sherrifs here go back to colonial times before there were regular police agencies.  As they apeared, the sherrif's duties were modified. The Sussex County sherrif for many years, was a real character,big mustash and all. He wanted so much to be able to arrest people, but the exising police agencies didn't want it and the local citizenry didn't  either.
Sussex county is still fighting it, but loses every time, hence the news paper article trying to make a big deal out of it.
Here in New Castle County, and Kent County, the next county south, everybody is happy with the way things are.  Our sherrifs here have not had arresting powers for many,many years and don't need them.
 You brought this up,or I'd never have commented, but I thought you might want to get it right. Our county sherrif is a friend. ...imagine that! I did some of his training many years ago too.

I wasn't going to do this but i'm feeling quite bitchy tonight: Ms. High and Mighty might want to use spell check before she posts. My husband was chewed on for typing a little quickly and misspelling Bible in a post recently. You, my dear, have several misspelled words on here: coutry, i'm assuming must be COUNTRY; SHEFFIF's isn't a word but I will assume would be SHERIFF'S; again with the word SHERRIF, I believe that's one R and two F's; mustache, moustache, mustachio have those three spellings but nowhere could I find MUSTASH; NEWSPAPER is ONE word; Sheriff is misspelled all the way through your little rant; and lastly, your use of commas kills me. Is the keyboard still sticking on you or are your old arthritic fingers not able to type anymore? Maybe a mild form of dementia? YOU, dear, are a TEACHER, by your admission; I'm just a lowly hillbilly who was also a 4 year spelling bee champ and journalism major. Nevertheless, you should really check your own spelling before you go around correcting others!---Jennifer

P.S. I forgot...exising? Must be EXISTING!

[Diane Amberg]

Lowly hillbilly? Since when? Good for you for catching my errors. I did leave them on purpose, just to see what would happen... I'm still trying to improve my typing and I am failing miserably. Honest ,it's true.
You have always been a good speller and I've complimented you on it in the past.
    Now, you know my spelling isn't really THAT bad, so you must have known I was up to something. By the way,I never saw a comma I didn't like.   As far as poking your hubby on" bilbe"...lighten up, I was just poking him in fun. There was a time when another person would have landed on him for real. Sorry you can't see my humor for what it is. I'm told by friends it's because it's in writing and in a face to face it would be understood.
There are others on here who know how to toss it back and forth and not get mean in the process...sorry you don't get it.
  I am interested in one thing though.Why didn't you do something with your interest in journalism? I have a feeling you would have been very good.

[Patriot]

Good for you for catching my errors. I did leave them on purpose, just to see what would happen... I'm still trying to improve my typing and I am failing miserably. Honest ,it's true.

Such a leftist.  Just like her cousins Obama & Biden... everything they do, no matter how incongruous, has some preplanned purpose & is done with conscious intent.  They never err... honest, it's true!  NPD if ever there was.

[Diane Amberg]

I don't care if you believe me or not ,why would I ? My typing IS miserable .Why would I lie about it?

[Patriot]

I don't care if you believe me or not ,why would I ? My typing IS miserable .Why would I lie about it?

"Why would I care?  I'm a narcissist and am never wrong!  I'm perfect, therefore I can't lie.  You're imperfect & therefore can't appreciate my perfection & omniscience, let alone understand my purposes.  You poor miscreants, I pity you.  But I'll tolerate you if I must."

Insanity?  Or just really lame circular logic?

[Diane Amberg]

What is wrong with you today? Somebody desecrate your pillow?

[Bullwinkle]

     In the words of Bug's, " What a maroon".