[Vision2020] Background of previous post

Mon Apr 9 18:43:57 PDT 2012

Rosemary raises some interesting and, I think, extremely important questions about Mr. Henderson's approach to law enforcement, the Constitution, and what he would do as Latah County's Sheriff.  I would add another question of him and all other "Constitutionalists":  Are they "organic Constitutionalists," those who believe that the original document and the initial first ten amendments -- what we call the Bill of Rights -- is the only "real" Constitution, the only Constitution that reflects the intent of the original framers and the only Constitution worth defending and upholding?  Or do they respect and defend the subsequent amendments, which include, among other things, the extension of enfranchisement (voting rights) to women, as well as the granting of immediate citizenship to people born in the U.S.?  Which Constitution do they revere -- the initial document with the original ten amendments, or the Constitution whose expression of liberty and the highest ideals of our nation is codified in the amendments that came after the Bill of Rights?

The former is called "the organic Constitution."  The document as it stands now, with the addition of the other amendments, is often not embraced by those who proclaim a personal and political reverence for the Constitution.  The content of those amendments, however, are significant enough that I would want to know if anyone running for office in my community agrees with and is willing to defend the entire Constitution and all of its amendments, or simply what some have viewed as the "organic," original, ten-amendment-only Constitution.  

This isn't a question of historical and political semantics.  The political climate of the day poses a tremendous and very real risk to our nation and to each of its citizens, and I would want to know if a candidate, and particularly a candidate who appeals to my Christian brothers and sisters, is entirely supportive of the amendments added to the original Bill of Rights -- and not as an exercise in history, but as an indication of his or her views on enfranchisement, nativism, sexism, and other topics that require a depth of understanding not normally expected, but required in these days because of the recent insistence on "Constitutionalism."  We would all assume, I think, that no one running for office is against the document that gave our country structure, but the insistence on absolute adherence to the document raises a couple of questions:  WHICH document, in what form, and WHY the absolutist insistence on a principle generally assumed to be embraced by all candidates and office holders?  Clearly there's something beyond "good, civic Americanism" at work here, and I would want to know why some candidates seem to believe that it's required that they feverishly trumpet their reverence for a document that, in my memory, has not been seriously challenged or denigrated by anyone running for office pretty much anywhere in the U.S.

I'm only 51, so I don't personally remember the civil rights era that occupied my parents' time and energy, as well as their hearts and souls, but I know from history that certain terms, like "States' rights," sound innocuous but can actually mean, in their application, something more insidious and destructive to our country and the well-being of its citizens.  I believe that "Constitutional" is an example. Who among us wants to be thought of as "anti-Constitution"?  I don't recall ever knowing of a candidate for public office who campaigned on a platform of spitting on the Constitution; indeed, the very act of their submitting their names for consideration seems to be an affirmation that they are, in fact, "pro-Constitution."  Now we have something different, an attempt to co-opt an easily understood but relatively innocuous (because of its easily-understood nature) term like "pro-Constitution" that seems to mean something antithetical not only to the governing process itself, but something utterly beyond the agreed-upon understanding of what adherence to the document requires.  The terms are the same, but the definitions and application?  It's a whole new ballgame.

Henderson seems to believe that it requires that he, as sheriff, physically prevent the Feds from coming onto Latah County soil in case of a legal or procedural dispute.  Both the formation and the extension of that belief is frightening and, I think, probably not what some of his less-well-informed supporters would embrace.  Words matter, definitions matter, and context matters.  Unfortunately, very few voters are asking the questions, delving into the vocabulary, questioning the context, and challenging the application of this new "Constitutionalism."  My prayer is that Henderson's supporters, and especially those from his church, would take the time to understand the context of his innocent, safe-sounding words.  It ought to chill them -- but only if they check it out.  Failure to do so will keep them comfortable, safe, and unchallenged, but will result in something antithetical to community, security, law, and civil order as we understand it.

Lamentably, I think that's what Henderson and candidates like Gresham Bouma are counting on.  

Keely
www.keely-prevailingwinds.com

From: donaldrose at cpcinternet.com
To: vision2020 at moscow.com
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2012 14:30:17 -0700
CC: rickh340 at gmail.com
Subject: [Vision2020] Background of previous post

Mr. Henderson’s website appears to still be down.  Earlier today I read his website and copied the following quotes (which I found to be quite alarming). Rose Huskey Race for SheriffLocal  candidate Rick Henderson is running as a self-styled constitutional sheriff.  His website explains what he thinks that means.  He claims, in part “. . . a Constitutional Sheriff is one that views the oath of office in the highest regard!  The Sheriff swears to "...uphold the Constitution of the United States and the State of Idaho..." Further, the sheriff is the only law enforcement selected by a vote of the people. The sheriff is getting their authority from the people of their county, not any bureaucracy, to represent the interest of the people of their county. This means that as your Sheriff I put the highest emphasis on protecting YOUR rights; including infringements from other citizens and from other agencies.  . . .  In short, a Constitutional Sheriff believes in the "Rule of Law"; however the rule of law starts with the Constitutionality of that law.  There are those that think a Sheriff should not interpret a law (recall the Nuremberg defense here).  They believe that the legislatures know best.  I disagree!  I believe that legislature does have the authority to pass laws and that the Sheriff is obligated to enforce the lawful and Constitutional laws.  However, our system is designed to minimize the chance of our rights being infringed.  For example, we have seen the federal government try to say we are not allowed to protect ourselves or our livestock from attacks by various wildlife.Rick Henderson apparently agrees with the following statement from Sheriff Mack.“. . .The county sheriff is the line in the sand. The county sheriff is the one who can say to the feds, "Beyond these bounds you shall not pass." This is not only within the scope of the sheriff's authority; it's the sheriff's sworn duty. And what about the little guys; the individual police officers? It's all about judgement [sic] calls.   http://www.cspoa.org/intro.php 
=======================================================
 List services made available by First Step Internet,
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
               http://www.fsr.net
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
======================================================= 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20120409/72378b96/attachment.html>