Wednesday, August 02, 2017

Sheriff Arpaio Found Guilty of Enforcing the Law

Posted by Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host

I met Sheriff Arpaio about a year ago at the "Combat Veterans for Congress" event in San Diego.  I found him easy to talk to, and he loves to talk about guns.  I had a crossed-revolvers tie pin on my tie, and he said, "That's it?"  Then, referring to the larger pin on his tie, he said, "Mine outranks yours."

"Yes, Sir, it does," I replied.

"It's a Glock," he added.

"I see that."

Joe Arpaio is no longer sheriff.  He was voted out of office in November 2016, defeated by an obscure retired Phoenix police Sargent Paul Penzone.

But, that does not mean the attacks by the liberal left Democrat commies are over.  Arpaio dared to enforce perfectly constitutional immigration laws on the books, and the judges, thinking they are above the law, and can twist the law to mean whatever they want, have used their unconstitutional powers to slam Arpaio with "justice."

The former Arizona Sheriff was found guilty of criminal contempt for defying a judge's court order to stop traffic patrols that "targeted immigrants".  The proper term is "illegal aliens," with an emphasis on the word "illegal."  If they were "immigrants," they would have followed immigration protocol that is in place.

Nonetheless, despite the fact that Arpaio was targeting federal fugitives who had broken federal law by crossing the border illegally, and he was doing so within the context of the laws passed by Congress and Arizona, the judges, who think they are above the United States Congress and the State Legislature, charged the 85-year-old man with a misdemeanor contempt of court, declaring that he willfully defied a judge's order in 2011 and prolonged his patrols for another 17 months.

He defied a single black-robed person's order, who ruled outside the law, based on his own interpretation of the law, and in defiance of what the law actually says, and Arpaio could sit in jail over such madness?

Constitutionally, the judges are not supposed to be above the legislatures in terms of power.  They are supposed to be weaker than the legislatures, applying the law as it is written, not as they interpret it based on their own ideological whims.  (I explain the details of the three branches' relationship to each other in the first chapter of my book 25 Myths of the United States Constitution, where I tackle the myth that we have Three Co-Equal Branches of Government.)

Sentencing is scheduled for October 5, 2017, and Arpaio could face as much as six months in jail.

A Fox News article states, "Arpaio's lawyers argued that the former sheriff did not intend to break the law."

Arpaio did not break the law.  A judge's opinion is not the law.  The law is legislation, by Congress or the State legislature, not what a judge thinks it means based on a biased opinion.

A court order is not the law, and we need to get away from the idea of the judges thinking they can order anything at anytime because they think they can because they have a gavel in their hand and a black robe draped around their body.

Prosecutors insisted that Arpaio ignored the judge's orders because the former sheriff was attempting to boost his 2012 campaign.  In truth, he ignored the judge's orders because they conflicted with the laws on the books.  The judge's order was illegal, and unconstitutional.

Arpaio's lawyers said they plan to appeal the verdict, contending their client's legal fate should have been decided by a jury, not a judge.

Amendment VI. of the United States Constitution begins, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed."  So, yes, Arpaio's rights, as enumerated in the 6th Amendment, were violated by the judicial system.

Arpaio's lawyers also said U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton violated Arpaio's rights by not reading the decision in court.

So, what we have learned here is that not only do the judges believe they are the law, but that they can toss aside due process anytime they want.

The verdict was unconstitutional, and the court order was unconstitutional.  Yet, the judges believe they have the authoritarian power to force their will, despite what the law on the books say.

Tyrannical, at the least.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

No comments: