All Power to the Counties

Did the federal government ask its citizens’ permission to usurp all political power and centralize it in Washington, D.C.? No. Did the federal government abide by the provisions of Article V of the Constitution by asking the States to ratify Constitutional amendments that centralized all political power in Washington, D.C.? No.

The federal government simply declared that it was Constitutional to take all political power away from the State and local governments, and then did it. Article 1, Sections 8 and 9 of the Constitution and Amendments 9 and 10 of the Bill of Rights notwithstanding.

Christians should do the same thing to the federal government, by decentralizing all political power to their county governments, starting now. Christians can do this by electing county officials who will decline to enforce any and all federal edicts.

Federal policymakers rule from Washington, D.C., but to a surprising extent must still rely on county officials to enforce those policies. The reason is that our Founding Fathers did not design the federal government to be a standalone stucture, but rather an overlay that must be supported by State and county governments.

It’s already happening:

When Congress passed the Brady Bill in violation of the Second, Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution, it placed the burden of enforcing it on County Sheriffs. Sheriffs Richard Mack of Arizona and Jay Printz of Montana, declined to enforce the Brady Bill and sued in a federal court.

They won their lawsuit, but not because they were right about the Constitution (which they were). As everyone should know, federal judges don’t care about what the Constitution actually says. They won the case because federal courts realize there is no effective means by which they can compel elected Sheriffs to enforce federal law. And federal judges will not knowingly make an order they cannot enforce.

Sheriffs Richard Mack of Graham County, Arizona and Jay Printz of Ravalli County, Montana are examples of county officials who have the courage and honor to stand up for the Constitutional rights of their county’s citizens. They were elected by the pro-Constitution Christian citizens of those counties. By electing them, those citizens prevailed over federal judicial tyranny.

Another county official with courage and honor hails from Bighorn County, Wyoming - Sheriff Dale Mattis, who refused to allow the FBI to investigate county residents for gun possession. Again, the feds backed down.

What would happen if other county officials in other counties had the guts to do the same thing as these three Sheriffs?

What would happen is a county-based counterrevolution against the lawmakers (lawbreakers) in Washington, D.C. (District of Criminals).

What else could we do?

For example. the federal government’s anti-fatherhood, anti-family policies are handed down from Washington, D.C. But these destructive laws are enforced by elected county judges.

Every year, county governments collect hundreds of millions of dollars by extorting “child support” from fathers. A majority of States keep all of the “child support” they collect on behalf of children who receive public assistance, after giving the federal government a cut of the take.

The federal government awards grants of taxpayer money to encourage wives and mothers to accuse husbands and fathers of “abuse” and “domestic violence” The unstated goal behind federal domestic policies is to use court intervention to undermine paternal authority. If the husband/father resists, the government removes him from his own home, by means of “orders of protection.” This allows the government to replace the father with government money, in the form of welfare, “child support” and other forms of government assistance.

These policies and procedures are designed to and are succeeding in destroying the integrity of the family. They decrease the marriage rate, increase the divorce rate, promote dependence by women and children on government, make paupers of husbands and fathers, limit childbirth, move mothers into the workforce, and place children into government schools or programs at ever younger ages. If the father is absent from the home and the mother works outside the home, nothing remains to interfere with the government’s brainwashing of children.

Can anything be done to stop the federal government from destroying these families? Yes, we can elect county officials who refuse to enforce these policies.

Proceedings to collect “child support” are initiated by county attorneys. Prosecutions for “abuse” or “domestic violence” are commenced by county district attorneys. County judges have the power to dismiss these cases, or to divert them to pastoral counseling.

The entire anti-family, anti-fatherhood agenda of the federal government could be halted in any given county by the concerted action of a few county officials.

Let’s look at another issue: taxes. The federal government imposes unfunded mandates on States to promote government welfare programs. These unfunded mandates have caused a rapid increase in State and local taxes. Some States have passed laws refusing to tax their citizens for these unfunded mandates.

But many submissive and corrupt States pass the buck by mandating that counties pay for the federal mandates through county property taxes and sales taxes.

What can be done about rising State and local taxes? Let the elected officials of those counties decline to raise or collect taxes to pay for the unfunded mandates. The federal government currently has no means of its own to collect taxes on retail sales or real property. Real property taxes are usually under the control of county officials.

What if some federal judges intervene?

Yes, some overreaching federal judge might be persuaded to order elected county officials to vote a certain way, or to decide a case a certain way, or to enforce laws a certain way. Federal judges order a lot of things, but their enforcement powers are limited.

Courts are designed to adjudicate cases and controversies among individual parties. Judges feel secure fining individual persons or holding them in contempt. But federal judges are reluctant to take on State or county officers who may exercise government power of their own.

Twice, federal courts backed away from a showdown with a single State official - Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore. While he was a County Judge in Etowah County, Alabama, a federal judge ordered him to remove a copy of the Ten Commandments posted in his chambers. He refused. Nothing happened.

After the people of Alabama elected Judge Roy Moore their Chief Justice, the same confrontation occurred. A federal appeals court ordered him to remove the Ten Commandments from State Courthouse on July 1, 2003. Judge Moore refused. The federal trial judge set a deadline of August 20 to remove the Ten Commandments, and threatened to fine the State of Alabama $5000 a day thereafter. Judge Moore refused. The “deadline” came and went. The federal courts did nothing to enforce their orders.

When push came to shove, the federal courts chose to rely on the State of Alabama to remove Judge Moore through the State’s judicial process. We can only speculate on the content of the telephone conversations between the federal judges and the Alabama’s state officials, e.g., “When are you going to enforce our order?”

Why didn’t federal judges hold the recalcitrant Judge Moore in contempt of court and order him jailed, forthwith? Why did they delay enforcement of their order and merely threaten a fine? Why did they finally decide to rely on state officials to enforce a federal judicial order?

The answer is that they were afraid that no one, from the President on down, would enforce their order. Certainly Karl Rove was not about to permit Bush II to send the Armed Forces into the State of Alabama to remove a monument of the Ten Commandments.

Ultimately, federal judges must rely on the President to enforce their orders against State and local governments. Some Presidents have declined to do so. For example, President Andrew Jackson declined to enforce an order from Supreme Court Justice John Marshall, and President Abraham Lincoln declined to enforce the Supreme Court Justice Roger Taney’s Dred Scott decision.

The ultimate confrontation:

Finally, let us consider the ultimate scenario. County officials decline to enforce federal laws. Federal judges order them to do so. County officials refuse to obey the order and continue to decline to enforce federal laws. The Attorney General asks the President to send in the Armed Forces, and the President agrees and does so.

What will American soldiers do? Depose the county government and kill or arrest its leaders? It is one thing to fire on the foreign soldier, and another to fire on one’s own elected officials. Some soldiers will do it, as they did at Waco, TX. Some soldiers will refuse.

How many counties can be dealt with in such a fashion? If new elections are held, what is to prevent these counties from electing representatives who will do the same thing?

Will American soldiers round up and shoot the voters?

Defying the Wizard of Oz:

In order for the federal government to continue its tyranny, it must to convince us that it is great and all-powerful, that no citizen or group of citizens may oppose its will and stand in its way. And it commands us to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

The truth is the opposite. The federal government’s enforcement powers are limited. It must rely on State and county officials to perpetrate its many tyrannies. If county officials refuse to do so, the federal government has no effective long term remedy to compel enforcement and compliance. Federal judges are powerless to enforce their own orders. Federal law enforcement is equipped to deal with individuals, not entire governments. As of 1996, according to the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics, the ratio of armed federal law enforcement officers to individual citizens was 1 to 3200.

The majority of law enforcement officers are elected or appointed at the county and local levels. They control what laws are enforced at the county level, and what laws will not be enforced.

Look at the courageous Christian men who have led the way. Look to Judge Roy Moore, first elected by the citizens of Etowah County, Alabama. Look to Sheriff Richard Mack, elected by the citizens of Graham County, Arizona. Look to Sheriff Jay Printz, elected by the citizens of Ravalli County. Montana. Look to Sheriff Dale Mattis, elected by the citizens of Bighorn County, Wyoming. They all stood up the federal government and said “No!” In each and every case, it was the federal government that backed away.

The federal government avoids confrontations with State and county governments because it knows it will not win them.

Christians elected these courageous and honorable Judges and Sheriffs to county office. We can elect more of them.

Let’s stop complaining. Let the counterrevolution begin.

X - In Hoc Signo Vinces

Luke Exilarch - luke@exilemm.com
January 29, 2004