Summary
“Constitutional sheriffs” are a group of law enforcement officials who believe they hold supreme authority in their counties and can disregard state and federal law.
These sheriffs have become prominent figures in the election denial movement, and some have taken actions that critics view as dangerous, such as attempting to seize voting machine, assembling armed posses to patrol near polling stations, and refusing to enforce any law they view to be unconstitutional.
The Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, led by Richard Mack, has bolstered the movement, attracting sheriffs nationwide and featuring prominent election denial figures like Mike Lindell and Michael Flynn at their events
I don’t care if your title is “sheriff”, or if you call yourself “constitutional”. By seizing voting machines, you’re a petty tyrant who’s not enforcing any law but your own.
They honestly sound like those sovereign citizens crap
I’d say worse, the SovCit people are ridiculous idiots but mostly just try to get out paying debts or traffic laws, these “sheriffs” are actively attempting to thwart democracy and should be hurled into the nearest prison for at least the next election cycle to think about what they did.
They’re all trying to do an end-run around democracy and society, it’s just a different level of power they believe they have.
Sov cits want it for themselves
These sheriffs want it for elections.
More dangerous, sure, but the same basic principle of “I can manipulatively read and misunderstand the rules so that they don’t apply to me”
Nope, these sheriffs do not “want it for elections”, they want it for themselves. We’re on the same side here and I’m sorry to be antagonistic but I don’t agree with you excusing their behavior as principled in any way unless you also do it for sovereign citizens, because it is exactly the same thing: “the rules only apply to me when it’s convenient.”
Yes, I think you misunderstood what I meant, I think we’re saying the same thing.
They both are “manipulatively reading the rules” to make the rules seem say something that gives them more power than they have and zero responsibility to their neighbour, city, state or country
Same basic principle of “things mean what I want them to mean”
The way I see it, sovcits want it for themselves to have freedom to do what they want (which can include imposing on others). “Constitutional” sheriffs want it for themselves to expand their power over others because police can do very well under a fascist system (until they do something against the party and then disappear… Or someone more connected in the party wants their power themselves… Or someone less connected wants their power and can act before the better connections come into play).
I wonder how many of the ones who want a fascist system for their own power realize how much of a target getting that power puts on them from pretty much all sides.
Also both the constitutional sherriffs and sovcits grew out of the militia movement of the 80s and 90s. They are basically the same movement just different aspects of it.
deleted by creator