Editor,
There has been a lot of criticism of the stand our sheriff has taken on enforcing Federal Government regulations. The Sheriff said (and I am assuming the ADH fact checked) in the original article that a Supreme Court decision relieved him of the burden of enforcing Federal regulations. I assume a decision from the Supreme Court would ‘trump’ the Sheriff’s oath.
And where was the outrage when the president decided not to enforce immigration laws, the Attorney General to not prosecute the Black Panthers and “Fast and Furious,” or for that matter when the Supreme Court, whose main purpose to enforce the Constitution, enacted a new tax law from the bench? All revenue bills MUST originate in the House!
Further, let me say I am not a fan of the sheriff. He was elected without ever having served as a patrol officer, which I am totally against. As I am against the way the outgoing sheriff assures the election of his chosen replacement by resigning a year early and getting replacement appointed to replace.
This is sick and strikes me as exceedingly unhealthy for the office and the community. It has happened in at least the past three sheriff’s elections.
William C. Curtis
Sweet Home