A right-wing sheriffs group that challenges federal law is gaining acceptance around the country
Politics@kbin.social – 0 points – apnews.com
A national group of sheriffs that claims the top law enforcers in American counties are not bound by federal law has successfully spread its doctrine to dozens of states in recent years.
It all started with the legalize marijuana movement, now we are here.
Do you want local governance or top down governance from a thousand miles away? At what distance does it become colonialism? States are not required to enforce federal law, they just can't violate the constitution.
Legalized weed led to fascist, smooth-brained cops?
A big distinction being that sheriffs didn't legalize weed, State legislatures did. That does set up a big constitutional issue that the federal government has just ignored, but the linked article is different than that.
I think Good Things are good, Bad Things are bad, and violence should be used to make more of the first thing and less of the second thing.
An overseer torturing an enslaved worker on a plantation is "local governance".
The 54th Massachusetts Infantry shooting that overseer through the head and heart like Peter Weller 22 minutes into RoboCop is "top down governance from a thousand miles away".
The location of a government is not what makes it inherently good or bad, it's what that government does.
Killing slavers—lest there be confusion—is good.
What about the FBI and the airforce bombing black neighborhoods in 1985? Like literally bombing them. Was that the kind of top down governance you want?
No, what makes you think I want that kind of governance?
I have already said Good Things are good and Bad Things are bad.
Fascist sheriffs: Bad
Bombing the MOVE building: Bad
What in the phrase
reads in any way as support for Philadelphia pigs bombing people?
If anything it reads to me as firmly against that sort of thing.