Episode 6

THE SHERIFF’S CONSTITUTIONAL OATH

Welcome to YesToHellWith.com.

In our last discussion, we examined the intentions of the Framers.

We asked whether they intended constitutional limitations to become meaningful only after years of litigation and extraordinary expense.

The structure of the Constitution suggests something very different.

The Framers designed constitutional limitations to restrain public authority while it was being exercised—not merely after the injury had already occurred.

Today we take the next step.

What does a constitutional oath actually require?

Nearly every significant public official swears an oath.

Judges.

Governors.

Legislators.

Military officers.

And Sheriffs.

But why?

If the Constitution were merely another document...

Why require an oath to support it?

The answer seems straightforward.

The Constitution cannot preserve itself.

It is only words on paper.

Its principles become meaningful only when those entrusted with public authority faithfully honor the oath they have taken.

The Framers understood human nature.

They understood that power naturally expands unless restrained.

That is why they divided authority.

That is why they required oaths.

They expected public officials to remain faithful to constitutional limits while exercising the authority entrusted to them.

An oath is not ceremonial.

It is a public promise.

It is a covenant between the officeholder and the People.

Every public official who voluntarily takes that oath accepts a continuing responsibility to support the Constitution—not only when it is convenient, but especially when it is difficult.

If that responsibility disappears...

If the oath becomes nothing more than words recited during a swearing-in ceremony...

Then one of the Constitution’s most important safeguards quietly disappears with it.

The Republic depends upon more than written documents.

It depends upon the integrity, wisdom, and courage of those who swear to support them.

That raises another question.

Not about the oath.

But about the office itself.

What exactly is the Office of Sheriff?

Did it originate with a legislature?

Was it created by statute?

Was it established by a constitution?

Or does it possess a much older history?

That is where we continue the conversation.

May truth reign supreme.

DID THE FRAMERS INTEND THIS?

Part 5 in the Series on Courts, the Constitution, and Remedies

Welcome to YesToHellWith.com.

In our previous discussions, we examined an important question.

If a citizen raises a constitutional objection during an administrative proceeding, but no one within that proceeding has the authority to decide the constitutional issue, and the citizen must spend years and enormous sums of money pursuing appeals before the constitutional question is finally considered, has the Constitution remained a practical protection?

Today we ask a different question.

Did the Framers intend our constitutional system to operate this way?

The evidence strongly suggests they did not.

The Framers did not draft a Constitution so government could act first and constitutional limits could be examined years later.

They drafted a Constitution to establish government and, at the same time, to restrain it.

Those limitations were intended to guide the exercise of public authority from the moment authority was exercised—not after the injury had already occurred.

The Framers understood something that every generation must remember.

Power naturally expands unless it is restrained.

That understanding shaped the entire structure of the American Republic.

It explains why governmental power was divided.

Why authority was delegated.

Why public offices were limited.

Why every public official was required to swear an oath to support the Constitution.

The Constitution was never intended to become relevant only after government had already acted.

It was intended to govern government while it acted.

That distinction is fundamental.

If constitutional limitations operate only after years of litigation, then they no longer function as practical restraints upon power.

They become remedies sought after the injury rather than protections preventing the injury.

That is not the structure the Framers designed.

But there is an even deeper lesson.

The Constitution, by itself, preserves nothing.

It is words on paper.

Its principles become reality only when they are understood and faithfully applied by the people entrusted with public authority—and by the citizens who elect them.

A free republic cannot survive if its people no longer understand the purpose of limited government.

If they no longer recognize the difference between delegated authority and unlimited authority...

If they no longer understand why constitutional boundaries exist...

Then the structure of the Republic gradually begins to invert.

Instead of government remaining limited and the people remaining free...

The people gradually become limited...

And government gradually becomes free.

That inversion rarely happens through revolution.

It happens through forgetfulness.

One generation forgets first principles.

The next generation accepts expanded authority as normal.

The next generation no longer remembers that anything has changed.

Eventually, the Constitution remains.

The institutions remain.

The elections remain.

The courts remain.

Yet the relationship between the people and public authority no longer resembles the Republic the Framers established.

This is why constitutional education is not merely an academic exercise.

It is a civic necessity.

A free country requires more than good laws.

It requires knowledgeable citizens.

It requires wise public officials.

It requires a people who understand not only what government may do—but what it may never do.

Without that understanding, no written Constitution can preserve freedom.

The preservation of the Republic has always depended upon an informed and vigilant people who understand the limits of power and insist that those limits be honored.

That is the conversation we must continue.

May truth reign supreme.

Limited Invitations available Tuesday evening at 7 pm EST

Why Do Administrative Tribunals Say They Cannot Decide Constitutional Questions?

Part Three

Welcome to YesToHellWith.com.

Yesterday, I asked what I believe is one of the most important constitutional questions facing Americans today.

If you’ve not seen that video, I encourage you to watch it first.

The question was simple.

If the Constitution limits government...

Where does the Constitution actually become a practical protection for the citizen?

Today, I want to take the next step.

Let’s assume you receive a citation from your city.

Perhaps it’s a zoning violation.

Perhaps it’s an ordinance concerning your property.

Perhaps it’s a licensing issue.

Whatever the issue may be, you appear before an administrative hearing officer.

You begin explaining why you believe the ordinance exceeds the constitutional limits placed upon government.

The hearing officer responds:

“I don’t decide constitutional questions.”

Or perhaps:

“My responsibility is simply to apply the ordinance.”

Most people hear that statement and immediately become frustrated.

They think the hearing officer is saying:

“The Constitution doesn’t matter.”

But is that really what is being said?

Or is something else happening?

Let’s ask a better question.

What authority has been entrusted to the administrative tribunal?

Notice what we’ve just done.

We have not begun with enforcement.

We have not begun with the ordinance.

We have not begun with the Constitution.

We have begun with authority.

That is where the Liberty Dialogues System always begins.

Administrative tribunals generally exist because a legislature or local government created them to administer a particular body of law.

A zoning board administers zoning ordinances.

A licensing board administers licensing regulations.

A tax tribunal administers tax statutes.

Each has been assigned a particular responsibility.

That responsibility is usually limited.

So when the hearing officer says:

“I do not decide constitutional questions,”

he may actually be saying something much narrower.

He may be saying:

“The authority entrusted to me is limited to administering the ordinance before me.”

Those are very different statements.

Now stop and think about what that means.

If the tribunal’s authority is limited...

Then the Constitution has not disappeared.

The question simply becomes:

Who has authority to determine whether the ordinance itself exceeds constitutional limits?

That is the question.

And that question leads us to another.

Suppose no one in the administrative process claims authority to answer that constitutional question.

Then what?

The city enacted the ordinance.

The city enforces the ordinance.

The administrative tribunal applies the ordinance.

The citizen loses.

Now the citizen is told that if he wants constitutional review, he may have to continue through additional proceedings.

Months.

Perhaps years.

Perhaps substantial legal expense.

So let me ask you something.

If constitutional protections become practically available only after years of litigation...

Have we really answered the citizen’s constitutional concern?

Or have we simply postponed it?

I’m not answering that question today.

I’m asking it.

Because I believe it is one of the most important constitutional questions we can ask.

The Liberty Dialogues System teaches us not to begin with conclusions.

It teaches us to investigate.

It teaches us to ask better questions.

So let me leave you with this.

If the administrative tribunal says it lacks authority to determine whether government has exceeded constitutional limits...

Where does that authority actually reside?

Who has it?

When may it be exercised?

How is the citizen supposed to obtain the benefit of constitutional limitations without years of litigation and extraordinary expense?

Those are not political questions.

Those are structural constitutional questions.

And in the next video, we’re going to ask what may be the most important question of all.

Did the Framers of the Constitution intend for constitutional rights to depend upon years of litigation before they become practically available to the people?

That is where we’ll continue the conversation.

May truth reign supreme.

Where Does the Constitution Actually Protect the Citizen?

Part 2 in a series about Courts, the Constitution and Remedies

Welcome to YesToHellWith.com.

Yesterday, I posted a video asking a question that many people had never considered before.

If you’ve not seen that video, I encourage you to watch it first.

In that discussion, I explained that administrative tribunals and hearing officers generally do not resolve constitutional questions. Their responsibility is typically to administer the statutes, ordinances, or regulations that have been enacted by the governing body that created them.

That raises what I believe is a far more important constitutional question.

If the Constitution limits government...

And if the administrative tribunal says it cannot decide whether government has exceeded those constitutional limits...

Then where does the Constitution actually protect the citizen?

Think about that.

Not in theory.

Not in a civics class.

Not in a campaign speech.

In real life.

Let’s use a simple example.

Suppose I own a 1977 Ford Pinto.

I’m rebuilding the engine.

I park it on my front lawn while I work on it.

The city has adopted an ordinance prohibiting automobiles from being parked on front lawns.

A code enforcement officer arrives and issues me a citation.

Now I ask you something.

How is that fundamentally different from a family placing a children’s clubhouse in the front yard?

Or a mother setting up a table, pots, soil, and gardening equipment while planting flowers?

Or children spreading toys across the yard while they play?

Each of those activities involves placing personal property on private property.

Each occupies space on the front lawn.

Each reflects a homeowner using his or her property.

Yet one activity is prohibited by ordinance while the others are generally permitted.

Why?

What constitutional principle allows the government to distinguish one use from another?

More importantly...

Who decides whether that distinction exceeds the lawful limits of governmental authority?

Suppose I appear before the administrative hearing officer and say:

“I believe this ordinance exceeds the constitutional limits placed upon local government.”

The hearing officer responds:

“I’m here to enforce the ordinance.”

“I don’t decide constitutional questions.”

So now what?

The city enacted the ordinance.

The city enforces the ordinance.

The administrative tribunal applies the ordinance.

The citizen loses.

And the citizen is then told that if he wants constitutional review, he may have to continue through additional proceedings that could require months or years of litigation and significant expense.

Now stop for just a moment.

Think about what just happened.

The Constitution supposedly limits government.

Yet the first governmental institution the citizen encounters tells him it cannot determine whether those constitutional limits have been exceeded.

That is not an accusation.

It is an observation.

And it leads to what I believe is one of the most important constitutional questions of our time.

Where does the Constitution actually become a practical protection for the citizen?

Who is responsible for ensuring that government remains within the authority entrusted to it?

When does that protection occur?

How does an ordinary citizen obtain that protection without spending years and enormous financial resources simply trying to reach a tribunal willing to address the constitutional issue?

These are not political questions.

They are structural constitutional questions.

The Liberty Dialogues System teaches us not to begin with conclusions.

It teaches us to begin with questions.

So I’m not asking you today to accept my answer.

I’m asking you to think about the question.

If the Constitution truly limits government...

Where, when, and through what lawful mechanism are those limits actually enforced in a timely and practical way?

Because if the only practical answer is years of litigation after the citizen has already suffered the consequences...

Then perhaps we should all begin asking whether the constitutional structure is functioning as the Framers intended.

That is the conversation we’re going to continue in the next video.

May truth reign supreme.

THE SHERIFF’S DECLARATION TO THE PEOPLE

Today, before Almighty God and before the People of this County, I accept the Office of Sheriff with humility, gratitude, and a profound sense of duty.

I recognize that this office does not belong to me.

It belongs to the People.

I have taken a solemn oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

That oath is not ceremonial.

It is a covenant that binds me before God, before the People, and before the Constitutions I have sworn to support.

I recognize that those Constitutions exist to preserve the freedom of the People by limiting the authority entrusted to public office.

They do not create freedom.

They preserve it.

I therefore make this Declaration.

I recognize that every person is born free.

Freedom does not originate with legislatures.

Freedom does not originate with courts.

Freedom does not originate with public officials or public employees.

Freedom is inherent.

The People bear no burden to prove they are free.

Whenever a public official or public employee seeks to restrict the freedom of another, the burden rests upon that official to establish the lawful authority, lawful jurisdiction, and lawful process supporting that action.

I recognize that the Office of Sheriff exists for one enduring purpose:

To preserve the peace while protecting the freedom of the People.

Freedom is seldom lost all at once.

It is most often diminished whenever public officials or public employees exceed the lawful authority entrusted to them.

For that reason, vigilance is one of the highest duties of this office.

Whenever actions affect the life, freedom, or property of the People, I will carefully examine the authority asserted, the jurisdiction claimed, and the process employed before this office participates.

No title alone establishes authority.

No badge alone establishes authority.

No office alone establishes authority.

Authority must always remain accountable to law.

I recognize that the vast majority of public officials and public employees strive to serve honorably.

Those who faithfully discharge the authority entrusted to them deserve my respect, my cooperation, and my support.

Those who knowingly exceed that authority should expect this office to faithfully discharge its own responsibilities with equal integrity, professionalism, and resolve.

This office shall never be used to intimidate peaceful people.

It shall never be used to burden them unnecessarily.

It shall never forget that public authority exists to preserve freedom—not to replace it.

I recognize that strong families, secure property, and due process are indispensable to a free people.

These principles shall guide every decision made within this office.

I also recognize that threats to freedom may arise from enemies abroad and from abuses of authority at home.

My oath requires vigilance against both.

There will be times when convenience points one direction while duty points another.

My oath will not change because circumstances change.

My principles will not change because pressure is applied.

My duty will remain constant.

Therefore, I pledge to preserve the peace.

I pledge to defend the freedom of the People.

I pledge to protect life.

I pledge to protect property.

I pledge to faithfully exercise the authority entrusted to this office with humility, wisdom, restraint, integrity, and courage.

I pledge to cooperate with every public official and public employee who faithfully exercises the authority entrusted to them.

And whenever the freedom of the People is threatened through the unlawful exercise of authority, I will faithfully discharge every responsibility entrusted to this office according to my oath and according to law.

When my service as Sheriff comes to an end, I pray that this County—and through faithful service, this Country—will be more free than when the People entrusted this office to my care.

That is my promise.

That is my covenant.

That is my oath to the People.

May Almighty God grant me the wisdom to remain faithful to it.

And may truth reign supreme.