The Supreme Court-vindicated ideology of the sheriffs, police, state officials and posse nullifying unconstitutional Federal laws


“When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.”

This article describes what “constitutional sheriffs” are, why they keep a ‘posse comitatus’ (militia) which every able-bodied citizen should join, and why every conscientious citizen should persuade their local sheriff and other state officials to join the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association.

In a November 2022 article titled “Does your sheriff think he’s more powerful than the president?”, USA Today states that “Richard Mack has built a “Constitutional sheriff” movement to resist state and federal authority on guns, COVID-19 and now election results.” The Internet teems with countless hit pieces on Mack, most of them referring to his ideology as "false" and his group as being "fringe." Mack's ideology is far from being baseless, as it has been vindicated by the Supreme Court as this article demonstrates in a self-verifiable manner. And Mack's group is far from being fringe, as he's been able to train at least 800 sheriffs since founding his organization in 2011. There are altogether 3,081 sheriffs across the nation, states the National Sheriffs' Association. Sheriff Mack needs our help in completing his job of training the rest of the sheriffs and other key state officials on understanding their constitutional rights against the Federal government described below.

The USA Today article on Mack and his association quotes political scientists Emily Farris and Mirya Holman claiming that Mack’s organization has “successfully radicalized a generation of sheriffs to believe that the office has seemingly unlimited power and autonomy.” This is a complete lie, according to Sheriff Mack’s own materials on his organization’s website. Mack does not advocate that county Sheriffs exercise unlimited power in a lawless manner, but advocates that they keep their oath of office to honor the edicts of the U.S. constitution alone when faced with unconstitutional laws enacted by Federal bureaucrats. Mack explains in his book titled “Are You a David? America's Last Hope Volume II:”

“How can we take an oath, literally swear to obey and defend our constitutions, both State and Federal, and then self-righteously claim a higher moral duty to violate said oath because [federal] lawmakers expect us to go along with their payback legislation to donors?”

Mack, who defines unjust laws by unconstitutional laws, persuasively points out:

“DURING the infamous Nuremburg trials in which Nazi officers were tried for the murder of thousands of innocent people During World War II, the soldiers who committed these heinous acts used as their defense in court that they were "just following orders." The court found them all guilty and maintained "following orders" was no justification for committing such atrocities.”

“Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Lenin all depended on local officers to cooperate with their laws of death and destruction," writes Mack, explaining,

“Please show me the statute where it says all laws must be enforced regardless of how cruel or stupid they are. The very essence of tyranny is defined by the blind enforcement of stupid laws. We are not puppets for the courts or legislatures! Thomas Jefferson said that laws often are merely the "tools of the tyrant." To go along with laws that we know, or should know are wrong; protects and serves just who? We are sworn officers to uphold and defend the U S Constitution! To violate that oath for a judge or a legislature is nevertheless, a violation!”

The Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA) teaches sheriffs, governors, mayors, and other key state officials their constitutional role in maintaining America's dual sovereignty system established by the Founding Fathers. The importance of teaching state officials the correct meaning of the dual sovereignty system serves to keep both the federal and state governments in check, reducing the risk of tyranny and encroachments from both fronts. Mack's group's interpretation of the states' constitutional rights has been validated by a huge Supreme Court victory Mack and 6 more sheriffs won in June 27, 1997. Mack's group fought the unconstitutional Brady Bill passed by Congress in November of 1993 as an attempt to restrict access to guns. The bill was passed during Mack’s tenure as sheriff of Graham County, Arizona. Federal bureaucrats informed all sheriffs in Arizona that they had to start enforcing the “Brady Bill” requiring running background checks on all individuals purchasing firearms. The federal officials then threatened to arrest the sheriffs if they refused to enforce the bill. Mack and six other Arizona sheriffs won after years of challenging the constitutionality of the bill all the way to the United States Supreme Court. About their final victory, Mack states:

“The ruling stated at least three times that the States were "not subject to Federal direction." (Don't you wish your State was aware of this?) More importantly, the case proved that local officials have the right, the power, and the duty to stand against the far reaching incursions by our own Federal Government."

The Supreme-Court-vindicated constitutional basis of United States' dual sovereignty system is succinctly described by Mack as follows in reference to the Supreme Court's June 27, 1997 ruling. Mack explains in his book "The County Sheriff: America's Last Hope:"

"James Madison, the fourth President of our new nation, and considered the leading authority and expert of our Constitution said, "We can safely rely on the disposition of the state legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national [federal] authority." In other words, it was anticipated by the Founders of our country that state legislatures would "erect barriers" against the overzealous acts of an out of control Federal Government. [...] In our successful action Mack v U.S., the Supreme Court reiterates this point quite clearly and makes Madison's assertion even more powerful. “The great innovation of this design was that our citizens would have two political capacities, one state and one federal, each protected by incursion by the other, a legal system unprecedented in form and design, establishing two forms of government, each with its own direct relationship, its own privity, its own set of rights and obligations to the people who sustain it and are governed by it [p.920 of the Supreme Court ruling]." Madison is then quoted by [Supreme Court justice] Scalia, "The local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general [Federal] authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere." The feds must stay within their proper "sphere" and it's our job to make sure they do just that. A point to emphasize once again is the original intention by our Founders to maintain the federal "sphere" as small and impotent. Justice Scalia emphasizes this point, "This separation of the two spheres is one of the Constitution's structural protections of liberty, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front [p.921 of the Supreme Court ruling]." Madison's wisdom is thus employed once again, "Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself [quoted by Scalia from The Federalist No. 51 by James Madison and Alexander Hamilton]."

"Does it get any clearer than this?," asks Mack, adding, "One of our "structural protections of liberty" is based on the notion and principle that "different governments" will keep each other in check and by so doing; provide a "double security" to the rights of the people."

In the U.S. Supreme Court case described, Mack and 6 other sheriffs who'd sued had won by a 4 out of 5 ruling. Scalia's opinion had been joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. CNN refers to this as a “defeat for the Clinton administration,” reporting that Justice Scalia wrote for the court [p.935 of the Supreme Court ruling]:

"The federal government may neither issue directives requiring the states to address particular problems, nor command the states' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program."

The Federal government's inability to command the states to administer or enforce federal regulatory programs means that the Federal government "can't compel the states or the counties or local officials to comply with their regulations," states Mack. CNN further states that Justice Scalia has ruled, "Such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty. [p.935 of the Supreme Court ruling]" 

“This was more than monumental! Federal agencies could no longer do whatever they damn well pleased,” explains Mack, adding:

“Freedom won that day on June 27, 1997, and it started the snowball rolling for each sheriff in this country to stand tall and to protect his or her constituents from "all enemies both foreign and domestic." This is the ultimate check and balance and it falls squarely on the shoulders of the county sheriff. […] The sheriff and police are indeed the last line of defense between the people and the criminals, both from the streets and from the Federal Government. If we are to get America back, if we are indeed to return to the constitutional Republic we were meant to be, then it will be up to us, the sheriffs of America, and hopefully other local officials, as well, who have the guts and dedication to tell the feds that we will no longer tolerate their intervention, control, meddling, mandates, or criminal behavior. […] You have the authority, the power, and the duty to be the ultimate check and balance for the American citizenry in your county and to defend them against all local and federal criminals.

Mack further explains the significance of his Tenth Amendment victory:

“Seven out of 3086 sheriffs stood and risked their lives and careers to push the feds back where they belonged. Seven! [...] Who was right? The 3079 who did nothing or the seven who fought? The Supreme Court agreed with the seven. But even if they hadn't; would that have made the battle wrong or unworthy? Is victory the only measure of right and wrong? Courage comes in the face of the storm, not fair weather. Facing Goliath has never been easy; it was no picnic David ventured upon! But the liberty of his people was at stake! Sound familiar? If David had lost, his cause and effort would have nevertheless been the right thing to do; it would have still been worth the try. The politician will carefully and selfishly calculate each move he or she makes, attempting to ascertain the benefits to their careers before acting. The statesman weighs the principles involved and stands accordingly in defense of God, family, country, and his fellow man.

But the Federal government has retaliated hard, filling the Internet with all sorts of false information about Mack and his doctrine. Compromised U.S. colleges have been participating in the Federal government's efforts to make Mack appear to be teaching a false ideology. About such Federal propaganda, please see this article that sets the record straight on the false interpretation of the dual sovereignty system taught by lecturers at the law departments of colleges including Cornell University.

Below are additional excerpts from Mack’s materials that have convinced me to become a member of his posse (militia of trained civilians Mack advises every sheriff to keep). Mack describes who county sheriffs DON'T work for as follows:

“The federal government, the White House, or Congress do not hire us, they cannot fire us, and they cannot tell us what to do. Therefore, their legislation aimed at the sheriffs or any other officer of the counties in this nation, are entirely meaningless and have no way of being enforced unless we say so. If we refuse to go along would the feds disown us? Cut us out of all the entitlements? The only thing they could possibly do is throw their popsicle in the dirt and run home!”

Who do county sheriffs work for if not the Federal government? Mack answers this question by emphasizing that county sheriffs are elected by We the People and only work for We the People to preserve their constitutional rights. Mack states:

If forced to choose between keeping our oaths and allegiance to freedom and justice, or following orders from vapid politicians and misguided judges, the choice is clear, we side with "We the People." America and freedom come first. Liberty is thus protected and preserved by the very servants who promised to do just that.

Mack also writes,

"The key point expressed within the Declaration of Independence is the part that instructs us, we the people, what we are to do with tyrannical government: "That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government." "To throw off such government" if the people of this country finally come to the point of resorting to their right as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, to rid the nation of tyrannical and corrupt government, then when or if that happens, whose side will the sheriffs be on?"

Sheriff Mack also says that if the need arises, a sheriff can deputize all able bodies citizens in his/her jurisdiction.

Please don't postpone promoting to your local sheriff, police officers, county commissioner, city council members and county attorney the need to join Sheriff Mack's Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association and receive his training on how to save America from corrupt legislature by the Federal Government. To persuade your state's officials to fight against the deeply compromised Biden Regime's tyranny, please use the articles on this website and those sheriff Mack provides to every citizen patriot who joins his nationwide posse comitatus (militia all constitutional sheriffs should keep). Please don't only join sheriff Mack's posse but also your own local sheriff's posse after having persuaded him to become a constitutional sheriff.

In a November 30, 2020 recording Sheriff Mack makes available only to members, Mack says that sheriffs, police and state officials can be charged with perjury (13:54 into video) if they refuse to start fighting unconstitutional federal mandates after being shown and explained how America's Founders really set the country up. This should be the consequence for refusing to work for We the People and knowingly refusing to honor one's oath of office to abide by the Constitution.


Join the posse (militia) of Sheriff Richard Mack's constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association

“Never underestimate the power of a small group of committed people to change the world. In fact, it is the only thing that ever has.” — Margaret Mead

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *