Sheriff Robinson of Arapahoe County should be fired.
He goes on at great length about how many times he’s sworn to “support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Colorado”. He brags about giving “critical counsel” to others taking the oath: “listen closely to the words that you are about to say, this is your solemn promise of how you will conduct yourself …”. His *job* is to interpret the law and determine if it has been violated — but he abdicates any responsibility (he even asserts a lack of capability) to determine if the “law of the land” (i.e., the Constitution) has been violated.
The oath you swear obliges you to interpret the constitution to support and defend it. They taught us that very clearly in Marine Corps boot camp in the mid ’70s. If 17 year old USMC privates can be made to understand the Constitution and the differences between legal, moral orders and illegal, immoral orders why is it so hard for a county sheriff in Colorado to understand the obligation his oath holds him to.
Yeah, I wonder how many of the Arapahoe County Commissar’s Officers will follow orders and do Raids? Guess he better get some No-Doz, ’cause if he choses to follow Illegal Orders from Washington,DC, he’s got a whole lot of Homes to get to ALL BY HIS LONESOME.
@bob r – There is over 200+ years of precedence on what the 2ndA means. The only people having a problem interpreting it is the people who want to change it. There is no doubt what it means to the rest of us.
It is also his job to refuse any illegal orders. If he has the ability to determine what is legal and illegal, I assume he could make a fairly knowledgeable decision on what violates citizens rights under the Constitutional and what does not.
@wastme – You can “assume” that all you like: the Sheriff explicitly states that he cannot. Quote: “Public safety professionals serving in the executive branch, do not have the constitutional authority, responsibility, and in most cases, the credentials to determine the constitutionality of any issue.”
His interpretation of the oath he took apparently differs from my interpretation. Significantly. I state it again: the man should be fired.