# Glenn B Says:
April 4th, 2008 at 6:43 pm

This will go to the Supreme Court, and it will be over ridden. I say that with a great amount of certainty. Say I am wrong now if you want, but this is what will very likely happen, as it has happened before.

I’m pretty sure you are wrong, but only on a technicality: the issue will never get anywhere near the Supreme Court. Either the story is a fake, as I strongly suspect, or the ruling was so frivolous that even the Ninth Friggin’ Circuit can handle it on appeal without generating enough controversy to get the Supreme Court’s attention. The notion that the state of Wyoming would establish county officials as having powers exceeding those of state officials is questionable enough; the notion that it would think it could elevate any state or local official above the federal government is patently frivolous.

I must say, though, that I’m amused to hear self-styled “constitutionalists” heap praise on a story which, if true, would constitute a blatant violation of the U.s. Constitution.

TGirsch, I don’t see where Uncle accused you of calling states rights a “secret” code word for racism. He said, and I quote, “tgirsch will be along shortly to chastise my use of code words for racism.” In your response, you blasted his allegation as “ridiculous,” then proceeded to prove it correct by saying ‘It’s no secret that “States’ Rights’ is often used as racial code, and hasn’’ been for decades.” So even if you were right on the underlying issue, it seems pretty clear Uncle was right in predicting your response.

Of course there are examples of “states’ rights” being invoked to justify attempts by states to maintain a racist policy over the objection of the federal government. There are also examples of “states’ rights” being invoked to justify attempts by states to maintain just about any other kind of policy over the objection of the federal government. This particular story, if true, is a case in point. Sure it’s a retarded (or, more likely, apocryphal) policy, with a state official asserting a “right” no state actually has, but that’s neither here nor there. The point is that in this case, along with many others (”medical” marijuana being another high-profile example), the concept of “states’ rights” is frequently invoked, rightly or wrongly, in favor of states asserting powers on issues having nothing to do with racism.

On the flip side, I’m not aware of a cases where anyone invoked “states’ rights” in support of a racist federal policy to be shoved down the throats of unwilling states. So maybe the more honest assessment of “states’ rights” is that it is a code word for people who want state to … um … have more rights?

If the town clowns of Cheyenne can claim to have that power, usurping the Constitution is a walk in the park for them.

Reality bites.

Lon Horiuchi remained under state murder indictment in Idaho during the entire tenure of the Idaho AG at the time. He avoided prosecution not because the federal courts took over and dismissed charges, but because the federal government hid him and refused to disclose his whereabouts or surrender his body to Idaho.

Only when the newly elected AG took office and dismissed the charges was the mother shooting sonofabitch out from under indictment. The USAG and I think one federal court ruled that Horiuchi couldn’t be tried for murder committed as a part of his official duty, but if Idaho had gotten their hands on him before they got a new AG, he would have paid the price.

I find it instructive that although Horiuchi was the recipient of federal protection, the feds never quashed the indictment as a point of law.

In any case, it’s a ridiculous allegation. It’s no secret that “States’ Rights” is often used as racial code, and hasn’t been for decades. So there’s no chance I’ll accuse it of of being “secret code.”

[Yeah, yeah, I know: Reagan's speech in Philadelphia, MS was totally innocent, and in no way different than if somebody went to a Jewish community center in Germany and touted the virtues of economy rail service to Poland. Carry on...]

It’s looking like this story originated when some constitutionalist/common law ranter misquoted an old 1998 decision.

It wouldn’t be the first time that a member of that crowd stretched the hell out of something.

I’m afraid the feds still have the right to walk on public property and make arrests without local permission.

Sorry guys.

Actually they are not subject to state laws in the performance of their official duties.

That’s the important part. Their duties are to uphold the law, and if the average whistle-blower is accurate on even 10% of the stuff that gets tossed around, that’s a lot of potential fun.

But it just sounds like normal back-and-forth stuff to make a point rather than actually help folk.

NO court dictated this.

http://www.jacksonholeoutfitters.com/Jurisdiction.htm

Not that I blame him.

But I’m afraid that he is taking it too far.

No doubt. But I’m guessing the feds took it too far first.