Guest Post By Sheriff Jeff Christopher–a DP Exclusive

Greetings,

I am Jeff Christopher your duly elected Sheriff for Sussex County Delaware. You will note that I said elected. What is the difference you ask?. I serve you!  directly! and not county council or some bureaucrat. That is how it was designed so you, the people, have the say. This goes back to the beginning of this country and the founding fathers who created a system of government that works for the people and NOT against the people. We are a republic and the people must remain in control of the government, like a dog in control of his tail or we shall suffer a worse fate than death itself. We have allowed the system to be corrupted and we are passing on to our children a way that will surely re-enslave them. What then do we do? Well I,  like so many others became involved because I saw what many see and only get to talk about it. I figured I could change this broken system. Boy was I in for a surprise.I am an ambitious, people oriented, person and I figured, I can do this. When I became Sheriff, I heard some elected officials as well as those running for office here speak out words that should mean everything when it comes to freedom and democracy and service, as well as integrity and genuine good old fashioned Americana. I said to myself, those are the folks I want to know and trust and work with because they are like me. I found that some have quickly abandonment those values, like those others we so often say are liberal in their thinking and we condemn and judge them as though we practice the better agenda. HOGWASH!  Why do these people forget the things they promised and the values they pledged to hold. It’s like their knowledge fades away and their memories become convoluted. Officials who stand right in front of you and say Jeff,” I believe in what you are doing and I stand with you”, I understand your struggle, just hang in there buddy and you will prevail, the very same who has sponsored this bill. What happened to those persons who claimed the same values?  What of those they serve, the constituent?  Ever have one lie to your face? Now I know how you feel.

I say, there is NO wonder that our country is dying! Because there are those who are willing to go along to get along and NOT stand their ground as they promised. Thank you God for the brave soldiers who did not and do not abandon their post. Why is this happening with our local politicians? Is this just to safe face or bring about favor? or to receive favor? to covet a certain group or entity here in Sussex?. It is said you cannot serve two masters at anytime, because you will abandon one if you serve the other. I have witnessed in Sussex County for whatever reason they may have, these people stoop to these lows and I wonder what is in their mind when I call them on these things. What will their next move be, will they be angered like most and try to defend the wrong they know they have done in their heart or will they search themselves and ask, have I too become this way and do other see this in me. I call upon the people of Sussex County and The State Of Delaware to say NO MORE of this! Hold them, whom you have entrusted to account.

If they dare do as they have done this week or any week and create or promote law(s) that are in the face of the people as wrong and intentionally arrogant to serve special interest or to do political favor at the cost of the freedom of the people, then remind them of their promise and how you will resend your trust and abandon them as they have abandoned you.

Guard your Constitutional Rights, say NO to this HB 290 as it is simply an attack upon your elected Sheriff who stands to protect your rights in a system where Sheriffs were put there for that purpose. If you don’t believe me, read it for yourself, check out things like you tube and search for “powers of the sheriff” or countysheriffproject.org. Look for yourself folks!, before you come to conclusions. This is not about Jeff Christopher, but about the freedoms we have that are being attacked everyday in this country and today it has arrived in Sussex County Delaware. Watch the news how our federal government is attacking one of the most popular Sheriffs of our day because he wants to draw the line and protect his county as he swore to do from drugs and prostitution and other illicit activity that illegal immigration brings to his county and our country. Remember our elected officials in Sussex County also swore to protect and defend the US and Delaware Constitution, yet it seems they have abandoned it, please hold them accountable.  God Bless Us here in Sussex County.

Thank you!

Your Sheriff

Jeff Christopher.

56 thoughts on “Guest Post By Sheriff Jeff Christopher–a DP Exclusive”

  1. So, Jeff, if the elected Representatives of the people pass this bill, and then get re-elected, will you accept that the people of Delaware don’t want the Sheriff to have the powers you think he should have?

  2. I want to thank Sheriff Christopher for his guest post. It was very emotional and heart felt.
    However I noticed that it was lacking any factual reason for voters to oppose HB290. I did notice that it was heavy with accusations and veiled threats, and a double dose of scare tactics and fear mongering.
    I also am not sure whether the sheriff is a state’s rights person or not, but he does rely on the “all across this country” arguments quite a bit.
    This may be because the so called fact based arguments fell far short of convincing anyone. No the supporters of expansion have taken a new tact in crying the sky is falling.
    Much has been made about Sheriff Christopher running on this and winning in the last election. Let us remember that Bob Reed was voted out on this issue. It is likely that Sheriff Christopher was elected on the coat tails of the conservative wave that rolled over Sussex in 2010, and less about the expansion of the sheriff’s office.

  3. ” I did notice that it was heavy with accusations and veiled threats, and a double dose of scare tactics and fear mongering.”

    Seriously. This guy sees enemies of freedom hiding behind every lamp post. Do you actually let a guy this full of self righteousness carry a gun?

  4. Sure, don’t address the argument, make personal attacks.

    I agree with Jeff that this attack is a national movement. In Delaware, it may have started as a local trend, but the fact is there is a national movement to undermine local law enforcement because it is easier to undermine our freedom if there is not thousands of centers of power accountable first to the local citizens. Those seeking to centralize everything out of Washington or even the UN cannot do it as long as we have the local sheriff, and strong local governments.

  5. In my opinion we already have enough cops in Sussex County. The problem is that they seem to focus most of their resources on collecting revenue from people driving their cars.
    Anyway, the guy in charge of law enforcement in Delaware (the AG ) is an elected official. So what’s the problem?

  6. The Governor is elected so why not abolish county council and run land use statewide? You could use the same argument.

  7. David, all I’m saying is that we already are protected from possible tyranny in that we can vote the AG out if we don’t like what’s happening with law enforcement.

  8. It is very important that the AG be elected, but the AG does not control law enforcement, just part of it. They do not control policing, for instance. The more of it accountable to the people, the better. A mayor who appoints police leadership, a local sheriff, and the Governor being responsible for State Police leadership directly are each important elements.

  9. “Sure, don’t address the argument, make personal attacks.”

    Uh… most of the “argument” consists of personal attack.

    Let’s see… “a bunch of other elected officials disagree with me, so I’m right because I was elected, and they are hypocritical enemies of freedom!”

    That’s not an argument.

  10. fbh
    The same Article and Section gives power to the Attorney General, the Chancellor, judges and the County Sheriffs and designates them as, “Conservators of the Peace.”
    What if we didn’t care for the way Biden was running the AG’s Office and we decided to remove his prosecutor powers at a mere whim.
    I know it sounds like insanity but, exactly that is happening to the Sheriff’s Offices throughout the state. NCCO and Kent don’t mind this intrusion but Sussex Countians absolutely do mind and are not afraid of expressing their displeasure.

  11. I suggest that someone look up and address: Does the Delaware Constitution BOTH mention a Sheriff AND the police, or ONLY the Sheriff?

    As convoluted as the mention of a Sherriff seems to be, if ONLY the Sherriff is acknowledged in the Delaware Constitution, no matter how awkward the wording, the acknowledgement of a County Sheriff as a law enforcemnet officer, combined with a (possible) silence in the Constitution of an alternative method of law enforcement could, in itself, be significant.

  12. Did anyone hear Don Ayotte’s rantings on WGMD this morning. He said on more than one occasion he would handle land use issues by going out and interviewing the person seeking the variance, and also the neighbors. That’s great, Don. So you’ll guarantee that EVERY conditional use gets taken to court? It is improper for Council persons to base their decision on anything except what is in the public record.

    Vote for Don Ayotte: He’s the Lawyers Best Friend!

  13. Wrong,you have a right to hear what the neighbors have to say. If you get a call or hold a town hall or knock on a door, whatever people tell you can go into your decision making. There is no law which says otherwise and it would be insane if there were one.

    You are so jaded against Don that no matter how reasonable he says something, you twist it and condemn it. You seem more reasonable elsewhere, did Don spill your coffee or something?

  14. I believe Sheriff Christopher is mid-tem (not up this November). I’ve heard he will primary Rep. Dave Wilson if he votes for HB290. He wins he becomes a Representative, he loses he remains Sheriff. Win-win scenario for him.

  15. I say strike this bill. It is too damaging and devisive. When people rally at the Sussex County Council tomorrow at 10am, I hope to see Strike this Bill signs. It shouldn’t even come up for a vote.

  16. You’re trying to tell me that it is proper for a Council Person to vote on a project, variance, what have you, based on things that are NOT in the public record?

    Is that how you do things in Dover?

  17. Of course, it is done that way everywhere including by Joan Deaver. The public has an absolute right to say what they want whereever they say it. The entire reason the items are posted with public review is to give people the opportunity to make their voice heard. If someone comes up to me at a yardsale and asks questions, I don’t pull out my digital recorder and say this is on public record. If someone gives me something to think about, that all comes into play. This is not a judicial proceeding.

    I admit that when appeals are before me, I will often tell the person not to be offended if I have to cut them off because they want me abstaining on their appeal. Appeals are quasi-judicial unlike a zoing change which is legislative. That is how it was explained to me by counsel. Even so, you still have no obligation to recuse or abstain if you have no interest. Legislative bodies are different from judicial and by necessity operate differently. A judge is not elected by the people in this state and is to only look at the record in the proceeding. Fortunately, a legislator can look at the entire community picture and should.

    Do I seek out information not in the public forum? YOU BET. I often ask staff if there is anything that I need to know that as background before a meeting. I often ask them to then make relavent information available in an email to all of council and on the record.

  18. So now we have confirmation that Christopher (aka Real News) is a supporter and member of the sovereign sheriff movement. What what does the CSPOA have to say? [note from David- pure speculation on all counts, please refrain from it.]

    “County Sheriffs and Peace Officers are uniting to free America from State & Federal tyranny.”
    “supports the oath keepers who are protecting Americans on issues such as Agenda 21, land, water & mining rights, fraud, property rights, IRS, health freedom and the police state.”

    So the state and federal governments, duly consitutionally formed, are tyrannical? But really, note reference to UN Agenda 21. This is a clear indication that these folks (including the sheriff) are not only on the fringe (and even closet despots) but they are also dangerous. That’s what concerns me. To often in world, one person or small group has made it their mission to put things right. Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, Abraham Lincoln, John F Kennedy, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, et al, were made to be a part of the solution of folks such as these. While no one should be fearful, remaining alert and aware is essential.

    Even though a bipartisan majority of our land’s governing officials, county and state officials, including duly elected officials of the GA are about to take action that the majority of the people desire, it is not good enough for the sheriff. Regardless of what the people want, the sheriff knows better. The real question is, what are the limits of what the sheriff might do to force his views upon the county?

  19. “In Delaware, it may have started as a local trend, but the fact is there is a national movement to undermine local law enforcement because it is easier to undermine our freedom if there is not thousands of centers of power accountable first to the local citizens.”

    Delaware’s sheriffs were stripped of law enforcement power at about the same time the state police force took its current form, more than 80 years ago. Nobody had a problem with it until Reed’s election, unless you’re counting the foration of the New Castle County police department in the early ’70s. I would respectfully point out that if Sussex residents want their own police force, New Castle County provides a road map for how to form one.

  20. Geezer writes in #21: “Delaware’s sheriffs were stripped of law enforcement power at about the same time the state police force took its current form, more than 80 years ago.”

    But the Sheriffs are mentioned in the Delaware Constitution (albeit awkwardly) but the state police are nowhere to be found in the Delaware Constitution? When the Delaware legislature shifted 80 years ago from the Sheriff explicitly acknowledged in the Delaware Constitution to the State Police, was that a mistake? Is the State Police given equal status in the Delaware Consitution with the office of Sheriff, or is only a Sheriff mentioned in the Delaware Constitution?

  21. Having an elected law enforcement authority responsible for the protection of the people and held accountable to the same is both prudent and essential for the protection and preservation of our liberties. Duly elected county sheriffs, who are vested with powers and responsibility by their local constituents, including those of law enforcement and arrest powers, not only upholds the important tradition of federalism and decentralized authority in our republican form of government, but also affirms the principles of a local separation of powers and that of popular sovereignty, whereby those who exercise power in the community are only legitimated by the will of the people.

    While I think that Sheriff Christopher and his deputies have far better things to be doing than pulling over speeders and attending to trivial offenses, the necessity of a locally elected law enforcement officer, accountable only to the people of his jurisdiction, is a safeguard against tyranny and arbitrary rule that should not be carelessly discarded.

  22. It would make sense develop and examine the current matrix of responsibilities between law enforcement agencies, identify where efforts are duplicated and where service gaps exist. Adding yet another layer of power and authority that is vague and undefined is irresponsible and could be very costly to the tax payers. I want to see specifics. Does anyone know how much Christopher’s ideas will actually cost in terms of $ and duplication of efforts? How much time and $ is being wasted arguing about this? How about addressing the issue in a methodical and sensible way? At this juncture, the proposed bill makes sense.

  23. Can’t you read, Matt? Obviously a service gap exists in protecting our Constitutional rights against drugs, prostitution and other illicit activity that illegal immigration brings to Sussex County.

  24. “Is the State Police given equal status in the Delaware Consitution with the office of Sheriff, or is only a Sheriff mentioned in the Delaware Constitution?”

    Nobody cares outside your band of Constitution fetishists. As I have said repeatedly, if you insist on making a Constitutional argument out of this, then they’ll amend the Constitution if necessary. It’s about power, nothing more or less.

  25. “the necessity of a locally elected law enforcement officer, accountable only to the people of his jurisdiction, is a safeguard against tyranny and arbitrary rule that should not be carelessly discarded.”

    We haven’t had them for 80 years and are not under noticeably more or less tyranny than states that have elected law enforcement officials.

    It’s rather funny to see all you solemn and serious constitutional scholars argue theory while the state police continue to hold a ridiculous amount of power. Not only do you all have no plans for doing anything about that — and you’ll have to if you want an untrained loon like Christopher patrolling your roads — I don’t even think most of you realize what a chokehold on power they have.

  26. First Sen. Bonini and now Rep. Outten have pulled their name from this bill. Who’s next? My guess Reps Wilson, Kenton and Peterman.

  27. I’m with Geezer on his last two posts. Making this a constitutional argument just gets you an amended constitution, and there must be as much effort put into reforming the DSP as there is into training the county sheriffs if we are to have a real transition to local law enforcement.

    I would point out that there is broadly more tyranny in this country, whether Delaware is worse or better is, to a degree, a matter of opinion, and a locally accountable law enforcement agency would be better able to resist such tyrannical impulses should it find the will to do so than a statewide agency a few steps removed from elected accountability.

  28. Will: The tyranny you cite is a feature, not a bug. And locally elected law enforcement gets you incompetents like Sheriff Joe Arpaio and a whole lot of corruption, because people without proper training are put in positions of lethal power. Just sayin’.

  29. Geezer, if there’s local corruption, the people can elect a different sheriff with a mandate to clean house. That’s much harder to accomplish when stuck under the thumb of an oppressive centralized authority. Furthermore, there certainly isn’t less corruption in the more consolidated branches of government, and one could make a strong argument that there is far more.

    As for problems with the State Police, you’re right. Give me a call or email me and I’ll be glad to work on it with you, since you agree that it’s an issue that needs to be dealt with.

  30. Geezer, you call Sheriff Arpaio “incompetent” but most Americans think he is the ONLY competent official in the fields he has entered, whereas the law enforcement officers you would put your trust in are completely incompetent — as in those failing to control our borders. Of course, it is the political leadership refusing to allow honorable border patrol agents to do their job. And therein lays the problem. If you have a bureaucratic police

    Let’s put it into an understandable context: Let’s suppose that John Atkins had been pulled over for DWI by one of Sheriff Christopher’s Deputies. Now we are imagining some things for the sake of argument. Let’s imagine that Sheriff Christopher had a well-trained, well-equipped Sheriff’s department with the authority to make stops and arrests. And I have no idea if John Atkins had anything to drink that day. I don’t know what it means to be “pulled over for DWI” because until you are measured by a blood test or breath test, how would someone know? BUT LET’S JUST PRETEND FOR A MOMENT.

    The allegation is that John Atkins got away with DWI (we really don’t know of course) because being a legislator he had influence over the State Police, who is dependent upon the legislature.

    Now suppose in that same (imaginary) situation, John Atkins is pulled over by a Deputy of Sheriff Christopher, who is independent and accountable only to the voters. See the difference?

    It is BECAUSE the border patrol agents are under the thumb of the political leaders in Washington that the border is not protected, our laws are being flagrantly violated, and the people are furious.

    So Sheriff Arpaio — who answers to the voters directly — is doing what the voters want done. The Border Patrol, which is under the thumb of lobbying interests in Washington, is not doing what the voters want.

    As for the Constitutional argument, if the Delaware Constitution mentions both the police (in some form) and the Sheriffs, this would bolster the authority of the legislature to choose which one to empower. If the Constitution mentions the Sheriffs, but has no mention of any State employed law enforcement aka State Police, this would bolster the argument that the legislature acted improperly 80 years ago.

  31. laffter, what is wrong with your thinking? Why does it matter who someone might or might not know, on matters totally unrelated to the topic at hand? I just don’t understand what causes liberals’ minds to take such twists and turns. Why do you imagine that who someone knows has any relevance or persuasiveness on the topics being discussed? Yet, that is the way liberals argue. In part that is the Saul Alintsky method.

    But let’s set the record straight. Like absolutely EVERYONE ELSE in the Virginia GOP, I have known Eugene Delgaudio, off and on, for about 20 years. BUT THAT DOESN’T MEAN I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING HE SAYS OR DOES.

    Just because I have met someone, doesn’t mean I agree with them. People I know a lot more closely than Delgaudio, I have fought on opposite sides of issues or campaigns with. I sharply disagreed with some long-term poltiical friends over their shabby treatment of two conservative women in Virginia. I DISAGREE WITH LOTS OF PEOPLE WHOM I HAVE MET OVER THE YEARS.

    One of my closest political mentors in Virginia politics, from whom I learned a lot, was supporting a candidate I was running a campaign against last year. I went to law school with Ken Cuccinelli and have been Ken’s friend for 15 years. But Ken endorsed a candidate who supported building a “victory mosque” (named to memorialize the Islamic conquest of Cordobba, Spain, and the destruction of Christian churches in Cordobba) at Ground Zero, the site of the 9/11 attacks in Manhattan. I strongly disagree with my old friend Ken. That candidate should have been run out of the Republican party for insulting the American people. (The candidate Ken supported also signed a petition wanting to VOTE in LEBANON’S elections.)

    So, knowing someone does not mean I agree with them.

    NO ONE IN VIRGINIA POLITICS CAN ESCAPE KNOWING DELGAUDIO. You have been living under a rock if you don’t know Eugene. So knowing Delgaudio means absolutely nothing. EVERYBODY knows him. You can’t escape it, no matter how hard you try.

    I have absolutely no work or political or professional relationship with Delgaudio or anyone associated with him. Quite frankly, in the factional conflicts in the Virginia GOP, I have recently been in opposite camps from Delgaudio.

    Delgaudio’s political organization has migrated over the years from one of the most innovative and effective “street theater” forces in the 1980′s and 1990′s, to what it has currently become, simply a narrow gay-bashing organization. I have a friend who quit Eugene’s group over Delgaudio’s changing focus, evolving from general conservativism to narrow gay-bashing.

    I have two friends who have fought for traditional marriage in Maryland. One of them — an old friend — called me up very perplexed about why Delguadio was FUND-RAISING ABOUT HIS WORK IN MARYLAND — BUT SHE WAS IN MARYLAND, WORKING ON THE MARRIAGE ISSUE, AND DIDN’T SEE THIS GUY ANYWHERE AROUND. Why is it that I don’t see him anywhere around here, but his letters claim he is doing all this work in Maryland, Kathleen complained. I had to sympathize and had a friend dig up Delgaudio’s phone number for her to call. (I haven’t called Delgaudio for probably 10 years.)

    So I don’t necessarily approve of what Delgaudio is doing these days, just because I have bumped into him over the years.

    However, Delgaudio has been an elected member of the Loudoun County “Board of Supervisors” (like your County Council) since I think the year 2000 — about 12 years. He has been re-elected in the Sterling District despite hysterical efforts by Democrats to oust him.

    WHY? Because Delgaudio actually puts into practice election techniques that Delaware conservatives should study (TECHNIQUES, NOT POLICY POSITIONS) better than anyone I have seen. The Democrats try as hard as they can to get rid of Eugene, but they can’t.

    Someone on DP months ago talked about how some Democrat helped a family solve a problem, and they will be grateful to that politician forever.

    Multiply that “constituent services” diligence by 100 and you will understand why Delgaudio gets re-elected. He does the hard work of EARNING votes, one at a time.

    By every discussion here on DP, Eugene ought to lose and lose big. The commenters here would condemn Eugene as a candidate with “baggage” who is “too extreme” (hoo boy!) and wrong in every way. Yet, Eugene keeps getting re-elected. HOW?

    Eugene has always described himself as a member of
    “the nut wing” of the Republican Party. That’s what he calls himself. You have no idea. He is a caricature of himself. He goes out of his way to act provocative, attention-getting, and nutty. After being elected, he stood in the median strip of the main highway with a sign saying “THANK YOU” and bowed to the passing traffic holding his signature orange cap. Of course, the newspaper put the photograph on Page 1. They couldn’t resist. That was the plan all along.

    But the Democrats can’t get rid of him. WHY? Because even a self-described nut CAN WIN ELECTION BY KNOWING HOW ELECTIONS WORK, AND DOING THE HARD WORK OF WINNING VOTES ONE AT A TIME.

    Delgaudio is beloved by Sterling District voters because he has MET THEM — practically ALL OF THEM — and shown them that he cares about their problems and their needs. They view his nuttiness as “He’s OUR nut, on OUR side.”

    His efforts to keep in touch with the voters CONTINUALLY are the most extensive and well-organized I have ever seen. Love him or hate him, YOU SHOULD STUDY HIM.

    I can tell you exactly how he wins re-election term after term — but I wouldn’t want to give liberals any ideas.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Je8Heh-qWP8&feature=related

  32. “That’s much harder to accomplish when stuck under the thumb of an oppressive centralized authority.”

    Now, I’ve just been a resident of Delaware for one year, so I have little to no direct experience. However, I am not feeling oppressed, nor do I have a sense that the DSP is oppressive. Further, when I looked up a precise definition of “oppressive,” I find the following:

    op·pres·sive/əˈpresiv/
    Adjective:
    1.Unjustly inflicting hardship and constraint, esp. on a minority or other subordinate group.
    2.Weighing heavily on the mind or spirits; causing depression or discomfort.

    Is the DSP unjustly inflicting hardship and constraint on you Sam, or anyone you know? Are they weighing heavily on your mind or spirit, thus causing you depression or discomfort? Is that happening to anyone you know?

    I cannot comprehend the use of such words, unless they are intended as hyperbole. I’ll grant there could and probably is some “corruption” at the state level, but are there problems with DSP at the local, troop level? Are they misbehaving in a certain manner? failing to carry out their responsibilities? is there a significant number of formal complaints against the DSP in this county? I haven’t seen it, but then maybe I don’t know the right places to look. How about pointing me to some source so that can become more informed?

  33. Jon: My point exactly. Sheriff Arpaio is considered a bumbling buffoon by every professional I know in the field, and the crime statistics for his jurisdiction back that up.

    In this state, we elect the insurance commissioner, to dreadful results, because nobody outside the field has any clear idea of what the IC actually does or should be doing. Democratic elections depend on a well-informed public, and I don’t feel like studying up for the insurance board exam just so I can cast a vote.

    By the way, we DO know Atkins was DUI in Maryland, because they tested him, then refused to let him drive. But your point is potentially a good one — Atkins has friends in high places in the state police, so you can’t trust them where he’s involved.

    But if Atkins could weasel his way into a chummy relationship with the state police, compromising local cops should be no trouble. Indeed, the Georgetown fire chief who compromised himself in the fire incident is also a Georgetown police officer.

    On the Constitution, I believe the people making the constitutional argument are correct. My point is, so what? Those in power will do whatever they have to, including amending the constitution without much discussion, to maintain that power. In this case, those in power are the state police, and if you think you can find a bunch of otherwise law-and-order Republicans to buck the state police on something they want, good luck to you. But I would note that the contingent that wants a sheriff with police powers all seem to have moved to Delaware rather recently from states where sheriffs have that power. They are a small minority, even in Sussex County.

    The Atkins case is about misuse of power. The sheriff issue is about the potential for misuse of power. You can make it about the Constitution if you want to, but it will be a moot point by January.

  34. How does a self-described nut keep winning elections, despite “baggage” and being highly controversial, and a lightning rod hated by the Democrats in his County?

    Watch the SECOND news story here:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKt_0XQRWHM

    Make the voters believe, truthfully so, that you are paying attention to their needs and getting the job done.

  35. Dave, first, did I ascribe that much to the DSP? Don’t put words in my mouth, please. The first part of my last response was in reply to Geezer’s immediate previous post; the second part a reply to his earlier comments on the state police.

    Second, protections of liberties are necessary not just when threats present themselves directly, but more importantly as a guard against future tyranny and oppression. Do you wish to surrender the protections of free speech, the guarantee of representation, acknowledged rights of life, liberty, and property, a government of separated powers, among many other things, simply because you don’t feel that they are threatened at this very moment?

    Sorry for the brevity, would like to type more, but I’m typing on a phone. Please excuse any typos.

  36. Sam: None of those issues is on the table, and none is likely to get there just because Delaware’s elected sheriffs don’t get to be cops. Those are issues for the US Constitution, not the Delaware Constitution.

    Excellent phone typing, by the way.

  37. “Dave, first, did I ascribe that much to the DSP? Don’t put words in my mouth, please. ”

    I stand corrected but you can understand how I made the error since you were discussing local (Sheriff) vs state (DSP).

    “Second, protections of liberties are necessary not just when threats present themselves directly, but more importantly as a guard against future tyranny and oppression.”

    True, but it wasn’t presented in the future tense as a possibility but rather as a reality. The entire argument/issue is being presented as if the sheriff is our only defense against oppression and tryanny. While the elevation of the sheriff from process server to savior of the oppressed masses everywhere is kind of exciting (especially the sheriff), he and all the other sheriffs, are not what protects us. It is we the people who are guardians of our freedoms.

    This is not freedom and liberty issue. It is simply economics – the efficient execution of responsibilities by those we elected to serve us. I am sure you can understand the fear of someone who decides that there presumed police powers would be better utilized to pull over vehicles exceeding the speed limit. Remember our system of checks and balances is not just there because we don’t trust government, but we can trust ourselves to put the responsible people into office. There is no method of removal of an elected sheriff except through another scheduled election. Those checks and balances, such as exists between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government are not present in the operation of the sheriff’s office. The same situation exists for other row offices. Now of course, there is little danger to the people from other row offices, and the same for a process server, but for some with police powers, there must be constraints and not just the constraints of the people during an election – afterall most of us consider the voters to be less than able.

  38. “DO YOU?? or do you wnt to finance another war”

    I said it before, and I’ll say it again. Sail them all out to Pea Patch Island and let them declare their own Republic. They get their own fort to play in and everything!

  39. To all the sheriff supporters. I have a question, does Beau Biden or Jane Brady have the right to arrest you? Can they pull you over for speeding? How about the judge of the Court of Chancery, can he give you a field sobriety test if he thinks you are under the influence?

  40. In 1923 at the behest of the Highway Commission the Highway police were created through 2 bills enacted by the Delaware General Assembly. The name Highway Police was later changed to Delaware State Police. NOWHERE in any archived documents from the Highway Commission or the General Assembly will anyone find anything that states the intent was in part or wholly to take away the powers of the County Sheriffs which they were granted in ARTICLE XV of the Delaware Constitution written n 1792 and again in 1897. County Sheriffs are the Head Conservator of the Peace in their respective counties just as Chancery Judges and the Attorney General are state wide. It has been that way for 220 years. No formal amendment has eer been made to Delware’s Constitution changing the County Sheriff’s authority.
    The easiest solution would be to put it to a Referendum vote in Sussex County and let those who live in our county decide. Why are the politicians afraid to do so? I believe they know what the outcome will be, and it’s not what they want.

    I pay Sussex County taxes which in part go to the state police in Sussex County to train and add more officers for Sussex County. My taxes should NOT be used to train new officers who end up sent to Kent and New Castle County instead of remaining in Sussex, and my taxes earmarked for state police officers sure as hell shouldn’t be used to buy brand new Dodge Durangos as percs for the Commanders of the barracks in Sussex County.

    A recent home invasion occured in the development where I live which is unannexed. According to the homeowner it took 27 minutes before state trooper arrived. The local police arrived first afte they were authorized to do so by the DSP. When seconds count like as in this situation you don’t have minutes to waste.

    To hogtie a County Sheriff and tell him he can do NOTHING except make a phone call like any other citizen should he witness a kidnapping or other crime is not only egregious it is outright ludicrous.

  41. Re:48
    So you are agreeing with me that any judge in Delaware as well as Beau Biden or any assistant DA in Delaware has arrest powers? They can pull you over for not wearing a seatbelt or for failure to stop at a stop sign?

  42. “The easiest solution would be to put it to a Referendum vote in Sussex County and let those who live in our county decide. Why are the politicians afraid to do so? I believe they know what the outcome will be, and it’s not what they want.”

    I, on the other hand, believe it’s because there is no legal mechanism under Delaware law for holding referendums on any issue but school taxes. I realize that’s not as much fun as imagining some nefarious plot, but I’m pretty sure it’s a more reasonable explanation.

  43. Geezer
    There’s always a nefarious plot with you. That’s because you are paid to disrupt conservative blogs. You are a dolt without morals or incentives, other that money.
    A person with no obvious values other than money, should not be listened to or regarded as credible.
    You only claim to have a political philosophy but are only motivated by financial gain. Bug off!

  44. To William Christy in #48: I really don’t know any of these issues with regard to Delaware law or history.

    But I would recommend exploring what “Sheriff” meant in Delaware’s experience (and its previous existence as part of the large land grant of Pennsylvania early on) at the time the Delaware Constitution was written. What did it mean in common usage and understanding to those who wrote the document? Even at that point in time, different British Colonies may have treated this concept differently, so I am focusing specifically on how a Sheriff was understood in the Delaware / Pennsylvania experience at that point in time. Same with “Conservator of the Peace.”

    Now we often face the problem that the mistake has already been made. In 1937, the US Supreme Court interpreted Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce as covering a farmer (Roscoe Filburn of Ohio) who grows crops on his own farm and feeds those crops to his own dairy cows — so the “commerce” never leaves his farm — and called that INTERSTATE commerce. That is a total joke. But that decision by the Court is currently the law, unless subject to public dispute to the point that that mistake is corrected.

    SO it may be that the treatment by the Delaware courts was a mistake, but it is a mistake that has already been made, and that is that.

Comments are closed.