Oathkeeper and LA County Sheriff Leroy Baca: The Law Is What I Say It Is

[JoshLowry]

The Law Is What I Say It Is - “Proposition 19 is not going to pass, even if it passes” (http://cannacentral.com/news/la-county-sheriff-the-law-is-what-i-say-it-is/)

Author of article has a chip on his shoulder, but I thought this was interesting and worth sharing.

What would the DA do with all the useless casework if Baca continued arresting people after prop 19 passed?

Thoughts on constitutionality?

[pcosmar]

They need a new Sheriff. And that man need a new job.
Perhaps raking shit at a sewage treatment plant.
:(

[Dr.3D]

They need a new Sheriff. And that man need a new job.
Perhaps raking shit at a sewage treatment plant.
:(
I understand the government has been hiring people to count the used condoms at the sewage treatment plants. Perhaps he would qualify for that job.

[Travlyr]

The legal battles could get interesting. Leroy Baca needs to be taught a lesson. He will be out of work when his term is up.

[JoshLowry]

I'd like to ask Sheriff Baca why alcohol needed a constitutional amendment to be outlawed.

[Danke]

I'd like to ask Sheriff Baca why alcohol needed a constitutional amendment to be outlawed.

We still have dry counties.

[Travlyr]

I'd like to ask Sheriff Baca why alcohol needed a constitutional amendment to be outlawed.
People of LA county should be asking specifically for Sheriff Baca to publicly show them the language for his judgment call of unconstitutionality.

"Proposition 19 is not going to pass, even if it passes,” Baca said at a news conference today. The Sheriff says he and his deputies will continue enforcing current marijuana law, even if Proposition 19 changes it.

He claims to have the authority to do this based on his judgment that the proposition is unconstitutional. An interesting take, since his oath of office required him to “uphold and defend it” not “decide what it says.”

[Dr.3D]

I'd like to ask Sheriff Baca why alcohol needed a constitutional amendment to be outlawed.

Some folks have been inhaling government pickle-smoke for so long, they can't distinguish between what is and isn't true. Seems that poor lad has been brainwashed.

[brandon]

Wait a year or two and this guy will be a high level bureaucrat for some federal agency. I'm sure there was some kind of deal made.

[Lucille]

Are Baca and Cooley in stir yet? (http://knappster.blogspot.com/2010/10/are-baca-and-cooley-in-stir-yet.html)

[johngr]

Too bad he's not sheriff in an Arizona border county. Of course, the feds got his back on this one.

[furface]

It's the police unions talking. Government unions control a large part of California government. Californians are slowly waking up to this fact, but there are still problems with even talking about the issue. Every time some sort of discussion comes up about government salaries and pensions, it's always prefaced with "we know police and firefighters are putting their lives on the line for us ..."

You want a revolution? Police, fire fighters, soldiers, government workers in general are not your friends. If Oathkeepers want to discuss the problems of sanctifying soldiers, which leads to war, and police & fire fighter unions, which lead to oppressive taxation & prison/industrial states, then I'm all for them.

In the best form of consensual government these occupations would be volunteer based.

[Anti Federalist]

The Law Is What I Say It Is - “Proposition 19 is not going to pass, even if it passes” (http://cannacentral.com/news/la-county-sheriff-the-law-is-what-i-say-it-is/)

Author of article has a chip on his shoulder, but I thought this was interesting and worth sharing.

What would the DA do with all the useless casework if Baca continued arresting people after prop 19 passed?

Thoughts on constitutionality?

Help me out on the title of your post Josh.

Is Baca an OathKeeper? I see in the story a reference to his oath of office but nothing about belonging to OathKeepers, the organization.

And I'd be inclined to think that person who has the chip on his shoulder is Baca, not the author.

Constitutionality? These people wouldn't know the constitution if they fell over it.

Makes it pretty clear who the boss is though, doesn't it?

Of, By and For the people, my aching ass.:mad:

[JoshLowry]

Help me out on the title of your post Josh.

Is Baca an OathKeeper? I see in the story a reference to his oath of office but nothing about belonging to OathKeepers, the organization.

Yea, that's why I found the thread worth posting.

http://oath-keepers.blogspot.com/2009/06/sheriff-leroy-baca-advocates-that-he.html


And I'd be inclined to think that person who has the chip on his shoulder is Baca, not the author.Leaning that way as well. When I saw he was an OathKeeper I thought maybe he was referencing something of importance. He probably just gave OathKeepers lip service for support.

[Dr.3D]

This is what happens when an Oathkeeper doesn't understand what the Constitution says.
Seems there will be a conflict as to what the Constitution says, till it is explained to the satisfaction of all concerned.

[Anti Federalist]

Yea, that's why I found the thread worth posting.

http://oath-keepers.blogspot.com/2009/06/sheriff-leroy-baca-advocates-that-he.html

Leaning that way as well. When I saw he was an OathKeeper I thought maybe he was referencing something of importance. He probably just gave OathKeepers lip service for support.

I'll be goddamned...:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

Nice find.

I'm not sure what the hell to make of this...

[awake]

I guess he is an Oathkeeper in the same sense that Obama is?

[Travlyr]

Swearing the Oath does not really mean anything if public officials are not legally bound to it. Swear to abide by the Constitution today, forget it tomorrow.

This is why Kenneth Gomez (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=261101) and others are challenging this (penal bond) legal matter in the courts and bringing it to the people.

[furface]

This is what happens when an Oathkeeper doesn't understand what the Constitution says.

It's not enough to simply claim to follow the constitution. You need to say how you're going to interpret the Constitution. Oathkeepers do a decent job of explicitly saying what they're not going to do.

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2009/03/03/declaration-of-orders-we-will-not-obey/

The problem is what they leave out.

1. That they will uphold the law in the local jurisdiction they serve.

That goes without saying, but not for Baca.

A little more controversial:

2. That they will support efforts to minimize the size of government, including military, police, & firefighting.

[nobody's_hero]

It's the police unions talking. Government unions control a large part of California government. Californians are slowly waking up to this fact, but there are still problems with even talking about the issue. Every time some sort of discussion comes up about government salaries and pensions, it's always prefaced with "we know police and firefighters are putting their lives on the line for us ..."

You want a revolution? Police, fire fighters, soldiers, government workers in general are not your friends. If Oathkeepers want to discuss the problems of sanctifying soldiers, which leads to war, and police & fire fighter unions, which lead to oppressive taxation & prison/industrial states, then I'm all for them.

In the best form of consensual government these occupations would be volunteer based.

Sanctifying soldiers doesn't lead to war. Sanctified politicians lead to war.

[furface]

Sanctifying soldiers doesn't lead to war. Sanctified politicians lead to war.

I don't know. I hear people insulting politicians ever hour of every day when I listen. It's extremely rare for anybody to publicly insult the concept of soldiering. It begs the question of whether or not pandering to soldiers is related to non-stop warfare in the US.

I'm not sure how heroic a professional soldier is. It feeds into the idea of interventionism and continuous standing armies. If you volunteer to repel an invading army, you're a hero. If you get paid to be a soldier in an aggressive, interventionist army, that's at best just your job.

[Dr.3D]

It's not enough to simply claim to follow the constitution. You need to say how you're going to interpret the Constitution. Oathkeepers do a decent job of explicitly saying what they're not going to do.

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2009/03/03/declaration-of-orders-we-will-not-obey/

The problem is what they leave out.

1. That they will uphold the law in the local jurisdiction they serve.

That goes without saying, but not for Baca.

A little more controversial:

2. That they will support efforts to minimize the size of government, including military, police, & firefighting.

This is precisely the problem. People interpret the Constitution differently. There could be as many interpretations of the Constitution as there are people. It's much like the way people interpret the Bible. Some say it says one thing and others say it says something else, hence the reason there are so many denominations.

It would seem, in politics, rather than denominations, there are parties, each holding fast to a different interpretation. Even here on the Liberty Forest forums, we have disagreements as to how the Constitution is to be interpreted.

What is needed is an independent entity, not affiliated with the Federal Government nor the separate states, to determine how the Constitution is to be interpreted. As it is right now, we don't have such a thing.

Perhaps it would be best to get all of the states together and write an interpretation of each part of the Constitution all of them can agree to. The Federal Government would and should not be a part of that decision making process.

[Humanae Libertas]

I bet Baca doesn't have an IQ over body temperature.

[emazur]

http://www.alternet.org/drugs/148524/la_sheriff_pledges_to_bust_people_for_pot_even_if_ marijuana_is_legalized_in_california/



Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca said on Friday that the voters don’t matter. His deputies’ enforcement of marijuana laws would not change even if voters approved Proposition 19, which would legalize cannabis in California, on November 2, according to the Sheriff.

“Proposition 19 is not going to pass, even if it passes,” Baca said in a news conference Friday at sheriff’s headquarters in Monterey Park, reports Robert Faturechi in The Los Angeles Times.

Baca, who is sworn to uphold California state law, claimed Prop 19 was superseded by federal law and if passed, would be found unconstitutional.

Funny how the war on drugs itself is unconstitutional and that prohibition of alcohol required a constitutional amendment. Baca is an idiot (BTW, baka means "idiot" in Japanese)

[speciallyblend]

ooo like that is a threat after 75 yrs of tickets and tickets and some jail. clueless sheriff!!

[Dr.3D]

http://www.alternet.org/drugs/148524/la_sheriff_pledges_to_bust_people_for_pot_even_if_ marijuana_is_legalized_in_california/




Funny how the war on drugs itself is unconstitutional and that prohibition of alcohol required a constitutional amendment. Baca is an idiot (BTW, baka means "idiot" in Japanese)

It's also a common pronunciation of the word cow in Spanish. (yes they spell it vaca, but pronounce the V as a B.

[VegasPatriot]

Yea, that's why I found the thread worth posting.

[/URL][url]http://oath-keepers.blogspot.com/2009/06/sheriff-leroy-baca-advocates-that-he.html (http://oath-keepers.blogspot.com/2009/06/sheriff-leroy-baca-advocates-that-he.html)

Leaning that way as well. When I saw he was an OathKeeper I thought maybe he was referencing something of importance. He probably just gave OathKeepers lip service for support.

This is more than disturbing to me... I will see if I can post this article (http://cannacentral.com/news/la-county-sheriff-the-law-is-what-i-say-it-is/) in the So Cal OK forum (a private forum for OK members) and try to get some follow-up and clarification from Baca himself.

[torchbearer]

We still have dry counties.

counties can prohibit, federal government cannot.

[Danke]

counties can prohibit, federal government cannot.

And we are talking about an LA County Sheriff...

[dannno]

http://www.alternet.org/drugs/148524/la_sheriff_pledges_to_bust_people_for_pot_even_if_ marijuana_is_legalized_in_california/




LA Sheriff Pledges to Bust People for Pot Even If Marijuana Is Legalized in California

Sheriff Baca, who is sworn to uphold California state law, has essentially said that the voters don't matter.

October 17, 2010 |


Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca said on Friday that the voters don’t matter. His deputies’ enforcement of marijuana laws would not change even if voters approved Proposition 19, which would legalize cannabis in California, on November 2, according to the Sheriff.

“Proposition 19 is not going to pass, even if it passes,” Baca said in a news conference Friday at sheriff’s headquarters in Monterey Park, reports Robert Faturechi in The Los Angeles Times.

The department run by Sheriff Baca polices 75 percent of Los Angeles County. His staunch opposition to marijuana -- even if it is legalized -- was echoed Friday by an announcement from Attorney General Eric Holder that federal officials would continue to “vigorously enforce” cannabis laws in California, even if state voters pass the measure.

Baca, who is sworn to uphold California state law, claimed Prop 19 was superseded by federal law and if passed, would be found unconstitutional.

Standing onstage with other prominent opponents of marijuana legalization, including Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley, Sheriff Baca colorfully assailed marijuana use, users and sales.

Asked if he had ever experimented with pot, Baca left no room for doubt. “Hell, no,” he said.

Baca claimed legalizing cannabis would have far-reaching effects, including increasing the costs of drug rehabilitation (although most people in rehab for marijuana have been forced there by court order), causing traffic accidents (although marijuana is not a significant factor in auto wrecks), prompting labor disputes with employees getting high on the job (although Prop 19 gives employers the right “to address consumption that actually impairs job performance“), and providing a safe cover for drug cartels selling hard drugs.

California’s laws for pot smokers are already lenient enough, Baca claimed.

“If you a need for an ounce or less… then use your marijuana, but use it privately,” Baca said. “If you want to do a joint in your house, do it. Leave the rest of us alone.”

Baca claimed personal users smoking at home were already a non-priority for police agencies, including the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department. His department does target pot dealers, he said.

The sheriff came out against Prop 19 early on, joining with Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to try to prevent its passage.

Polls have shown California voters are almost evenly split on legalization.

Incredibly, Baca claimed on Friday that local law enforcement agencies -- which, again, are sworn to uphold state laws -- should abide by federal drug laws prohibiting marijuana, even if Prop 19 passes.

“[Prop] 19 has no effect on what we’re going to do,” Baca said.

[oyarde]

http://www.alternet.org/drugs/148524/la_sheriff_pledges_to_bust_people_for_pot_even_if_ marijuana_is_legalized_in_california/

So , what is it in particular this guy has against the 10 th ?

[dannno]

^Baca isn't an oathkeeper is he?

Sorry for reposting, i was out of town this weekend.. def worth a bump tho..

[oyarde]

The legal battles could get interesting. Leroy Baca needs to be taught a lesson. He will be out of work when his term is up.

The legal battles would be long , interesting. Does this guy have relatives that are lawyers ?

[AGRP]

I can't say I'm surprised.

MJ is to law enforcement as no school choice is to teachers unions.

[JoshLowry]

^Baca isn't an oathkeeper is he?



Hes an Oathkeeper?

Yea, that's why I found the thread worth posting.

http://oath-keepers.blogspot.com/2009/06/sheriff-leroy-baca-advocates-that-he.html (http://oath-keepers.blogspot.com/2009/06/sheriff-leroy-baca-advocates-that-he.html)

When I saw he was an OathKeeper I thought maybe he was referencing something of importance. He probably just gave OathKeepers lip service for support.