On the right side of the road, heading west on Highway 160 within city limits, there is a “Duke Schirard for Sheriff” sign. Perhaps the city ordinance governing election signs is just one more law that doesn’t apply to our sheriff. Schirard has made it clear that he will not enforce (or follow?) laws that he feels are unconstitutional. Where does Schirard get his authority to pick and choose which laws he will enforce and which laws he won’t? The constitutional sheriffs’ movement led by the Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack asserts that the county sheriff is the ultimate legal authority of the land.
According to Sheriffs: A Treatise on the Law of Sheriffs, Coroners, and Constables, 1941, “In the exercise of executive and administrative functions, in conserving the public peace, in vindicating the law, and in preserving the rights of the government, the sheriff represents the sovereignty of the state and he has no superior in his county.” This idea is taken a step further by the claim that after the Revolutionary War, citizens became sovereign (now a tie to the sovereign citizens movement – and the belief that they are only subject to common law or constitutional law, not statutory laws) and the sheriff’s sworn duty was to protect the rights and property of sovereign citizens from any “unlawful” action or encroachment by the federal or state governments. If a sheriff decides a law is unconstitutional, he must and has the authority to block it.
The current smear against Sean Smith that is playing out on Facebook and the Opinion page is totally contrived by his opponent and his supporters. Repeating the assertion that Sean will be the “gun-control sheriff” does not make it true. On the other hand, linking Schirard to the constitutional sheriffs’ movement is not a stretch; his name can be found on an honor roll of constitutional sheriffs compiled by the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (see http://cspoa.org). That should be enough to give anyone pause during this election.
Denise Bohemier
Durango
