Monday, August 16, 2010

The Ultimate Authority?

I wouldn't have phrased it that way, but what the heck--he looks better than most. [Read]

Wonder how he'd do on this...?
Posted by David Codrea at 8/16/2010 06:09:00 PM

4 comments:

Defender said...

The sheriff of my county is well-known for not being well-known. I can't think of a single controversy involving him. Around here, that's unheard of.
I'd like to think that if the feds rode in roughshod, he'd block the road. Think I'll ask him.

8/17/2010 3:03 AM
jon said...

well, since the office of sheriff is an elected position, and he's only got deputies instead of, say, the army, navy, and marines, it does appear somewhat harmless. but the individual is the "ultimate authority" in extant matters of social life, and that includes combat. the sheriff might deputize the entire community in some emergency, but it's still not he who will decide which way they point their rifles.

8/17/2010 7:01 AM
Sean said...

Any "ultimate" authority is wide open to abuse, being human. "Final" authority rests with the people, including their right to be left alone. Authorities in general should only be given limited powers, that are subject to recall by the people, and under constant watchfulness. By ignoring what the "authorities" have been up to, and not jerking them out, we have what we have now, nationwide.

8/17/2010 9:50 AM
Mack said...

David,

I believe you should consider modifying your Questionnaire to expose more readily the NeoCons who side with the cops, no matter what.

You could ask:

"Do you support or oppose the Exclusionary Rule? Why?"

8/17/2010 5:49 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)