Dear KMAG: 20191213 Open Thread

That goes to this: The Sheriff Has More Power In His County Than The President Of The United States: U.S. Constitution U.S. Supreme Court ~ Quashes Deep State’s Claim To “Supremacy Clause” a Ruling written by Justice Antonin Scalia in the case: Printz v. U.S. (521 U.S. 898)
**************************
Unfortunately when you look at the actual ruling it is STATE GOVERNMENT vs FEDERAL GOVERNMENT and does NOT ADDRESS the power of a sheriff at all.
**************************
Cormell Law has the actual ruling.

…. The Constitution thus contemplates that a State’s government will represent and remain accountable to its own citizens. See New York, supra, at 168-169; United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 576-577 (1995) (Kennedy, J., concurring). Cf. Edgar v. MITE Corp., 457 U.S. 624, 644 (1982) (“the State has no legitimate interest in protecting nonresident[s]”). As Madison expressed it: “[T]he local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere.” The Federalist No. 39, at 245. [n.11]
This separation of the two spheres is one of the Constitution’s structural protections of liberty. “Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serve to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front.” Gregory, supra, at 458.
To quote Madison once again:

“In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.” The Federalist No. 51, at 323.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1478.ZO.html

So it looks like the STATE GOVERNMENT is granted the power.

Justia Opinion Summary and Annotations
Primary Holding
The federal government violated the Tenth Amendment when Congress required state and local officials to perform background checks on people buying guns.
Facts
This decision arose from an amendment to the Gun Control Act of 1968, which was a federal law designed to limit the distribution and ownership of firearms. Some of the categories disqualified from owning firearms include convicted felons, fugitives, mentally ill individuals, and non-citizens without legal status in the U.S. Congress amended this law in 1993 with the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which mandated background checks to prevent the distribution of firearms to people who were disqualified from owning them….
Writing for the majority, Scalia placed substantial weight on the dual sovereignty principle that divides authority between the federal government and the states. He argued that this concept was critical to the success of the federalism structure on which the American system of government was founded. According to his historical analysis, the Framers meant to limit federal authority to international and interstate affairs, rather than controlling the operations of state officials like police officers within states. Scalia also pointed out that the interim provisions threatened the separation of powers between Congress and the President, who is intended to have sole control over executing the laws under Article II of the Constitution. While he acknowledged that Congress can require state judges to carry out federal legislation, he found that this pattern need not apply to the state executive branch, which is not tied into its own vertical hierarchy like the court system.
Two chief law enforcement officers in Montana and Arizona, Jay Printz and Richard Mack, brought a constitutional challenge to these interim provisions on the grounds that they forced state officers to carry out federal law. The lower courts found that they could not be constitutionally required to perform background checks but could perform voluntary checks. The Ninth Circuit reversed and reaffirmed the constitutionality of the mandatory checks.
Case Commentary
Congress is generally not permitted to commandeer a state’s legislative or executive branches of government, if the state does not choose to use them for the federal purpose of its own accord. This applies even if the commandeering affects only ministerial duties that are relatively mechanical and lacking in discretion. The conservative Court may have had ideological reasons for protecting the relatively conservative states from a liberal federal government with this decision, but it is important to note that its principles also serve to protect relatively liberal states from a conservative federal government.
Practically speaking, the decision had little impact on the enforcement of the Brady Act and related federal laws. Most law enforcement officials at the state and local levels were willing to comply with the interim provisions and conduct the background checks. Moreover, the implementation of the federal background check system in 1998 made the issue moot.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/521/898/