Sheriff Joe Goes Full Retard [Birther]

[TheHammer]

Since he has evidence of a crime, it is thus his duty to secure an arrest warrant for Barack H. Obama and upon receiving it, immediately arrest this suspect upon his arrival in Maricopa County, Arizona so that he can stand trial for forgery.

Considering POTUS is the Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed Forces, and protected by the Secret Service 24/7, such an attempt will likely result in bloodshed, if not civil war.

Of course, considering the mentality of the birthers, I wouldn't be surprised if they were trying to INSTIGATE a second Civil War. (Goddamn, dysfunctional education system that allows a "The South were the good guys! Pay no attention to the fact they STARTED the war, to preserve the institution of slavery!" attitude to flourish.)

I think you've treaded into a little bit of tin foil hat realm talking about Civil War.

I do wonder how the secret service would react to an attempt to arrest the president.

[Simon_Jester]

Why would there be bloodshed?

The most likely result is that Obama will simply ignore the warrant and not go to Maricopa County, or task one of the White House's many lawyers to challenge it and get it tied up. I can't imagine anyone outside Arpaio's jurisdiction cooperating with him on such a bizarre fool's errand.

[noncredible]

And this tent city is legal because...?

Prison systems are left up to the state unless it's a federal prison. There are few federal laws telling state prisons how they can be run, most of that is state law and most state law is along the lines of "Have a fence, have someplace for the prisoners, don't let to many die of scurvy".

So US health and safety laws are just a notch above those of some third-world hellhole. Got it.

[Simon_Jester]

Most of the states have laws that are much higher-standard than that. Arpaio's jails are the exception, not the rule.

It is very difficult to understand American government without grasping this. Many important things that in, say, the Czech Republic would be handled at the federal level are covered at the provincial level in the US. That has costs- especially in the more primitive and corrupt provinces. But in much of the country, the state governments' policies really aren't all that unreasonable compared to other First World countries, in areas where the states can set their own policy.

This is why you can't talk about, for example, "American" law on the death penalty, when that includes both execution-happy Texas and states which have had bans on capital punishment in place for decades.

[noncredible]

So in comparison to many European countries, the US is basically 50 separate countries?

[Aaron MkII]

So in comparison to many European countries, the US is basically 50 separate countries?

In comparison to most of the first world I would say. I'm Canadian, we're right above them but our Federal government is far stronger. Probably because of the way the country was formed, and there (to us) odd attitudes.

[Xenophobe3691]

So in comparison to many European countries, the US is basically 50 separate countries?

Basically. There's a reason they're called the United States

[The Yosemite Bear]

my current belief is that under FCC fase advertising guidelines Sherriff Arpio must change his name to John Brown, and start wearing the white sheet his politics represent.

[Simon_Jester]

So in comparison to many European countries, the US is basically 50 separate countries?

It depends.

For purposes of foreign policy, freedom of speech, class relations, access to health insurance, things are relatively uniform. Not totally uniform, but close.

For purposes of how the schools work, how the prisons and 'basic' law enforcement work (since most routine crime is covered at the state level and is not federal jurisdiction), things like that... yes. 50 separate countries, some of which are more civilized than others.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Soldiers are also physically fit people, not ill illegal immigrants or pregnant women.

or Diabetic GRANDMOTHERS that he denied erm INSULIN to....

[noncredible]

So in comparison to many European countries, the US is basically 50 separate countries?

In comparison to most of the first world I would say. I'm Canadian, we're right above them but our Federal government is far stronger. Probably because of the way the country was formed, and there (to us) odd attitudes.

I'm Canadian too (Calgary), and I always thought the US was similar to Canada, with the state governments not having much authority.

[Simon_Jester]

Well, if the federal government really has its heart set on something, and Congress is on board with the idea, it can typically force acceptance on the states. But unless we go back and rewrite the Tenth Amendment, there will always be broad areas where the states make their own decisions.

The main limits on this are:
1) The federal government can give the states money with strings attached- require them to do things a certain way if they want the money. This usually works well for things like establishing a nationwide drinking age.
2) The Supreme Court can make binding rulings that declare state laws to be in violation of the federal constitution, and therefore erased. This is how, for example, abortion was made legal in the US. Even though almost no state had passed a law allowing it, once the Supreme Court ruled that everyone had a right to it, the state laws against abortion were null and void. Though that turned out to be incredibly unpopular and backfired in many places, and we might actually have been better off had abortion rights not been established that way until the popular consensus had gotten more time to evolve...

[FaxModem1]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikaajbOEWpk



Try not to laugh.

[Alyrium Denryle]

He'd first need a judge to sign it.

I'm trying to find the statute in Arizona, but lack of resources is hindering me at the moment.

Can't he be arrested without warrant, but immediately be given an evidentiary hearing?

EDIT: He's obviously got friends in the judiciary as nuts as he is to not be losing convictions by the bucketload, so I doubt the warrant would be much of a stumbling block anyway.

No. No he does not. The man has been sued, lost, and refused to actually abide by court rulings (state and federal) so many times that the county budgets money to pay his contempt of court fines.

It is just that none of the things he has been sued for will lose convictions. They are for things like inhumane conditions in the jails, unsanitary conditions, inadequate access to water and shade in AZ desert, denial of medical care, wrongful death (because he had asthmatics strapped to a table...).

He just cannot be easily removed. Why? Well, Maricopa Co is HUGE geographically. It tends to vote Blue federally, but it also incorporates a LOT of AZs unsanitary hinterlands full of "Kill them all and let god sort them out" desert rednecks. Combine this with the Old People who flood the state and vote there in the winter... No recall effort has worked, he cannot be removed administratively as an elected official... yeah.

[Simon_Jester]

In short, Joe Arpaio is a walking test case of how hard it is to get the legal system of our society to convict a public official of malfeasance and actually arrest him, rather than counting on the voters to throw him out for us. And the answer is turning out to be "unbelievably, ludicrously hard."

[DPDarkPrimus]

In short, Joe Arpaio is a walking test case of how hard it is to get the legal system of our society to convict a public official of malfeasance and actually arrest him, rather than counting on the voters to throw him out for us. And the answer is turning out to be "unbelievably, ludicrously hard."

Well, it's a little more difficult when the public official is in charge of the folks who would arrest him and surrounds himself with sycophants who do his bidding and people too afraid to defy him.