Mack: Loss of State Sovereignty Will Cause Bloodshed

Richard Mack, one of those far-right sheriffs (former sheriff, actually, but he’s now the head of the fringe Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association) is making pretty much the exact same argument used to defend slavery: state’s rights (which do not exist). And if states can’t continue to discriminate against gay people, he says, only bloodshed will fix it.

Mack, who argues that county sheriffs are not accountable to federal authority and so should not enforce laws that they believe violate the Constitution, told Deace that America has been losing liberty for a long time, but “it took a tyrant and communist in our own White House to wake a lot of people up.”

“And I will tell you this, if we do not, if the counties and cities and states do not exercise their proper constitutional authority, known as state sovereignty and the 10th Amendment, if they do not enforce their own state sovereignty and secure their state sovereignty, then America will die,” he said. “If we do not exercise the 10th Amendment and state sovereignty, we will lose liberty in America, and we will not get it back unless there’s bloodshed.”

“I’m proud of Judge Moore and I’m proud of the state supreme court in Texas,” he said, “and Gov. Perry and other governors across this nation and sheriffs and county commissioners and city councils must do likewise or we will lose.”

Those exact same words could have been said — were said — by Jefferson Davis, Alexander Stephens and the rest of the confederates. The states had a “right” (wrong, states do not have rights, they have authorities) to let white people own black people and if the federal government said otherwise, it would destroy all liberty. And bloodshed was indeed what happened. There isn’t enough of these extremists to spark a civil war anymore, but they sure sound stupid advocating for it.

POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • raven

    Mack is also a Mormon.

    A lot of Mormons seem to hate the USA. They moved to Utah to form their own country, Zion, and fought the Utah War against the USA. Which they lost. They then had to outlaw polygamy under pressure from the USA, something they resent to this day except the 60,000 polygamists that still exist.

    Since then they’ve produced an endless stream of far right extremists, Cleon Skousen, Cliven Bundy, Mitt Romney, their entire US congregational delegation, and Glenn Beck to name just a few.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    It’s nice that, as above, members of Law Enforcement can be rational about this.

  • raven

    When the USA reasserted their control over Zion aka Salt Lake City, they built a fort above it called Fort Douglas.

    The cannons of the fort pointed down towards the city. In fact, they used Brigham Young’s house to set their sights.

    Fort Douglas is still there. IIRC, the cannons still point down at the city. Just in case

  • dugglebogey

    Has the definition of the word “communist” been changed to “person with whom I disagree” without my knowing? Because I keep seeing people use it totally wrong and I’m starting to think I’m the stupid one.

  • D. C. Sessions

    duggglebogey, I iknow someone who has a sig line that reads:

    Teapublican: A person who defines unconstitutional as “shit I don’t like” and treasonous as “not 100% my way.”

  • http://artk.typepad.com ArtK

    @dugglebogey

    See also: Fascist, Nazi, Muslim, Imperialist, Tyrant, Dictator, Liberal and a host of others. There’s a wingnut grab-bag of words that all mean “something bad,” Whenever they write one of these screeds they reach into the bag and pull out a few. The careful ones just use one or two, while the more profligate throw as many as they can into the mix. The fact that these words have meaning beyond “something bad,” is lost on them, because it’s lost on their audience.

  • http://ingles.homeunix.net/ Ray Ingles

    I think Eugene Volokh (linked to on this very page, under “Legal Blogs”) made a pretty compelling argument that the photographer in New Mexico who refused to photograph a same-sex wedding should have been entitled to protection under the First Amendment, and not been compelled to produce an artistic work that she didn’t agree with.

    I’d think cake decorators also have a pretty good claim to being artists too. (Of course, my wife runs a bakery, so I might be biased. Although, she has no problem with doing cakes for same-sex couples and I’ve even helped deliver one.)

    Flower arranging? Maybe. There’s certainly some creative input there – more than a caterer, limo driver, or reception hall manager, for sure. That said, I also agree that the ‘persecution’ claims are a bit overblown.

  • http://ingles.homeunix.net/ Ray Ingles

    Dang it, wrong thread. Sorry.

  • John Pieret

    ArtK:

    And don’t forget the compound words they (with crazed imagination) coin … Feminazi, Gaystapo and the new one from Sher Zieve: Islamo-Nazi!

  • http://artk.typepad.com ArtK

    @John Pieret

    Yup. It’s all croutons and anchovies in their word salad.

  • whheydt

    Hmmm…Is Mack offering to shed his OWN blood, or does he want to shed the blood of someone else?

  • shadow

    @11:

    Someone else’s of course. He’s much too valuable exposing the conspiracies to risk his own blood.

    (I’m going to vomit now)

  • hrafn

    Mack, who argues that county sheriffs are not accountable to federal authority and so should not enforce laws that they believe violate the Constitution

    What a pity that that constitution doesn’t have a clause (say Clause 2 of Article 6) giving federal law supremacy over state institutions, or establish a court to decide on whether laws “violate the Constitution” (say a Supreme Court of the United States).