Joe Biden's Son (DA) strips Delaware sheriffs of their arrest power

I've had topical thread removed and it had 0 vile posts in it. I see the mods are now on vacation eh?

Come to think of it I think my iq just dropped from reading some of the posts here.
 
This makes no sense. A sheriff without police powers? So, who becomes the highest law enforcement officer within a given county? Frankly, the idea would be laughed out of the Statehouse even in the People's Democratic Socialist Republic of Illinois.

In my home county in NJ, Bergen, the County Sheriff is a political position. The people that work for the Sheriff, work at his or her pleasure. The Sheriff's dept serves the courts. They provide security, act as Bailiffs, serve papers. They do not perform law enforcement duties.
Where my friend lives in Upstate NY's Warren County, the Sheriff's dept does all of the above as well as law enforcement duties. The deputies patrol towns where there is no police department.
Ya learn something new every day...

I have managed to reach the high-end of middle-age and traveled about half of the States of the Union without ever once encountering a County Sheriff's Department that does not have police powers.

That concept is entirely foreign and alien to me, and I have never even so much as heard of such a thing, but, it's your State, and you should know.

Wow...

When this issue first came up was the first time I had ever heard of a State Legislature stripping arrest powers from all the Sheriffs in their State.

As I understand it, the Sherriff was/is supposed to be the highest position of Law Enforcement in the County/Parish/Whatever your State calls it.

Biden is simply enforcing the laws of the State as they are written. It's not his fault the legislature did what they did.
 
I guess it depends on the State. Some states, the Sheriff's dept has double duty. Serving the courts as well as doing police work.
NC and NY are two examples.
NJ Sheriff's depts do court work only.
I an not familiar with Delaware law. Only the part where the DE constitution reads that the Sheriff's job is to keep the peace.

In Delaware the sheriff doesn't have arrest powers. Hasn't since 1940. Nothing is being stripped away, the sheriff is arguing his office has powers that it doesn't.

I'm quite sure that is against the Constitution of Delaware:
The common law of England, as-well as so much of the statute law as has been heretofore adopted in practice in this State, shall remain in force, unless they shall be altered by a future law of the legislature; such parts only excepted as are repugnant to the rights and privileges contained in this constitution, and the declaration of rights, &c., agreed to by this convention.

This means the state can only strengthen/reinforce (alter) common law provisions, not abolish or disparage them, unless they amend their Constitution.

Now if only the people of Delaware knew...

It's even in the New York State Constitution:

[Common law and acts of the colonial and state legislatures]

§14. Such parts of the common law, and of the acts of the legislature of the colony of New York, as together did form the law of the said colony, on the nineteenth day of April, one thousand seven hundred seventy-five, and the resolutions of the congress of the said colony, and of the convention of the State of New York, in force on the twentieth day of April, one thousand seven hundred seventy-seven, which have not since expired, or been repealed or altered; and such acts of the legislature of this state as are now in force, shall be and continue the law of this state, subject to such alterations as the legislature shall make concerning the same. But all such parts of the common law, and such of the said acts, or parts thereof, as are repugnant to this constitution, are hereby abrogated. (Formerly §16. Renumbered and amended by Constitutional Convention of 1938 and approved by vote of the people November 8, 1938.)

http://www.dos.ny.gov/info/constitution.htm

This is our ace in the hole if they try to make the same move under Fuhrer Cuomo.
 
Last edited:
That way since 1940....older news than I thought. Silly thread, faulty base, faux rage.
 
That way since 1940....older news than I thought. Silly thread, faulty base, faux rage.

Look at the post above yours. At any time the people of Delaware can reverse this injustice, since it is illegal. I suggest you order copies of 18th Century English Law books, the Magna Charta and the records of the British judiciary from the 13th Century to to then 18th Century.

Have fun!
 
Last edited:
I guess it depends on the State. Some states, the Sheriff's dept has double duty. Serving the courts as well as doing police work.
NC and NY are two examples.
NJ Sheriff's depts do court work only.
I an not familiar with Delaware law. Only the part where the DE constitution reads that the Sheriff's job is to keep the peace.

In Delaware the sheriff doesn't have arrest powers. Hasn't since 1940. Nothing is being stripped away, the sheriff is arguing his office has powers that it doesn't.

I'm quite sure that is against the Constitution of Delaware:
The common law of England, as-well as so much of the statute law as has been heretofore adopted in practice in this State, shall remain in force, unless they shall be altered by a future law of the legislature; such parts only excepted as are repugnant to the rights and privileges contained in this constitution, and the declaration of rights, &c., agreed to by this convention.

This means the state can only strengthen/reinforce (alter) common law provisions, not abolish or disparage them, unless they amend their Constitution.

Now if only the people of Delaware knew...

You've come up with quite an interesting legal definition of "alter".

"Alter" doesn't mean "strengthen/reinforce". It means "change" - and there's no reason to think the word "alter" can't mean abolish or "disparage".
 
That way since 1940....older news than I thought. Silly thread, faulty base, faux rage.

Look at the post above yours. At any time the people of Delaware can reverse this injustice, since it is illegal. I suggest you order copies of 18th Century English Law books, the Magna Charta and the records of the British judiciary from the 13th Century to to then 18th Century.

Have fun!

English common law does not supersede state law in the US.

It's ridiculous to claim that it does.
 
English common law does not supersede state law in the US.

It's ridiculous to claim that it does.

That depends on which state you live in. In all of the original 13 States, English Common Law, unless abolished by the State Constitution, remains in full force and effect, even if the people don't know it and hte poltiicans rape and take advantage oft hem and ignore it. Did you not read the New York State Constitution quote? or the Delaware one?

Yes , "alter" means strengthening, we know this because it specifically states (after) that it cannot be abolished or damaged in any way, unless the state Constitution is amended, making that excerpt of the common law "repugnant" to the Constitution. It's not rocket science; however, provided that libtards interpret "shall not be infringed" to mean anything except "shall not be infringed" why would I expect a logical common sense interpretation of any other document or clause that limits the power of Big Gov?
 
Last edited:
English common law does not supersede state law in the US.

It's ridiculous to claim that it does.

That depends on which state you live in. In all of the original 13 States, English Common Law, unless abolished by the State Constitution, remains in full force and effect, even if the people don't know it and hte poltiicans rape and take advantage oft hem and ignore it. Did you not read the New York State Constitution quote? or the Delaware one?

You are interpreting those quotes in a truly baffling way.

I think you won't find many who'll agree with you.

Yes , "alter" means strengthening, we know this because it specifically states (after) that it cannot be abolished or damaged in any way, unless the state Constitution is amended, making that excerpt of the common law "repugnant" to the Constitution
It doesn't say that in your quote. What section of the Delaware Constitution are you finding this?
It's not rocket science; however, provided that libtards interpret "shall not be infringed" to mean anything except "shall not be infringed" why would I expect a logical common sense interpretation of any other document or clause that limits the power of Big Gov?

It's not "logical" or common sense to claim that the word "alter" means "strengthen".
 
I guess it depends on the State. Some states, the Sheriff's dept has double duty. Serving the courts as well as doing police work.
NC and NY are two examples.
NJ Sheriff's depts do court work only.
I an not familiar with Delaware law. Only the part where the DE constitution reads that the Sheriff's job is to keep the peace.

In Delaware the sheriff doesn't have arrest powers. Hasn't since 1940. Nothing is being stripped away, the sheriff is arguing his office has powers that it doesn't.

Ok...As previously stated, I was unaware of Delaware Law.
Next question. If the Sheriff does not have law enforcement authority, then why does Biden believe it necessary to create legislation that is redundant?
 

Forum List

Back
Top