Professor Robert Tsai writes in Politico:

“When President Donald Trump pardoned Sheriff Joe Arpaio, calling him a “patriot,” he didn’t just absolve him from the consequences of defying a federal judge. He didn’t merely excuse Arpaio’s racial profiling and illegal immigration sweeps. Trump’s pardon did do all of that. But it also did something more: It boosted a radical theory of law and American history that Arpaio supports, and which is gaining steam across the United States.

It’s called the “constitutional sheriff” movement, and as it grows, it’s increasing the risk of conflict between local law enforcement and federal authorities. Its animating idea is that a sheriff holds ultimate law-enforcement authority in his county—outranking even the federal government within its borders. Though the movement claims deep history in English law, its real roots lie in the more recent fringes of American right-wing thought. And its popularity helps explain why Arpaio’s defiance of federal law shouldn’t be seen as just one grandstanding sheriff crossing a line, but instead should be seen as part of a broader grassroots resistance to constitutional and cultural upheavals during the 20th century.


The strange idea that unites all members of this movement is that a sheriff is the highest law enforcement officer within a county’s borders—superior not only to local police, but also to officers and agents of the federal government. The actual influence of sheriff supremacy is hard to measure, but it has been growing in recent years, and today the official constitutional sheriffs’ association boasts 4,500 dues paying members and over 200 sheriffs. Its highest-profile members include Arpaio and David Clarke, who just resigned as sheriff of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, reportedly to help Trump in some capacity.

But those figures may underestimate how far its influence extends, and how fully it pervades certain regions of the country. In 2013, Arpaio joined nearly 500 other sheriffs who vowed not to obey any federal law that required them to confiscate guns from private citizens. In Utah, 28 of 30 sheriffs went even further, warning that “[n]o federal official will be permitted to descend upon our constituents and take from them what the Bill of Rights—in particular Amendment II—has given them.”

The constitutional sheriff movement arose from the ashes of the far-right, anti-semitic Posse Comitatus movement of the 1970s and 80s, led by William Potter Gale. The insignia favored by these Christian Patriots was a redesigned sheriff’s badge containing a noose, Bible and sword, to reflect their belief that sheriffs were responsible for the armed defense of citizens and higher law (a combination of their view of the Constitution and Christian Identity teachings). Before the movement collapsed with Gale’s death, its paramilitary figures developed an anti-tax, anti-government agenda that stoked conspiracy theories that Jews were responsible for oppressing farmers through crushing taxes and exorbitant loans. Its foot soldiers gained notoriety when they tried to stop foreclosures in the Midwest and engaged in shootouts with U.S. marshals.

. . . .

Trump’s pardon of Arpaio didn’t just let the sheriff off the hook; it short-circuited the part of the American judicial process designed to hold government accountable, and resolve conflicts between levels of government. It began when a class-action lawsuit was filed in 2007 by individuals who claimed they had been racially profiled during Arpaio’s immigration raids and traffic stops. In 2012, the DOJ intervened in the case to vindicate federal interests in ending discriminatory policing, to stop Arpaio from retaliating against his critics in violation of the First Amendment, and to ensure that non-English detainees didn’t forfeit their rights without understanding them. Arpaio lost the first case and settled with DOJ, but was held in civil contempt of court for continuing to capture migrants without legal authority and for failing to turn over records of these encounters.

During the legal proceedings, Arpaio made the puzzling assertion that he had never violated his oath of office, despite having ignored direct orders from a federal judge. As far as he was concerned, the oath of office gave him the right, indeed even the responsibility, to ignore the federal court. He was merely doing the rightful job of a sheriff, enforcing the laws and Constitution as he saw them, unaccountable to anyone but himself. Now that Arpaio has been pardoned, his place in the pantheon of constitutional sheriffs is secure. And his view of American law and history—one shared by kindred spirits, and one that menaces not just federal law but the Constitution itself—just got a troubling endorsement from the president of the United States.”


“Sheriff Joe” isn’t a great American as Trump falsely claims. To use Trump’s own term, Sheriff Joe is one “bad hombre” out to destroy America. And, Trump is the biggest threat to the U.S. Constitution in my lifetime. He is a living violation of his oath of Office.




The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinal reports:

“Since 2010, at least 10 states have passed laws aimed at fighting what a network of far-right organizations insist is the encroachment of Sharia law into American courts.

Now, a group of state lawmakers would like to see Wisconsin follow suit.

State Rep. Thomas Weatherston (R-Caledonia) is spearheading an effort to pass a so-called “American Laws for American Courts” bill, which would bar Wisconsin judges from applying foreign laws — including those based on Islamic law — if doing so would violate fundamental human rights protected by the U.S. and Wisconsin constitutions.

Weatherston said he’s “not concerned about Muslims.” In fact, his bill, like others across the country, doesn’t explicitly mention Sharia. But he is worried, he said, “about other countries’ laws creeping into the United States.”

“Especially religious laws, no matter what the origin is,” said Weatherston. “I’m just making sure that U.S. laws are heard in U.S. courts.”

Critics, including the American Bar Association and many non-Muslims, argue that the laws are unnecessary because such protections already exist in American jurisprudence. And they’re seen by many as part of a larger agenda to vilify Muslims.

“If you look at the promotional materials, the lobbying, it’s the same people who are pushing against Sharia around the country — holding rallies, talking about ‘Sharia creep’ and Muslims taking over,” said Asifa Quraishi-Landes, who teaches constitutional and Islamic law at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and serves as president of the National Association of Muslim Lawyers. “They see any acknowledgment of Sharia in American Muslim life as a first step to the Trojan Horse.”

Last week, the Council on American-Islamic Relations called on Legislative leaders to reject the bill, saying it’s unconstitutional and “contrary to our nation’s crucial principle of not elevating or marginalizing one faith community.”

Sharia, meaning “path,” is the Islamic law, a set of guiding principles that touch on every aspect of Muslim life, from how one dresses and prays to marriage and business contracts. Aspects of it are embedded in the legal systems of Muslim-majority countries, and its tenets are interpreted variously based on the country and schools of Islamic thought. Those who are suspicious of Islam point to its harsher punishments, such as stoning and amputations in rare cases, and its bias in many cases against women.

American Laws for American Courts, or ALAC, was developed by the nonprofit advocacy group American Public Policy Alliance, David Yerushalmi of the Center for Security Policy and others as a way to address the constitutional challenges raised against the earliest versions of the laws — in Tennessee and Oklahoma — which explicitly singled out Sharia.

The newer versions make no mention of Sharia, referencing instead “foreign laws.” But the groups that promote them openly disparage Sharia as a threat to American values and liberties and a vehicle for imposing worldwide Islamic rule.”

. . . .

“Gélé said there have been hundreds of cases in which Islamic law has been invoked in U.S. courts, often to the detriment of women and children. And Weatherston said his office has found at least 70 others, though “none in Wisconsin, thankfully.”

Quraishi-Landes, the UW-Madison professor, disputes their claims. She said courts already look to public policy and constitutional protections — for example, the right to equal protection — as the bases for their rulings. She said she has reviewed all of the cases cited by the Center for Security Policy and found none in which the courts ultimatelyenforced a religious law that violated a fundamental civil right.

“To us, that is an example of the system working,” she said.

Invoking Sharia principles in a family matter is no different from other religious minorities invoking their religious principles in civil cases, she said, pointing to the Beth Dins, or rabbinical tribunals used by Orthodox Jews to negotiate disputes, which are recognized by state courts.

The “American Laws for American Courts” bills have been criticized by Jewish and Catholic groups concerned that their rights to invoke religious principles could also be affected.

In Catholic church bankruptcies, for example, including Milwaukee’s, the church has cited canon law to defend the way it responded to the sexual abuse crisis and to protect assets.

“Americans who care about religious liberty should be concerned about anti-Sharia laws,” even those purporting to address foreign laws, said Robert Vischer, dean of the School of Law at St. Thomas University in Minneapolis.

“Suggesting that the religious convictions of citizens have no place in our courts misunderstands the function of our legal system and sends a troubling message about the place of religion in our society.”


Read the complete article at the link.

The GOP often “fakes” concern about expenditure of public funds. However, in reality, they waste countless taxpayer dollars pursuing unnecessary, unneeded, and divisive pet projects of the far right.



AMERICA’S WORST PUBLIC SERVANT: Read Patrick S. Tomlinson’s NYT Op-Ed: “I’m From Milwaukee And I Oughtta Know, Sheriff David Clarke Has Gotta Go” (Screw Up DHS Like He Did Milwaukee County)!

Tomlinson writes:

“MILWAUKEE — When David A. Clarke Jr., the sheriff of Milwaukee County, announced last week that he’d been appointed to a senior position at the Homeland Security Department, Milwaukee residents like me felt two things: relief that we might finally rid ourselves of his disastrous leadership, and deep concern about what his reported new role will mean for the rest of the country.

Sheriff Clarke (whose appointment the Trump administration has not confirmed) has attracted national attention on several occasions over the past year. In July, he drew scrutiny when, writing for The Hill, he suggested there was a “civil war” between law enforcement officers and members of the Black Lives Matter movement. Last week, CNN reported that he had plagiarized portions of his 2013 master’s thesis from several sources, including the American Civil Liberties Union and President George W. Bush’s book, “Decision Points.” (Sheriff Clarke has denied this accusation, and called the CNN journalist who wrote the report a “sleaze bag.”) And with his image accompanying articles that have circulated online, Sheriff Clarke’s penchant for festooning his uniform with an abundance of pins and ribbons has drawn the ire of veterans and inspired comparisons to the over-adorned uniforms beloved by military dictators.

Locals have been aghast at his conduct for years, and our criticism goes far deeper than his outrageous statements, his bizarre fashion choices and even his academic dishonesty. Residents of this county have witnessed a series of embarrassing incidents and, much worse, human tragedy on Sheriff Clarke’s watch.

Many have seen the 2015 tweet in which he went as far as to say that the Black Lives Matter movement would “join forces with ISIS.” Less well known is the fact that a police union, on behalf of two deputies, successfully sued him in 2007 for religious proselytizing. A district court in Milwaukee found his actions unconstitutional, which a federal appeals panel upheld in 2009. Apparently, Sheriff Clarke thought it was appropriate to force his deputy sheriffs to listen to a Christian-themed presentation, without regard for the separation of church and state.

There’s more. Sheriff Clarke has exhibited petty vindictiveness in response to those who give him even the mildest rebuke. He’s been accused of harassment by Dan Black, a Riverwest resident who said he was detained and questioned by deputies after an interaction with the sheriff on an airplane in January. Mr. Black’s offense? Shaking his head as he walked by Sheriff Clarke, in his first-class seat, wearing Dallas Cowboys gear on the day the team faced Wisconsin’s Green Bay Packers in the playoffs.

Newsletter Sign UpContinue reading the main story
Sign Up for the Opinion Today Newsletter
Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, the Times editorial board and contributing writers from around the world.

More familiar to the national audience and more disturbing, especially to residents of Milwaukee, one of the most racially segregated cities in the country, is the story of Terrill Thomas, a 38-year-old inmate with bipolar disorder who died in 2016 while awaiting trial in solitary confinement in a jail Sheriff Clarke oversees. Mr. Thomas had gone seven days without water.

But what most Americans outside the Milwaukee metro area may not know is that Mr. Thomas’s death hasn’t been the only suspicious death during Sheriff Clarke’s tenure. Several people have died at a county jail since Sheriff Clarke took office in 2002, including a newborn baby who perished after her mother, Melissa Hall, gave birth on her cell floor. According to a federal lawsuit, Ms. Hall was shackled as she gave birth.

Perhaps the most bizarrely unhinged moment in Sheriff Clarke’s sordid career in Milwaukee came in March when he used a Facebook post to personally attack the city’s mayor, Tom Barrett. After Mr. Barrett criticized Sheriff Clarke for neglecting his duties in favor of Fox News appearances and book promotions, Sheriff Clarke became unhinged. Using the official page of the sheriff’s office, he mocked Mr. Barrett, saying, “The last time Tom Barrett showed up at a crime scene he got his ass kicked by a drunk, tire-iron-wielding man who beat him within inches of his life.” He was referring to a 2009 incident during which Mr. Barrett stepped between a deranged, tire-iron-wielding man threatening a grandmother and a 1-year-old child. Barrett was beaten and hospitalized after the assault, but the woman and child were saved from harm and the man taken into custody.

The timing couldn’t be better for him to step down from his post here. Milwaukee residents are fed up with our homegrown sideshow act. His job approval ratings have tanked in recent months. Were he to run in next year’s sheriff election, he would face an almost insurmountable primary fight for the Democratic spot.

The day we can finally rid ourselves of his malignant, sociopathic leadership can’t come soon enough. “Yippee, giddy up, and leave was my response,” said State Senator Lena Taylor of Sheriff Clarke’s possible appointment. But it’s little comfort because Sheriff Clarke’s power will only expand with his new role, which he has said will begin next month. As Representative Gwen Moore said of the sheriff in Mic, “I can think of few men more uniquely unqualified to liaise with local law enforcement at this juncture.”

The rest of the country should not have to suffer what Milwaukee residents have. David Clarke is not fit for public office. He is incompetent, dishonest, petty, vindictive and cruel. Take it from someone who has had a front-row seat to his antics: Do whatever you can to keep him out of public service, and public life, permanently.

Patrick S. Tomlinson (@stealthygeek) is a novelist, stand-up comic, and political commentator living in Milwaukee, Wis.”


“Incompetent, dishonest, petty, vindictive, and cruel.” Hmmm, sounds like a perfect fit for the Trump Administration! On the other hand, he was elected to the position three times by the voters of Milwaukee County. So, someone out there must like his style.