Previous Post
Next Post

Liberty County Sheriff Nick Finch (courtesy

Arizona – -( It has become common for liberal fascists to proclaim that “only the Supreme Court” can interpret the Constitution. Nothing could be further from the truth. Every legislator, every elected politician, every police officer and person in the military takes an oath to uphold the Constitution and defend it against all enemies, foreign and domestic. They do not take an oath to follow orders given by the Supreme Court. It is a myth that only the Supreme Court can interpret the Constitution . . .

It was not always so, and legislators and juries commonly interpreted the Constitution in the United States before the “progressive” era. One of the strongest checks on government power is the power of the jury. A jury has the power to decide that a law is unconstitutional or that a particular application of a law is unjust.

In Florida, an elected Sheriff released a prisoner when the Sheriff believed the prisoners constitutional rights had been violated. A disgruntled deputy lined up another job, then accused the Sheriff of corruption. From

BRISTOL, Florida (Reuters) – A Florida sheriff was acquitted on Thursday of charges that he committed misconduct and falsified public records when he freed a jailed man who carried a loaded gun without a permit.

Suspended Liberty County Sheriff Nick Finch, 51, had testified that he released Floyd Parrish from jail because he had a constitutional duty to uphold the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Conservative organizations and activists opposed to gun control rallied to the sheriff’s defense after Governor Rick Scott suspended him last summer. Scott reinstated him shortly after the jury delivered its verdict.

So we have a very interesting case where a Sheriff acts on his principles, and is upheld in them by a jury of his peers. Perhaps we will see the start of a trend.

(c) 2013 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. God I pray this becomes a trend and people (police and politicians included) start to think for themselves again regardless of party lines.

    • According to comments I see on here regularly they also hide corruption if they witness it, murder at will, and eat babies for lunch. Maybe that was the Infowars website though….hard to tell sometimes. Anyway good on this sheriff for doing the right thing.

        • Your point being what? I’ve seen horrible comments posted about police and sheriff’s deputies. They have essentially the same job just different bosses.

        • In many cases, the difference is who their bosses’ bosses are. In the case of sheriff’s deputies, their boss is usually accountable to the voters in his jurisdiction. In the case of police officers, their bosses are usually only directly accountable to local politicians and the police union. Care to guess which system tends to result in more corruption?

        • I don’t recall either being mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. From context I assume you’re saying that sheriffs are mentioned. Where, specifically?

      • From what I read here and elsewhere, the Sheriff did the right thing. He upheld the constitution, and let a law abiding citizen carry on with his life. It is my hope that most LEO’s are like him (although personal experience tends to make me think it’s 50/50)

        The Sheriff was subsequently suspended without pay, and has been prosecuted by the system he was a part of in a manner reminiscent of the witch hunts of old. Because he did what he thought was morally and constitutionally right.

        And you WONDER why we distrust LEO’s? You can find good cops, but it’s not a good system. Good cops don’t usually advance, aren’t usually in charge, and when they are they don’t last long. A system that persecutes the good within itself is inherently evil. Don’t dress it up and pretend it’s not.

        And a great big FU to Rick Scott for removing this man from his position and not upholding the law. I would invite our FLA readers to send him your opinions on this disgraceful series of events.

    • LEOs should be held to a high standard. When an LEO does wrong it’s crucial to make it known.

      The unfortunate result of this is that we more often hear of when they do wrong than when they do right; which leads to general distrust. There are good LEOs. There are bad LEOs. This is possible because LEOs are people just like anyone else. They are also part of a system with altogether too many leaders who do not respect the rights of the citizen (though one such is too many) and distaste for the policy of the desk jockeys is also transferred to street officers who are the face of the organization.

    • That’s the message I hear on here too often. “Police are all personifications of evil incarnate who love to eat babies livers, and I’m a perfect paragon of justice who’s every action is justified. Oh, and if you disagree with me, you are a quisling false-flag brain dead Police Officer in disguise.”

      • Hey now everyone knows cops eat the still beating hearts or newborn infants… gah the nerve of some people… eating livers what kinda jack wagon eats the liver???

      • Just for the record, I’ve never actually met a “bad” cop. Even when they were rousting me with a .25 BAC, they were polite and very professional. And once, I ran out of gas at a red light on a city street during rush hour, and a couple of beat cops helped me push the car off the road, and they actually gave me a lift to the gas station so I could get moving again.

        And actually, it’s kind of unfair to call on them to enforce abysmally bad unconstitutional laws.

        And there are the CSPOA.

    • It’s good to see that there is a LEO who does what he’s supposed to. I’m not going to give him any special props for doing what he’s supposed to do in the first place.

      There’s is a whole web site run by the Cato Institute that documents hundreds of cops who are jackbooted thugs.

      When Hinshelworld finishes licking those jackboots, he may want to take a look.

  2. Flipside: if we all [collectively] can interpret the constitution, and the collective public opinion leads to an interpretation of the Second Amendment different than what the AI hold dear, what then?

    • In that case doc. There is a certain creek deep in the mountains and hollers that we will be up with nary a paddle to be found.

  3. They’re not supposed to “interpret the Constitution.” They’re supposed to interpret the law to see whether it’s “made in pursuance [of the Constitution].” Article. VI.

    Of course, the foundation of the whole banana is the Will of the People.

    The trick to being Free is to – wait for it – Be Free.

    Don’t comply! Nullify!

  4. We should only be so lucky.
    At least there is one sheriff Id vote for if I could here in Florida.
    It sure wouldn’t be the politician of a sheriff we have here in Palm Beach County.

  5. No one ever contended that “only” the Supreme Court can interpret the Constitution. What is that kind of argument called–setting up a false premise and then patting yourself on the back for knocking it down? The Constitution is interpreted by whomever has the need–the only true statement (NOT MADE HERE) is that the Supreme Court has the final say, the last word, on any given issue that it decides to decide. A true statement that is not relevant to the story line. This case could have easily been decided on a clear and well-established legal principle–that the Sheriff has discretion as to who to charge and for what, and there was simply no evidence that that discretion was exercised here out of some sort of favoritism (which would be corruption).

    • I had a U.S. Senator tell me, when I asked him to uphold his oath of office, that determining what was constitutional was the job of the Supreme Court.

      Politicians have routinely passed laws that sane reading of the Constitution would see as blatantly unconstitutional, under the excuse that it is not their job to exercise judgement as to whether the law is constitutional or not, claiming that they have no duty to do so, it is the sole job of the Supreme Court.

      Then you have the Courts, since the Roosevelt revolution declare that all laws passed by the legislature are to be considered de facto constitutional, that a challange to them can only be brought under circumstances that generally put one at great risk because of the definition of “standing”.

      Put those two elements to gether, and you have a racheting effect that is a major way that federal power has grown so enormously in the last 60 years.

      • I have my issues with the presumption of constitutionality, but the notion is a smidge older than the Roosevelt era.

        • Agreed. Standing is always a foundational jurisdictional inquiry from the earliest of cases. And yes, even back when the first court sat, laws were presumed constitutional, placing the burden of proof on the challenger to establish the invalidity of the law.

      • It is the job of the courts–all courts, not just the Supreme Court, to determine, if asked, the constitutionality of any given law. You can’t file a suit in the Supreme Court for all intents and purposes challenging the constitutionality of a law–you file it in the federal district court if it is federal legislation, state or federal courts if it is a state law. And if a Senator told you differently, well then he’s an idiot–which would surprise me not at all. Good politicians do in fact consider the constitutionality of any given bill–and unconstitutionality is often raised by politicians and legislative counsel as a ground for voting against a bill.

  6. For the record . . . the Supreme Court Justices function as judges and jurors.

    And I do not need any justices, jurors, judges, etc. to tell me red is red, up is up, and that the men who founded this nation intended for common folk to be able to have the same hardware as soldiers & Blackwater Hessians. When “right” become illegal & “wrong” is funded w/ tax dollars, its time to appeal to God in a court of blood. I think right wing fanatics like Washington & Adams would agree 🙂

    • For the record, you are wrong. And the Founding Fathers were radical revolutionaries, by definition liberals, not conservatives.

      • I did not state they were conservatives. Also, I was being FACETIOUS. I am guessing you need SCOTUS to tell you black is black, 2 + 2 = 4, etc. etc.?

      • They ain’t liberals by today’s standards, that’s for sure. The modern “evolved” liberal progressive takes their orders from the mainstream media and statist politicians. Similarly, modern liberals have hijacked to the phrase “common sense” from its classical meaning. Now, the phrase means “I have no rational or statistical argument whatsoever to postulate, so I will therefore deem this to be true because it fits into my worldview.” And Obama’s “conversation about gun safety” means him talking about restricting your rights and the American people are to sit back and respectfully listen. Dissension is neither encouraged nor tolerated.

        Further, the finding that the giant turd bomb of Obamacare to be constitutional in the eyes of SCOTUS confirms that the judgement of the courts is dubious at best. We live in a nation where slavery was legal and alcohol was outlawed. Fortunately, some of those wrongs have been corrected. We still have a long way to go, and returning to limited government and foundational freedoms would be a great start.

        • I don’t let Progs call themselves liberals in my presence (or at least I try to challenge them whenever they do). Most are happy to call themselves Progressives, which will soon be a dirty word (again) I think.

  7. Inadequate headline. It should read: “American-Liberty Hero of the Day.”

    Gun grabbing is only one facet of the liberal attack on the Constitution. We cannot be one-issue thinkers and forget the big picture of what is ultimately at stake.

    Note that there are calls these days to rewrite the Constitution, which is “obviously antiquated and inadequate.” Guess who is calling for this: conservatives or liberals?

  8. I’m getting the impression there is going to be a civil war in the US of Constitutionalists VS Statists. Much like the English civil war of Parliamentarians VS Royalists.

      • Always has been. Labor vs. bosses, states vs. feds, culture clashes. America is a melting pot and an ongoing experiment.

        I would have sworn during the 60s it would have come crashing down. But we’re still hanging in there.

    • I like to say Americans vs. Progressives. But it’s all pretty close to the same thing.

      Some say conservative vs. liberal, but that doesn’t really work. Liberals in the modern sense are more “peace, love, and granola.” Think Burlington, VT, where most folks seem to lack the seething fear and hatred of all other ideologies and the smug self-righteousness seen in a typical San Fransisco Progressive. I can actually get along with modern liberals pretty well. I think they are a useful voice in the great melting pot of ideas (as long as they don’t get to run things; their hearts are in the right place but they don’t tend to be very realistic). Unfortunately, most liberals these days have let themselves be duped by the Progs, who are anything but liberal in any meaningful sense of the word.

        • Neat little instrument. I do think a 2D model does pretty well, like that one or like the social (liberal vs. conservative) X fiscal (liberal vs. conservative) model. My dot hit pretty close to the top of the libertarian corner, which I didn’t find too shocking.

  9. ” It is a myth that only the Supreme Court can interpret the Constitution…”

    I guess, but it’s a distinction without a difference if you believe in a restrained government. If you think every podunk sheriff should be able to create or disavow any law he individually considers, then sure, let’s throw out separation of powers and judicial review.

    I read the full story. Smells like corruption and a coverup to me (whiting out records, stuff going ‘missing’ without anyone taking responsibility for it), with a healthy dose of BS from the original defendant (carrying a gun to ‘summon help’ my ass). I’m not saying he should have been convicted; I do not have the knowledge of the case to know if there was proof beyond a reasonable doubt (plus, that’s the jury’s job, like the supreme court… or not, if the author is to be believed). But the whole thing smacks of misconduct.

    This is exactly the kind of behavior people on this site usually decry- a man imposing his personnel or political decisions without due process or magisterial review, all under the color of authority. But because covering up for his good ol’ boy was something he could do while waving the flag of ‘gun rights,’ people here call him a hero. I wonder how many people in that jurisdiction from out of town who aren’t the Sheriff’s friend have been locked up on a gun charge and not somehow had their arrests ‘disappear.’

  10. It seems to me that in the United States; the directly elected sheriff tends to care a lot more about the Constitution than the appointed police chiefs.

    The UT sheriffs’ association was very vocal about telling the administration that their removal of civil rights would not be permitted in their counties:
    However, the appointed chief of the SLC police is nothing short of a traitor to his oath:

    The good cops are the ones who are accountable at the ballot box. The ones who answer only to politicians will eventually go rotten like the ‘men’ they answer to.

  11. I don’t know about Florida, but at least in PA there is a strong argument that Sheriffs, as the only elected law enforcement official, have the final say in their county. I don’t know if this would work out in any practical sense, but in theory a Governor would have no authority to suspend a Sheriff in PA. In fact, within the county lines, the Sheriff could arrest the Governor (or, for that matter, the POTUS) for violation of the constitution. Now, as soon as the Sheriff stepped out of the county, all bets are off. And even within the county, I don’t think many Sheriffs would have the manpower to make it stick. Another complication is that Sheriffs are officers of the courts, so might be subject to that authority. That is a bit sticky, and I’m certainly no lawyer.

    Regardless, I don’t think many Sheriffs would have the intestinal fortitude to thumb their nose at a governor. If I were a Sheriff though, I would freaking love to arrest some Feds for violating the 2A.

  12. Has the POS deputy/former deputy/whiing complaintant to the twit governor yet been hung by the nads?

  13. I was so glad to hear that Sheriff Nick Finch of Liberty County Florida was found not guilty. Florida should really look at clearifying and appropriately defining conceal-carry laws. Thank God that there were enough citizens that knew what Sheriff Finch’s rights are concerning the constitution were to render a proper verdict. As Sheriff he has the power to interpret when laws should be applied.

Comments are closed.