Mark Lamb- Even A "Constitutional Sheriff" Doesn't Get To Selectively Enforce The Law
Isn't law enforcement's job to enforce the law, not determine which laws they'll require adherence to?
(thanks to Kathryn Johnson for this one)
"I didn't really expect you to have an appropriate response," Renaire says simply, taking a moment to tap ash off the tip of his cigarette. He'd hoped, yes, but never expected, not really. "I came to terms with the fact you're a possessive, self-important asshole with a superiority complex a long time ago."
"Somehow, that's reassuring," Delaurier says.”
― Luchia Dertien, Gnomon
One of the many contrary ideas circulating amongst more Conservative American frustrated with what they feel to be the continuous overreach of the government is that federal power should be limited. Through a highly selective reading of the Constitution and historical practice, they’ve developed what’s become known as the “constitutional sheriffs” movement. Unsurprisingly, this movement is strongly embraced by many on the Far-Right.
Let’s start with a definition of the “constitutional sheriffs” movement, so we’re at least singing from the same hymnal:
The “constitutional sheriffs” movement contends that “[t]he law enforcement powers held by the sheriff supersede those of any agent, officer, elected official or employee from any level of government when in the jurisdiction of the county.” Self-proclaimed “constitutional sheriffs” claim to derive this supreme authority from historical practice as well as the oath they swear to the Constitution (even though an oath pledging to uphold the Constitution is standard for many public officials and government employees). Thus, “constitutional sheriffs” assert that they have the power to determine the constitutionality of the laws they are entrusted with enforcing, and to refuse to enforce any law that they believe is unconstitutional. Although only a small fraction of the nation’s sheriffs are part of the movement, in recent years, “constitutional sheriffs” have refused to enforce a host of public safety laws, from COVID-19-related mask mandates to state and federal gun laws, and have affirmatively sought to frustrate federal land management and other government programs.
If I read this correctly, those who adhere to these beliefs are convinced that county sheriffs are the highest authorities in the land and that nothing and no one can supersede their authority. Sheriffs- all roughly 3,143 of them- have supreme authority to interpret the constitutionality and enforceability of any law. This means they may ignore any law they believe to be unconstitutional (And how many of them are constitutional scholars?) without fear of consequence.
To any rational, clear-thinking person, this is, of course, a recipe for chaos, if not outright disaster. Approximately 3,143 county sheriffs, all deciding on their own whether a particular law is constitutional when only a small number of them know anything at all about the Constitution. Indeed, I’m not the only one who sees the massive cock-up potential here…am I?
The North Stars & Cowboy Bars paywall launch special:
Subscribe to an annual plan- $50.00- before 3.15.23 and receive a 20% discount!
And how is it that the vast majority of these “constitutional sheriffs” seem to fall on the Far-Right end of the ideological spectrum? Most law enforcement agencies sensibly prohibit open political activity from those charged with enforcing the law. Nonetheless, most “constitutional sheriffs” tend to give themselves a pass. For these “patriots,” professional ethics are for losers and Liberals.
Some “constitutional sheriffs,” like Mark Lamb of Arizona’s Pinal County, have made quite a name for themselves, to the point where Lamb is considering a run for the US Senate. Who says mixing law enforcement and Right-wing politics can’t be a springboard to bigger things?
Before he leaps into national politics, though, Sheriff Lamb has taken on the task of teaching Conservative values to children. Yep, you can never start indoctrinating children too early:
Sheriff Mark Lamb of Pinal County, Arizona, has a story to tell — and it unabashedly includes love of family, faith and country, plus a robust defense of America's traditional values at a time when the country is very divided.
"We're seeing a real attack on traditional values in this country right now," Lamb told Fox News Digital in an interview this week.
"We're seeing an attack on our children and an effort to educate them about things that most parents are not OK with," added Lamb, a father and grandfather.
It is why, Lamb said — in an effort to help educate America's children and "be part of their lives in a positive way" — he decided to write a children's book that teaches critical thinking skills, something he believes is very much needed today.
Of course, Lamb’s “critical thinking skills” are from a very far Right-wing perspective, which he sees as countering things “that most parents are not OK with.” I suspect his view on parenting might not be universally shared, but my purpose is not to argue with his arch-Conservative worldview.
No, my concern is with a view of law and the enforcement of it, which places Mark Lamb and others like him at the pinnacle of authority, above even that of the President.
[A]s Lamb considers a run for the Senate in 2024, his sizable presence on right-wing media and broader forays into self-help and childrens’ books, reality TV, and various philanthropic endeavors could become all the more important in building a statewide constituency. Lamb also has powerful allies at conservative institutions: He’s a fellow at Trump-aligned think tank the Claremont Institute and spoke at a rally organized by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), an anti-immigrant organization which the Southern Poverty Law Center has designated as a hate group. He has also worked with election denialist group True the Vote and expressed an affinity for QAnon conspiracy theories….
And if you believe that law enforcement officers- especially sheriffs- should refrain from overt political activity…well, you’ll have an issue with Mark Lamb’s professional ethics.
As well you should.
Mark Lamb’s job is enforcing the law, not interpreting it or determining which laws are worthy of being enforced and which aren’t. That would place us on the same level as so many banana republics, with so many local jefes ruling their own personal fiefdom.
Lamb gained notoriety early in his tenure as Pinal County sheriff by appearing on reality TV, another point of overlap with Trump. Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, he ingratiated himself to right-wing media by refusing to enforce Arizona’s stay-at-home order, earning him praise on Fox News. (He later contracted COVID-19.)
Lamb was already tied to far-right movements such as the Constitutional Sheriffs and Police Officers Association (CSPOA), an organization founded by former Oath Keepers board member Richard Mack that claims sheriffs are the highest law of the land, superseding any federal or state authority. The movement arose from the far-right “Posse Comitatus” movement in the 1970s and ‘80s, and its legal claims have been thoroughly debunked by legal experts.
Lamb told journalist Jessica Pishko in a profile for Politico that he was not a “constitutional sheriff,” but there are reasons not to take him at face value; as Pishko notes, he spoke at the CSPOA conference in 2020. He also appears on a list of signatories in a 2017 letter from CSPOA’s “Freedom Coalition” demanding the release of people they claim were incarcerated as a result of federal overreach.
“Sheriff Lamb is a Constitutional Sheriff and is one of the best sheriffs in America,” said Mack, the movement’s godfather, as reported by the SPLC.
Lamb is a “constitutional sheriff” whose ties to CSPOA are more than just a matter of convenience. Though he’s lied about being a “constitutional sheriff,” his words, actions, and political ties betray his allegiances. And he’s someone who’s got his eyes on bigger prizes than Pinal County.
There’s a more disturbing side to the “constitutional sheriffs” movement, one that Mark Lamb may not be directly involved in but something that could have a significant impact on the future of American politics.
While cheering on the dozens of Illinois sheriffs who are publicly refusing to enforce the state’s new assault weapons ban, the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association is preparing to incorporate even more far-right ideology into the trainings it offers local law enforcement officers.
CSPOA is led by Richard Mack, a former Oath Keepers board member who supported the Bundy family’s armed standoff with federal officials. CSPOA teaches sheriffs that they are the highest law enforcement authority in their counties and that they have a duty to resist state and federal “tyranny”—which in CSPOA’s definition includes gun regulations and public health measures adopted during the COVID-19 epidemic.
Oath Keepers…Bundy family’s…sheriffs publicly refusing to enforce Illinois’ assault weapons ban…this is what we expect from our law enforcement officers?
Despite what Richard Mack may have to say, even IF sheriffs are the highest law enforcement authority in their counties, that confers upon them no “duty” to resist state and federal “tyranny.”
They’re sworn to uphold and enforce- not interpret- the law. County sheriffs aren’t required to be constitutional (or legal) scholars, and I’d wager that many haven’t read the Constitution (or studied the law) enough to know of which they speak. Any “interpretations” a sheriff might make would probably be a matter of convenience or based on personal prejudice- and therein lies the problem.
Last year, CSPOA partnered with the voter-suppression group True the Vote to promote its false claims about voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election. Mack told listeners of the right-wing Liberty Monks podcast that they “must vote for any Republican that we possibly can” to “punish the Democratic Party” and “stand against the destruction of America.” At a press conference Mack organized during the right-wing “Freedom Fest” held in Las Vegas last July, he urged sheriffs to “join us in this holy cause.”
In a webinar for CSPOA members this week, Mack was excited about the Illinois sheriffs’ mass resistance, declaring, “We are so into this thing.” His co-host Jack Mullen called the resistance “a revolutionary event.” Mack praised sheriffs for being “warriors” in defense of the Second Amendment, and reported that CSPOA is organizing a press conference in Illinois as well as planning a meeting with the state’s sheriffs on March 4.
In case anyone harbored any doubts about Lamb’s commitment to enforcing the law instead of advancing his political agenda and prospects, consider what he told an Arizona pro-gun rally.
And keep in mind that Lamb is a sworn law enforcement officer.
(In case you might have forgotten, Posse Comitatus was debunked long ago.)
“Do not give an inch on your Second Amendment rights,” he told rallygoers.
Lamb, who built a fan base as a reality TV personality, created Protect America Now, which describes itself as a “law and order” group, in the month following Trump supporters’ attack on the U.S. Capitol. “I don’t know how loud we have to get before they have to listen to us and know we will no longer tolerate them stripping our freedoms away,” Lamb said, calling the insurrectionists “very loving, Christian people” who “just happen to support President Trump a lot.”
“We support Sheriffs and law enforcement members that believe in God, Family and Freedom,” says Protect America Now’s website, which asks for a monthly donation of $17.76 to “help us win this battle for the soul of America.”
Along with many other right-wing sheriffs, Lamb opposed public health restrictions designed to slow the spread of the COVID-19 virus. At a 2021 anti-vaccine rally, he told supporters, “We’re going to find out what kind of patriots you are. We’re going to find out who is willing to die for freedom.” Lamb has also trafficked in QAnon conspiracy theories.
Like his ally, so-called “constitutional sheriff” Richard Mack, Lamb embraced Trump supporters’ false claims about the 2020 presidential election and promoted Dinesh D’Souza’s widely debunked propaganda film “2000 Mules.” Last year, Lamb entered into a partnership with True the Vote, a right-wing elections group with a track record of promoting unsubstantiated voter fraud claims, and he pledged to get more deeply involved in monitoring elections. Reporting for Bolts magazine, Jessica Pishko called Lamb’s rhetoric “part of an escalating campaign to police the vote,” noting that it could “encourage extremist vigilante violence be perpetuating baseless rumors of fraud, often against Black and Latinx communities.”
I’m not sure what he thinks the 2nd Amendment says, but like most Proudly Closed-minded Gun Control Foes, he’s choosing to ignore the first thirteen words even as he embraces the last 14. I get “the right to bear arms,” but it’s neither universal nor all-encompassing. As is true with most Proudly Closed-minded Gun Control Foes, Lamb is cherry-picking meanings convenient to the gun-hugger agenda.
And, since most Conservatives are strict constructionists when it comes to the Constitution, their insistence on a fast and loose interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is hypocritical at the very least. It’s also just plain wrong.
Neither is the “constitutional sheriff” concept to be found anywhere in the Constitution. Moreover, accepting the county sheriff as the highest power in the land would introduce chaos into national governance. That would mean roughly 3143 sheriffs, almost none constitutional scholars would be rulers of their counties with virtually autocratic power.
And this doesn’t even account for the fact that Lamb denies the validity of the 2020 Presidential election (without evidence), is a confirmed anti-vaxxer, and has trafficked in QAnon conspiracy theories. There’s more, of course, but I think this should be enough to disqualify him from serving as sheriff, much less from running for a Senate seat.
When a law enforcement officer refers to January 6th insurrectionists as “very loving, Christian people” who “just happen to support President Trump a lot,” that sends a terrible message. It says breaking the law is acceptable if you have to be of the “proper” political/ideological/religious persuasion. “Loving, Christian people” can break the law in the name of Jesus Christ, but non-Christians should be locked up.
Imagine what Mark Lamb might’ve had to say had the insurrectionists been Liberals and atheists? First, Liberals and atheists wouldn’t have rioted as Conservatives did. Second, Lamb would almost certainly have been screaming for blood.
Law enforcement is and should be an apolitical pursuit. However, when county sheriffs decide to engage in politics at the expense of their sworn duties, everyone suffers. Their constituents can no longer believe that the law is being enforced impartially. Nor can they trust that miscreants who happen to be of the “correct” ideology aren’t being given a pass when caught breaking the law.
When law enforcement is no longer impartial or perceived as honest, it becomes corrupt. When that happens, everyone suffers. Mark Lamb is free to run for office; that’s his right as a citizen. But, if he chooses to do so, he should resign as sheriff of Pinal County. The citizens he was elected to serve surely deserve better than a corrupt and distracted law enforcement officer.
Besides, can you imagine the weeping and gnashing of teeth we’d hear from him if the sheriff were a Democrat? Lamb would be accusing him of everything short of being a pedophile.
Not that there’s a double standard in play here. No sir.
