I honestly dont think the Federal government was ever meant to have it's own law enforcement capability of any significant quantity, precisely as to make it practically imposable for them to appose any states nullification with out the activity military support of the other states, willing to take drastic mesures to help it impose its authority upon such a people.

In general it makes sense that the states should have "the benefit of the doubt" and general discretion in such matters provided that any such indiscretion are not so seriously injurious to the other states as to justify reprisal by the same other states supporting the same Federal Government.

That being said as uses-full and honorable as what Scalia said in Mack/Printz, I find it hard to embrace any ruling by the court on the extent of federal powers particularly in any expansionary direction due to the clear conflict of interest the same FEDERAL court holds. He is right thou that the Supremacy clause in no way grants the federal government general supremacy merely the Federal Constitution. My point however being here that the meaning of the same Constitution can not be the sole provence of the same Federal government's own self-appointed court.

The propose of the Federal court is not to define the limits of its own power but rather resolve constitutional and otherwise disputes among the branches of the federal government and between disputing states where constitutionally applicable. Not to become the arbiter of power between itself (the federal government) and that of the States. Being an appointed agent of the same Federal government they are woefully unqualified for such a position on the grounds of lack of impartiality.

It is perhaps possible that i am wrong in this interpenetration of the constitution with regard to the will of our founders and that this is indeed a fundamental and fatal flaw in our system dooming it to the product of tyranny.

Such is a conclusion which I am for my love and devolution to the cause of liberty rendered unable to accept, if such be the case and even if such not be the case, then a constitutional amendment is clearly needed to remidty even the incorrect assumption of such a fatal flaw in our system.

This is very true, without law there is anarchy. And anarchy is very much like the vacuum in physics, it needs to be filled even if by the first tyrannical entity that comes along.

Where does the Sheriff get his power?

(From the prospective in a citizen in Phoenix, AZ and if you have been paying attention the Federal government has been putting the heat on our Sheriff Joe Arpaio)

I don't know what the Federal Government is going to do about the Good Sheriff. Sheriffs are Constitutional officers, not U. S. Constitution but State Constitution.

The people created the Constitution which empowers the Federal government to protect the people. Also, he Tenth Amendment reserves to the states respectively, or to the people, any powers the Constitution did not delegate to the United States, nor prohibit the states from exercising.

The office of sheriff is created by the Constitution of the great state of Arizona. The sheriff is bound by the oath to uphold the Constitution of the state and answerable only to the people of the county NOT the Federal Government. The office of sheriff IS a part of the checks and balances of the United States of America. It is there to prevent the Federal Government from doing what it is trying to do today.

So what is the Federal Government going to do? Amend the Arizona State Constitution? I think not.

This post was mentioned on Twitter by TenthAmendment: A great sheriff will do what’s necessary to preserve the liberty of the people #10th http://su.pr/31MmDv…