Editorial: Courts interpret, sheriffs enforce

The doctrine of judicial review has long been established. If there’s a dispute about the constitutionality of a law, it’s up to courts to make the call.

There’s been no superseding case that replaces judges with your local sheriff, which is a good thing, since most sheriffs don’t have the legal training required to be a constitutional expert.

So then what is a “constitutional sheriff”? It’s a fantasy of so-called constitutionalists who believe myriad federal laws are unconstitutional.

The 16th Amendment established the federal income tax. The 17th Amendment established the popular election of U.S. senators. Both are targets of constitutionalists, who oppose that tax and liked it better when state legislatures appointed senators.

Constitutionalists want both repealed, because they’re ardent believers in states’ rights. So ardent, in fact, they believe sheriffs have a duty to defy federal laws deemed unconstitutional. Deemed by whom? By them.

When was the last time you voted for a sheriff based on his or her standing as a scholar? Like most people, you probably wanted the best person to enforce the laws, not interpret them. You don’t want them issuing legal judgments any more than you want judges cuffing suspects.

Former Idaho Rep. Phil Hart believed that by squinting really hard at the founding document and doing his own research, he had discovered firm legal ground on which to reject his income tax bill. He even wrote a book on the subject. In January, his home was auctioned off to cover some of his back taxes.

It’s not wise to play constitutional expert. It’s not wise to expect this of sheriffs.

The militants who push for the takeover of public lands have it all wrong. It’s not up to them or local sheriffs to decide. It’s up to the courts. As Harney County Sheriff Dave Ward told Spokane County Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich on Knezovich’s weekly podcast, “I believe in the Constitution in its entirety, not just the parts that make me feel good.”

The 10th Amendment makes the militants feel good, so they disregard its limitations. Ward was the Oregon sheriff who had to deal with the illegal occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. Militant sympathizers are upset that Ward upheld the law, rather than their peculiar interpretation.

A fellow named John Green is running for Kootenai County sheriff as a “constitutional sheriff.” Voters are advised to steer clear, unless they want their tax dollars drained by fruitless legal challenges.

Interior Secretary Sally Jewell says national parks and other federal conservation areas are being threatened by militants and some politicians who want to sell the land. Protesters should take their case to court rather than stage dangerous standoffs.

That’s how it’s done under judicial review. Calling yourself a constitutionalist doesn’t give you any greater standing.

To respond to this editorial online, go to www.spokesman.com and click on “Opinion.”