According to Sheriffs: A Treatise on the Law of Sheriffs, Coroners, and Constables, 1941, “In the exercise of executive and administrative functions, in conserving the public peace, in vindicating the law, and in preserving the rights of the government, the sheriff represents the sovereignty of the state and he has no superior in his county.” This idea is taken a step further by the claim that after the Revolutionary War, citizens became sovereign (now a tie to the sovereign citizens movement – and the belief that they are only subject to common law or constitutional law, not statutory laws) and the sheriff’s sworn duty was to protect the rights and property of sovereign citizens from any “unlawful” action or encroachment by the federal or state governments. If a sheriff decides a law is unconstitutional, he must and has the authority to block it.

The current smear against Sean Smith that is playing out on Facebook and the Opinion page is totally contrived by his opponent and his supporters. Repeating the assertion that Sean will be the “gun-control sheriff” does not make it true. On the other hand, linking Schirard to the constitutional sheriffs’ movement is not a stretch; his name can be found on an honor roll of constitutional sheriffs compiled by the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (see http://cspoa.org). That should be enough to give anyone pause during this election.

Denise Bohemier

Durango