Editorial
Around election time in North Idaho, intense debates in hotly contested races always center around which candidate is more constitutional than the other. Oftentimes, the most prolific voices shouting on social media are not only constitutionally illiterate, but amazingly ignorant of basic civics as well.
For instance, there are extremely vocal proxies to an independent candidate’s campaign for Kootenai County Sheriff who assert that their guy is the constitutional sheriff, while completely misconstruing constitutional principles. The nexus to living in a free society with God-given rights is to first live as a constitutional citizen. There isn’t a single constitutionally protected right that doesn’t come with responsibility. As soon as one is demanding their rights, first look at whether they exercised their responsibility.
When it comes to maintaining law and order, it is first the responsibility of the individual to conduct themselves appropriately and demand the same of others. It is an individual’s responsibility to self-protect, self-provide, and self-educate. In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Castle Rock versus Gonzales that said officers of the peace do not have a constitutional duty to provide aid or protection. Law enforcement’s primary duty is to apprehend those who have already broken the law, not prevent laws from being broken. Unless we want to live in a police state, this is the correct understanding of policing powers.
The State of Idaho recognizes the importance of free citizens being the primary party to maintaining law and order, and it passed strong private property rights along with the ability for private persons to affect arrests. The only way for citizens to effectively apply an arrest under §19-604 is to thoroughly understand what a public offense entails, what constitutes a felony, and how to articulate probable cause.
Of course, this requires one to self-educate and take an active role in their community and the vast majority of citizens simply don’t bother. Instead they demand “protection” from the sheriff’s office and complain when budgets increase to meet the service demands. Some even go so far as to promote an “I’m your strongman” candidate whose campaign promises amount to operating outside the bounds of the authority of a sheriff.
When a society shifts from being predominantly moral, to predominantly immoral, it is virtually impossible to maintain a structured and functioning system of governance. Immoral individuals do not self-regulate and do not respect the rights of others. This creates an environment where those who don’t know how to protect or provide demand that others take on those responsibilities for them. In effect, they are relinquishing their own liberty in the hopes that they will obtain some measure of security, and in doing so they threaten the liberty of the entire community.
Before you ask what your local law enforcement agency is doing to reduce crime, evaluate what you are doing to uphold your responsibilities to maintain law and order. Before you ask whether a candidate for sheriff is aligned with the constitution, check your own knowledge of constitutional principles and how to apply those principles to policies affecting the sheriff’s office.
Don’t be an ignorant citizen at the ballot box. Take the time to educate yourself, assess the current political landscape, and diligently vet local candidates before casting your vote in the November 5 election. Don’t trust your liberty to the loudest voices on social media, the odds are pretty good such voices are constitutionally illiterate.
