Police chief fired for vow to uphold Constitution?

From USAprepares.com:

Police Chief Shane Harger of the Jemez Springs, NM Police Department was placed on administrative leave and ordered to disband his police department today.

Harger returned from the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association Convention on Monday, January 27, 2014 with a sense of knowing that, he as well as 38 other peace officers, shared the commitment to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America from enemies both foreign and domestic. He and the other 38 men and women signed the Resolution of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association…

The following morning, Harger was informed by Sheriff Douglas C. Wood of Sandoval County, New Mexico, that Harger was to dismantle the Jamez Springs Police Department…

his department was ordered by Sandoval County, NM, Sheriff Douglas C. Wood to disband because of Harger’s political affiliations, specifically the CSPOA headed by founder Sheriff Richard Mack…

Despite having received a meritorious commendation from the Mayor of Jemez Springs on January 22, 2014, it seems that no one in the village government is willing to come to the assistance of Harger. It appears that Harger’s stance to defend and uphold the Constitution has put him and his entire department of ten part-time and volunteers out of business.

At the airport on his way to the convention, Harger was told he was a “person of interest” and detained for 35 minutes.

This is the oath that may have caused the actions against Harger:

January 28, 2014 |

For Immediate Release – Resolution Of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association January 24, 2014


Of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association

January 24, 2014

Please print this document and present it to your sheriff for signature and then mail the original:

CSPOA – Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association | PO Box 567 | Higley | AZ | 85236

email: azdmack@gmail.com
Phone: 480-840-9091

Pursuant to the powers and duties bestowed upon us by our citizens, the undersigned do hereby resolve that any Federal officer, agent, or employee, regardless of supposed congressional authorization, is required to obey and observe limitations consisting of the enumerated powers as detailed within Article 1 Section 8 of the U S Constitution and the Bill Of Rights.

The people of these united States are, and have a right to be, free and independent, and these rights are derived from the “Law of Nature and nature’s God.” As such, they must be free from infringements on the right to keep and bear arms, unreasonable searches and seizures, capricious detainments and every other natural right whether enumerated or not, pursuant to the 9th amendment.

We further reaffirm that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” (10th amendment)

Furthermore, we maintain that no agency establishedby the U S Congress can develop its own policies or regulations which supersede the Bill of Rights or the Constitution, nor does the executive branch have the power to make law, overturn law or set aside law.

Therefore, in order to protect the American people, BE IT RESOLVED THAT,

The following abuses will not be allowed or tolerated:

1) Registration of personal firearms under any circumstances.

2) Confiscation of firearms without probable cause, due process, and constitutionally compliant warrants issued by a local or state jurisdiction.

3) Audits or searches of a citizen’s personal affairs or finances without probable cause, due process, and constitutionally compliant warrants issued by a local or state jurisdiction.

4) Inspections of person or property without probable cause and constitutionally compliant warrants as

required by the 4th Amendment and issued by a local or state jurisdiction.

5) The detainment or search of citizens without probable cause and proper due process compliance, or the informed consent of the citizen.

6) Arrests with continued incarcerations without charges and complete due process, including, but not limited

to public and speedy jury trials, in a court of state or local jurisdiction.

7) Domestic utilization of our nation’s military or federal agencies operating under power granted under the laws of war against American citizens.

8) Arrest of citizens or seizure of persons or property without first notifying and obtaining the express consent of the local sheriff.

AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the undersigned Sheriffs, Peace Officers, and other Public Servants, do hereby denounce any acts or agencies which promote the aforementioned practices. All actions by the Federal Government and its agents will conform strictly and implicitly with the principles expressed within the United States Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights.

There is no greater obligation or responsibility of any government officer than to protect the rights of the people. Thus, any conduct contrary to the United States Constitution, Declaration of Independence, or the Bill of Rights will be dealt with as criminal activity.

Position: ______________________________________________

Signed: _______________________________________________ Date: ___________________

The fact that this oath is not required for all U.S. peace officers is further evidence that we are descending into tyranny.

8 thoughts on “Police chief fired for vow to uphold Constitution?”

  1. I think these police should be fired for assuming powers they do not have, namely the power to determine what is constitutional. This is a judicial power reserved to the federal courts.

    When a police officer abrogates to himself powers reserved to federal courts, he is in violation of accepted constitutional limits. The Supreme Court is very clear that gun regulation, including limits, is constitutional; for police officers to vow to violate this precept is grounds for removal from office.


    1. “Assuming powers they do not have” – sounds like the current president. Would you agree that his violation of accepted constitutional limits is grounds for his removal?


      1. No, and neither does anyone of influence in the Republican Party. All Presidents reach for as much power as possible, especially when confronted with a rival Party whose goal is to weaken you. Bush trashed habeus corpus and other ancient rights, and even the conservative SC had to overrule him. Obama has continued with many of Bush’s policies regarding the “unitary executive powers.”

        All President’s should be checked,, but the Supreme Court has no checks or balances. It can overrule Congress or the President. It is not elected, nor is it accountable. It has absolute power, and absolute power corrupts. So if you want to deal with tyrannical government power, you have first to deal with the Supreme Court. We can vote out (or even impeach) a President, or a Congressman, but the Supreme Court has absolute power which no one can touch. No Supreme Court Justice has ever, in over 200 years, been removed from office.

        Obama has changed the powers of the President much less than Bush but sadly he has continued much of it.

        The dangerous powers, because they are unaccountable, are those of the Supreme Court and the dominant corporations.

        Remember, the last President to be impeached was Clinton, and he ended up the only President to have a higher approval rating when he left than when he took office.

        Obama has committed no “high crimes” tho he is a disappointment and has not repealed many of the expansions of power of previous Presidents. The goal of impeaching him will only backfire.


      2. The fact that politicians of influence in both parties allow presidents to get away with whatever they want is proof that we do not have a true two-party system. In fact, as your comment points out, the entire system has been trashed. That’s why, even though Congress has the authority to impeach Supreme Court justices, they don’t do so. Congress also has the power to reject or confirm justices, so checks and balances for all branches exist on paper; however, as is becoming increasingly clear, it’s all political theater. The former system exists merely as stage setting.

        That is why the animosity between Democrats and Republicans, or Left and Right, is unproductive. We, the common people, are fighting against globalism, a system that is run by the global elite, leaders of corporations who have great disregard for human welfare and life (except their own).

        That is why, when a handful of peace officers sign an oath in the hope of retaining some of what’s left of our Constitutional Republic, I salute them and wish them godspeed. Who will help us if all that’s left in law enforcement are instruments of an unaccountable government?

        By the way, perhaps we should wonder whether Clinton had such high approval numbers because he put on the most entertaining show.


      3. Allowing local police to be the judge of constitutionality is absurd.
        Constitutionalityrequires a common standard (not legal in Texas, illegal i Oklahoma) and allowing local police to be the judge will only make matters worse.

        As for Clinton’s approval ratings, what they show is not that he was entertaining but that economic performance trumps partisan quibbles and private vices. I found Bush very entertaining (he could have been a successful comic), but he had the lowest approval ratings since Truman, due to his failure in foreign policy and the economic collapse his policies caused.

        The solution to a broken government is not to give local police the powers reserved for Congress and the courts; the solution is to fix the government, which begins with eliminating the power of wealth in controlling the political process. The answer to plutocracy is not local police power but democracy.


      4. The growing economy under Clinton is a good example of the benefit of lowering tax rates. As reported in Forbes:

        “…it was a prosperity produced by freeing America’s poor from a punitive welfare system, lowering tariffs, reducing tax rates on the creators of wealth, limiting the growth of federal government expenditures, and providing a strong and stable dollar to businesses and families in America and throughout the world.”

        As the article states, he did this after dramatic Democratic losses in midterm elections. He had to move to the right to increase his popularity.

        As for fixing our broken government, how do you suggest eliminating corporate influence on politicians? Anything suggested would be voted down by Congress, as most are too corrupt to vote against their own wallets.

        And do you really want peace officers that are mere tools of the State?

        What will we do when the federal government egregiously oversteps the boundaries of the Constitution? What influence will we have if all law enforcement become instruments of a lawless government that wants us silenced? Eliminating peace officers who hold a conservative view of the Constitution is not in our best interest. The officers we’re talking about are not lawless people; rather, they’re preparing for the worst case scenario. If the worst happens, we need them on our side.

        On the other hand, I fear this discussion may be entirely meaningless, as it is possible that the United States is already under global law and they just haven’t told us yet.


    1. Thank you for the correction. It’s interesting that the news article you link to tells the story of why he had to change his name. Kind of defeats the purpose of going through all that trouble, doesn’t it? And how was the info so readily available to media?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s