Sheriff mike scott should google the "hatch act" of 1939

[CheddaJetta]

Quote, originally posted by 2VWatatime »

And I'm pointing out that the link provided does not back up your assertion that it could. Can you prove that it applies? *still waiting*

And again, I'm not trying to prove it applies. I'm trying to get you to see how it could apply.

He almost certainly fits within the scope of the Act (see first sentence I quoted above). As such, he is prohibited from being "a candidates for public office in a partisan election" and from using "official authority or influence to interfere with or affect the results of an election or nomination"--both of which one could argue he violates (he's up for reelection currently). Likewise, the argument exists in the other direction since a permitted activity is to "actively campaign for candidates for public office in partisan and nonpartisan elections."

The fed is investigating him. If it was as black and white as you think it wouldn't waste its time.

[DIAF]

Quote, originally posted by Tornado2dr »

I think, at the least, he should be reprimanded in some way. Sheriff is usually an elected office, so I don't know that he COULD be fired. You are/were a Police Officer, right? Can you not see the negative implications with wearing your uniform at a political gathering campaigning for someone else?

You keep failing to differentiate between the fact that there is a huge difference between a Sherriff and a deputy, or police officer. As a former soldier, I know that it is inappropriate to appear at any political events in uniform. I also know that the President, who is commander in chief, can go to any political event he wants to, because he's a politician.

I'm not saying it was a good idea, I'm just saying it's not in any way reprehensible because of his position. If he were a true employee, and not a politician I'd be on your side.

[DIAF]

Quote, originally posted by CheddaJetta »

And again, I'm not trying to prove it applies. I'm trying to get you to see how it could apply. He almost certainly fits within the scope of the Act (see first sentence I quoted above). As such, he is prohibited from being "a candidates for public office in a partisan election" and from using "official authority or influence to interfere with or affect the results of an election or nomination"--both of which one could argue he violates (he's up for reelection currently). Likewise, the argument exists in the other direction since a permitted activity is to "actively campaign for candidates for public office in partisan and nonpartisan elections."

So could he not wear his uniform to his own campaign rally?

Quote »

The fed is investigating him. If it was as black and white as you think it wouldn't waste its time.

I would be careful what you say, you're referring to the same people that spent months of government time and money investigating whether or not Roger Clemens had steroids injected in his butt.

[CheddaJetta]

Quote, originally posted by DIAF »

So could he not wear his uniform to his own campaign rally?

If we were talking about a federal employee, the answer is "no." One could argue the key word is "partisan" election. Are sheriff's elections normally partisan? Well it sure is now. Like I said, I'm not proving anything, just saying the possibility exists.

And sorry, the Fed has an obligation to investigate questionable activities (including Clemens). This case certainly fits into that. If it were as simple as you guys think, there would be no reason to "investigate" anything. The fed would simply say he falls under the statute but his activity is permitted.

[DIAF]

Quote, originally posted by CheddaJetta »

If we were talking about a federal employee, the answer is "no." One could argue the key word is "partisan" election. Are sheriff's elections normally partisan? Well it sure is now. Like I said, I'm not proving anything, just saying the possibility exists.

They are partisan elections.

Quote »

And sorry, the Fed has an obligation to investigate questionable activities (including Clemens). This case certainly fits into that. If it were as simple as you guys think, there would be no reason to "investigate" anything. The fed would simply say he falls under the statute but his activity is permitted.

I guess we differ on what is a good use of taxpayer money. Congress should never waste a moment on steroids, and if Mike Scott should be investigated, it should happen on a state level.

[Tornado2dr]

Quote, originally posted by DIAF »

You keep failing to differentiate between the fact that there is a huge difference between a Sherriff and a deputy, or police officer. As a former soldier, I know that it is inappropriate to appear at any political events in uniform. I also know that the President, who is commander in chief, can go to any political event he wants to, because he's a politician. I'm not saying it was a good idea, I'm just saying it's not in any way reprehensible because of his position. If he were a true employee, and not a politician I'd be on your side.

He is both an employee of the state and a politician---the pay comes from all of the taxpayer's pockets.

You can recognize the difference between the sheriff and his deputys, so can I.

You wouldn't wear your military uniform to a political event because when you wear that uniform, you represent your branch of the military.

The Sheriff should be no different. People see him in uniform, and he is the department, and is speaking for the department.

[Tornado2dr]

Quote, originally posted by DIAF »

I guess we differ on what is a good use of taxpayer money. Congress should never waste a moment on steroids, and if Mike Scott should be investigated, it should happen on a state level.

I agree.

[CheddaJetta]

Quote, originally posted by DIAF »

if Mike Scott should be investigated, it should happen on a state level.

Why should the State investigate violation of a federal statute?

[DIAF]

Quote, originally posted by CheddaJetta »

Why should the State investigate violation of a federal statute?

He's a partisan politician in an elected position. It doesn't take too much to figure out that he's not what was meant by "employee". If there are improprieties, they can be handled on the state level.

[CosmicTDI]

Quote, originally posted by CheddaJetta »

Why should the State investigate violation of a federal statute?

They shouldn't... and I don't think they would have jurisdiction to do so, right?

[CheddaJetta]

Quote, originally posted by DIAF »

He's a partisan politician in an elected position. It doesn't take too much to figure out that he's not what was meant by "employee". If there are improprieties, they can be handled on the state level.

Actually, I think he'd still be considered an employee. I see nothing excepting elected officials from the statute. In fact it's quite clear--executive branch employees. Scott is paid by the government and therefore is an employee (in the exec. branch). How he arrived at his position doesn't seem germane to me.

I still don't understand why a State should take up investigation of a potential violation of a federal statute even if I assume (1) that it has the proper authority to do so and (2) it has the ability or resources to do so.

[Entourage]

Quote, originally posted by Tornado2dr »

I think, at the least, he should be reprimanded in some way. Sheriff is usually an elected office, so I don't know that he COULD be fired. You are/were a Police Officer, right? Can you not see the negative implications with wearing your uniform at a political gathering campaigning for someone else?

Yes. Yes I can see the negative implications behind the uniform. I never stated anything about him wearing his uniform, but, as an Elected Official, which every single swing and d*ck Sheriff IS, in one way or another, he has the right to wear his uniform.

I do NOT agree with the fact that he wore his Class Uniforms to a Presidential Elect campaign "whatever".

However, I see nothing wrong with what he said. He neither said nor did ANYTHING wrong, by stating Obama's family given middle name and therefore, there is NO rational or compelling argument that he should be reprimanded in any way, shape or form. The ACLU and especially the NAACP can go shove their proverbial sticks further up their asse$.

The ONLY reason why either of those money hungry bastards of "rights groups", HA!, is for the media attention.

[MixmasterNash]

Quote, originally posted by USMCScoutSniper »

The ACLU and especially the NAACP can go shove their proverbial sticks further up their asse$. The ONLY reason why either of those money hungry bastards of "rights groups", HA!, is for the media attention.

And people wonder why black people don't vote Republican.

[CosmicTDI]

Quote, originally posted by MixmasterNash »

And people wonder why black people don't vote Republican.

I know... can't understand why...

[Tornado2dr]

Quote, originally posted by USMCScoutSniper »

The ACLU and especially the NAACP can go shove their proverbial sticks further up their asse$.

Interesting.

You are opposed to groups that exist for the purpose of ensuring that Constitutional rights are upheld?

[2VWatatime]

Quote, originally posted by CheddaJetta »

Actually, I think he'd still be considered an employee. I see nothing excepting elected officials from the statute. In fact it's quite clear--executive branch employees. Scott is paid by the government and therefore is an employee (in the exec. branch). How he arrived at his position doesn't seem germane to me. I still don't understand why a State should take up investigation of a potential violation of a federal statute even if I assume (1) that it has the proper authority to do so and (2) it has the ability or resources to do so.

*sigh*

One more time - elected officials are not "employees". This person was elected to office, and will (presumably) continue to run for that office. It is perfectly legal to use the trappings of ones' office in seeking re-election to an office.

Seriously - you've never seen a local/county Sherrif or "peace officer" run for office or make public appearances whilst in uniform? I'm not being flippant in asking... but I've seen such events more times that I care to count.

J

[Entourage]

Quote, originally posted by CheddaJetta »

Why should the State investigate violation of a federal statute?

Why should Congress worry about what Roger Clemens allegedly did when we have PROVEN, without out a doubt, no denying, all facts, homeless people, starving children, rampage crime throughout major cities... need I go on?

They WASTED millions on Roger Clemens and FOR WHAT?! An allegation! That's WHAT.

Sorry Chedda, you are entitled to your opinion, but when it comes down to LAW and HOW law should be applied, you're wrong.

[Entourage]

Quote, originally posted by CheddaJetta »

Why should the State investigate violation of a federal statute?

BTW: He did not violate ANY Federal Statute.

[CosmicTDI]

Quote, originally posted by USMCScoutSniper »

BTW: He did not violate ANY Federal Statute.

Okay... a law. Was that some type of pedantic response? The Hatch Act is a federal law.

[Entourage]

Quote, originally posted by CheddaJetta »

Actually, I think he'd still be considered an employee. I see nothing excepting elected officials from the statute. In fact it's quite clear--executive branch employees. Scott is paid by the government and therefore is an employee (in the exec. branch). How he arrived at his position doesn't seem germane to me. I still don't understand why a State should take up investigation of a potential violation of a federal statute even if I assume (1) that it has the proper authority to do so and (2) it has the ability or resources to do so.

Either you are being an antagonist on purpose, or you are really dense.

Either way, kudos to you for keeping on with a subject you know nothing about.

[Entourage]

Quote, originally posted by CosmicTDI »

Okay... a law. Was that some type of pedantic response? The Hatch Act is a federal law.

Cosmic, Mike Scott did not violate the Hatch Act or any other Federal LAW.

Can we drop this already? Jesus. The ONLY reason why SOME people keep gnawing at this is because it was against Barack Hussein Obama. If it was against John Sydney McCain, these same people including the nimwits they call the ACLU and the NAACP would have nothing to say.

Period.

[Entourage]

Quote, originally posted by MixmasterNash »

And people wonder why black people don't vote Republican.

That HAS to be the dumbest response in this thread.

First, you are assuming that I am a (R) and not a (D). Second, I know plenty of black people that vote (R).

Don't bring race into this dude... just do not go there.

Would the ACLU and the NAACP be asking for media attention over such a stupid, silly, mundane issue if Mike Scott said JOHN SYDNEY MCCAIN, instead? NO, they would not.

Modified by StormChaser at 11:36 AM 10-10-2008

[MixmasterNash]

Quote, originally posted by USMCScoutSniper »

Cosmic, Mike Scott did not violate the Hatch Act or any other Federal LAW.

Well folks, that's that! USMCScoutSniper said so! The Feds can go home now.

[MixmasterNash]

Quote, originally posted by USMCScoutSniper »

That HAS to be the dumbest response in this thread. First, you are assuming that I am a (R) and not a (D). Second, I know plenty of black people that vote (R). Don't bring race into this dude... just do not go there. Would the ACLU and the NAACP be asking for media attention over such a stupid, silly, mundane issue if Mike Scott said JOHN SYDNEY MCCAIN, instead? NO, they would not. **** you ignorant fool.

Thanks for clearing that up. I'm sure your many black associates who are voting (R) appreciate your denigration of the leading civil rights organization.

[CosmicTDI]

Quote, originally posted by MixmasterNash »

Well folks, that's that! USMCScoutSniper said so! The Feds can go home now.

Guess so. His opinion is good enough for me.

[deathhare.]

Yeah, I mean he IS in the Marine corp.

[CosmicTDI]

And we've learned, through McCain, that military service makes one an expert at unrelated things and that we shouldn't question it...

[deathhare.]

[Entourage]

Quote, originally posted by Tornado2dr »

Interesting. You are opposed to groups that exist for the purpose of ensuring that Constitutional rights are upheld?

No, I'm opposed to groups who only pop out when it's going to be a big MEDIA affair.

I'm not going to get into the race issue, especially with the NAACP.

Please, I will not entertain or be baited into this subject.

How about them Cowboys?!

[Techun]

[Entourage]

My military service has no bearing on Federal Law. I know Federal Law for a reason... I can not make the same claim for State Laws.

[Entourage]

BTW: I came here to clear up some misinformation. Try and bait me all you want, it won't work kids.

Try not to though. There is no reason for it. Also, there is no reason for some of you to jump on a bandwagon that has only one intention, which is to put words into places that *I* NEVER put them.

Now if you feel that you need to jump on the bandwagon, then so be it.

Have a great one.

[Tornado2dr]

Quote, originally posted by USMCScoutSniper »

No, I'm opposed to groups who only pop out when it's going to be a big MEDIA affair. I'm not going to get into the race issue, especially with the NAACP. Please, I will not entertain or be baited into this subject. How about them Cowboys?!

You started the baiting! Look up the ACLU. They work on a ****-ton more thatn gets reported on.

And those cowgirls suck- HOW 'BOUT DEM REDSKINS! WOOOOOO!!!

[Entourage]

Quote, originally posted by Tornado2dr »

You started the baiting! Look up the ACLU. They work on a ****-ton more thatn gets reported on. And those cowgirls suck- HOW 'BOUT DEM REDSKINS! WOOOOOO!!!

I know what the ACLU does Chris.

Redskins SUCK. Got lucky by 2 points.

[metsfan124]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wA4_RQzhl4g

u love the last 20 sec