The role of sheriff is one of the most understated positions in American governance, yet it is arguably one of the most important – especially from a liberty-centered perspective.

A sheriff who is fulfilling his or her constitutional duty stands up for the rights of citizens – especially in the face of state and federal overreach. They represent a sense of decentralization and the idea that local politics is the most important – which is why some progressives can’t stand them.

In a guest essay for the New York Times, author Maurice Chammah insinuated that sheriffs have far too much power. //

The notion that sheriffs hold too much power is indicative of a mindset that favors a top-down approach to governance rather than a bottom-up stance. They believe government at the federal and state levels should reign supreme even over local governments. In this light, the role of the sheriff could be problematic for this type of agenda. I wrote a piece on my Substack explaining how sheriffs who are doing their jobs can serve as bulwarks for liberty against government overreach. //

Dieter Schultz
4 hours ago edited
Sheriffs can refuse to enforce laws that violate constitutional rights – especially those laid out in the Bill of Rights.
It would seem to me that, because they took an oath to obey the Constitution, all law enforcement officers should be "refusing to enforce laws that violate constitutional rights"!

But, I guess that's just my silly take on things.