Sanctuary for Gun Owners - Washington Police Chief is Saying No to I-1639

Police Chief Loren Culp of Republic, Washington is saying he will refuse to enforce the onerous measure passed on election night by the state at large. On an interview with Fox News, Culp explains how the law is offensive and contrary to his oath of office and in violation of the Washington State and National Constitutions.


His jurisdiction has a differing view than the liberal haven of Seattle and both Chief Culp’s small police force and the town council are looking at adopting a measure to make the small town, Republic, a haven for the gun owning folk of Washington State.


The proposal certainly doesn’t mince its purpose. First, it says that “all federal and State acts, laws, orders, rules or regulations regarding firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition are a violation of the 2nd Amendment.”


Neither does Police Chief Loren Culp who stated:  “I’m just standing up for people’s rights,” he says. “I had people asking if the Police Department was going to start arresting teenagers, 18, 19, 20-year-olds, carrying and using a semi-automatic 22 rifle. I told them, ‘I’m not going to infringe on someone’s constitutional rights.”


“As long as I am Chief of Police, no Republic Police Officer will infringe on a citizen's right to keep and Bear Arms, PERIOD!”


Some from the state have lashed out at the small individual rights minded community calling them insane, evil, etc. At the same time, Washington State has 18 sanctuary cities or counties that ignore federal law authorizing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Do you see the hypocrisy with these elected officials? It is ok to protect illegal people who broke the law by entering the country illegally. But it is not ok for legal and law abiding 18 to 20 year old people to own and use guns.


For myself, I congratulate Chief Loren Culp for his common sense stance on this issue.




FacePalm Added Dec 16, 2018 - 2:36pm
i stand solidly in support of Chief Loren Culp, except for one issue - which may appear minor on the surface(but is essential to grasping the true meaning of the Constitution) - his claim that he's supporting "Constitutional rights."
If you have an email address for him, you may wish to forward this small rant i'm about to make.
Our Rights come from no piece of paper, no matter how honored or venerated.  Our rights come from no man nor any body of men - no politician, no magistrate, no judge, no Congressperson.
Our Rights originate with our CREATOR, and this - and this alone - is what makes them "unalienable."  The Founders were very clear on this point.
What you are referring to, in truth, is Constitutionally-SECURED Rights, but these are ONLY as secure as:
1.  The honor and integrity of those who swear the Oath of Office, and
2.  The ability of the People to COMPEL obedience to that Oath.
The French have a saying: "Constitutions are made of paper; bayonets are made of steel."  Have steel in yourself, and remind people that you are an Oath-KEEPER, who stands in the way of all those who would steal God-given Rights secured by the Constitution to which you pledged your loyalty.  The People stand with you.
i've posted this before, but based on what Sheriff Culp wrote, he may need to see this and grasp it's meaning:
"[The Right to Keep and Bear Arms] is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed;...  This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government,…"
~U.S. v. Cruikshank Et Al. 92 U.S. 542 (1875).
Ryan Messano Added Dec 16, 2018 - 4:13pm
Stuff it, FakePalm, if you believed our rights come from God, you'd believe in criminalizing porn, you deceitful hypocrite. 
I completely agree with Police Chief Culp, and great article, Marty!
Liberal1 Added Dec 16, 2018 - 5:08pm
I am against anything that infringes on the 2nd Amendment, but I am equally against some small town police chief deciding which laws he will or will not enforce.  He swore to uphold and enforce the law,  not to uphold only the laws he agrees with.
FacePalm Added Dec 16, 2018 - 5:21pm
The most important Oath Chief Culp swore was to the Constitution.
Any "law" which conflicts with that Oath is self-evidently Unconstitutional.
i feel the same way about Snowden; he swore an oath to the Constitution before he swore any secrecy oath, ergo he's no traitor; he's a guy who loved his country enough to expose criminality on the part of multiple deep-state oathbreaking cretins.
Ryan Messano Added Dec 16, 2018 - 5:26pm
i would like to commend Fakepalm for his punctuation. 
Illiberal1, the law is based on natural law, you ought to learn what that is one day, so you aren't helplessly flailing on nearly every major issue confronting America today.  I'll help you out with a book that can teach you what the media and schools never did.
Dino Manalis Added Dec 16, 2018 - 7:15pm
 People should be evaluated first to reassure public safety before they're allowed to bear arms.
Liberal1 Added Dec 16, 2018 - 7:38pm
FacePalmraising the legal age to buy a semi-automatic rifle to 21, from 18, and requiring enhanced background checks is Constitutional.  The Supreme Court time and again have refused to overrule the federal appeals court that have made that case law.  Even Justice Scalia said, “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”
Now I personally disagree with this law because if a kid can join the military at 18 they should be allowed to buy a rifle.  HOWEVER, Chief Culp is not some Constitutional scholar and he IS a swore peace officer who swore to uphold the law not to make them.  I know the rule of law and sworn oaths don't mean much to some people, but that is why our country is in the state it is in today.
P.S.  Do you hear a couple of flies buzzing?
FacePalm Added Dec 16, 2018 - 7:52pm
Scalia also said that the idea of "few and defined powers is dead."  But now, HE'S dead...and the Constitution was designed to delegate "few and defined" powers as any honest reading of Article III, the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, and the 9th and 10th Amendments would reveal to even the dullest of intellects on the bench...or what this guy said:
"No one can read our Constitution without concluding that the people who wrote it wanted their government severely limited; the words 'no' and 'not' employed in restraint of government power occur 24 times in the first seven articles of the Constitution and 22 more times in the Bill of Rights."
-- Rev. Edmund A. Opitz(1914-2006) American minister, author
Heller was an abomination of a decision, for SCOTUS judges PRETENDED they did retain the power to infringe upon the ownership of arms.  The Cruikshank decision should have disabused them of this notion, and they should simply have declared "res adjudicata" and moved on - but no.  Again, they sought to arrogate to themselves powers they are not authorized by the Constitution to take, aka "Usurpation," a High Crime worthy of impeachment and imprisonment.
Nope, don't hear any flies buzzing; is that an oblique reference to the Constitution being dead? 
"I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon law and upon courts.  These are false hopes, believe me, these are false hopes.  Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it.  While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no courts to save it."
-- Judge Learned Hand(1872-1961), Judge, U. S. Court of Appeals
No one can be enslaved if they refuse to BE slaves.  Such people can only be killed.
I don't care what SCOTUS rules about the Constitution; they were never delegated ANY authority to change on jot, tittle, or iota of it.  The Constitution is superior to SCOTUS, otherwise they would not be required to take an oath of fealty to it as a condition of office; the superior never swears to the inferior, but the reverse.
Liberal1 Added Dec 16, 2018 - 9:06pm
"Nope, don't hear any flies buzzing; is that an oblique reference to the Constitution being dead? "
Nah.  That was an oblique reference to the "ignored" gnats above. 
You'll never see me disparaging the Constitution.  That would go against an oath I took numerous times and still honor.
Marty Koval Added Dec 16, 2018 - 9:17pm
Dino Manalis:
In 2017 there was 40,100 motor vehicle deaths and 39,773 gun deaths. If you believe that people should be evaluated first to reassure public safety before they're allowed to bear arms. Then the same logic has to be applied to drivers of motor vehicles, because the death rate is higher.
It is estimated that there are 263.6 million vehicles (including trucks and buses), compared to 357 million guns. There are 36% more guns on the market, killing less people. From these statistic , motor vehicles are more of a killing machine than guns.
Since motor vehicles are more deadly, should the evaluation for drivers be more stringent? Should motor vehicles be banned? Are you started to see the absurdity of forcing people to be evaluated  for guns.
If you do it for one thing that can kill people, then you need to do it for all things. You cannot be selective.
For myself, I do not agree on mass evaluation of all people to purchase and own guns, motor vehicles or the hundreds of other tools that can kill people.
FacePalm Added Dec 16, 2018 - 9:26pm
That was an oblique reference to the "ignored" gnats above. 
Ah!  Ok, thanks.  i think of 'em as flies; they eat crap and bother people.
You'll never see me disparaging the Constitution.  That would go against an oath I took numerous times and still honor.  

Right with ya, there, bro.  Now, if we could just figure out a way to arrest oathbreakers as often as perjurers, and for the exact same reason - lying under oath - thing's'd take a turn for the better right quick, methinks.
As it stands now, most of us apparently think that nothing can be done about Oathbreakers 'til the next election.  i can't remember the last time any officeholder was arrested for a High Crime or Misdemeanor, much less prosecuted.  i ran a websearch for "high crime misdemeanor arrest," and got nada.
ChetDude Added Dec 16, 2018 - 9:59pm
That boy's toast...
Can't disobey the law if you're a police chief...
Jeffry Gilbert Added Dec 16, 2018 - 11:30pm
In 2017 there was 40,100 motor vehicle deaths and 39,773 gun deaths
Marty, our so-called friends across the pond like to condemn DUHmerican gun ownership because of the number of gun deaths while ignoring the fact that 24000 Britons die every year because they don't have proper heat for their homes. 
FacePalm Added Dec 17, 2018 - 12:31am
Dude, wait'n'see.
Article 6 states that the Constitution is the SUPREME law of the land.
Any law contrary to it is - again - self-evidently Unconstitutional.
Each and every time any "law" is in conflict with the Constitution, the Constitution is to be held as the superior law.  Why?  Article 6.
If any SCOTUS judge, even, were to tell me "I say what the Law is" or "We have interpreted the Supreme Law to mean "x,"" i'd reply, "Here's Article 3, which describes the powers you may lawfully exercise: show me 'interpret.'"
Ken Added Dec 17, 2018 - 6:10pm
Are you sure it is the Police Chief?  This is actually happening in a number of places and it is mostly kicked off by Sheriffs.  Police Chief is a town employee hired by the town.  a sheriff is an elected position and the town cannot remove.  If it is the Police Chief, he must have good confidence that the town council won't relieve him, and likely a fairly conservative town, maybe it is in Eastern Washington rather than in the Seattle area.
Ken Added Dec 17, 2018 - 6:12pm
our so-called friends across the pond like to condemn DUHmerican gun ownership because of the number of gun deaths while ignoring the fact that 24000 Britons die every year because they don't have proper heat for their homes
They also talk about how much lower their gun crime rates are, a lying claim used by gun confiscation advocates.  They fail to point out that the violent crime rates have skyrocketed since they stole the guns.
Ken Added Dec 17, 2018 - 6:14pm

Can't disobey the law if you're a police chief...
Can't ignor ethe law if you are the head law enforcement officer in the United States.  Why aren't Comey, Mueller (previous head of FBI), Lynch, Holder, and Obama all Taking perp walks?
And why aren't you complaining about any of that?
Marty Koval Added Dec 17, 2018 - 8:26pm
The Police Chief of Republic, WA is an appointed position. Republic is in northeastern Washington state hundreds of miles from Seattle in a conservative and rural area.
Thomas Napers Added Dec 18, 2018 - 3:43am
Chief Lauren Culp should be fired for failing to follow the law.  If he isn’t fired, that would mean nobody would need to adhere to any law passed at the State or Federal level.  It’s a recipe for anarchy and that system of government never works. 
As for the hypocrisy of states failing to follow Federal Law, the matter is much more complicated than what you suggest.  First, two wrongs don’t make a right.  Second, nobody likes the idea of the heavy hand of government forcing to states to do what they aren’t interested in doing.  Third, there is a longstanding practice of the Federal Government passing laws and then failing to enforce those laws.  For example, Marijuana is a banned substance.  Every state that passes laws allowing its use and distribution is breaking Federal Law and for decades the Federal Government has done nothing to stop them.
If the Federal Government wants to end Sanctuary Cities, it’s within its right to do so, the only question is how it will do so.  In the case of the Chief Lauren Culp, the problem is easily solved, fire him and hire a new chief.  In the case of a Sanctuary City, it may come down to civil war over a political term.  Keep in mind, those cities you call “Sanctuary Cities” don’t perceive themselves to be providing sanctuary to illegals. 
Dr. Rupert Green Added Dec 18, 2018 - 5:13am
Yes Marty. The Chief is confounding the foot in the door approach, where a bigger intention is undertaken by a very small one. Ridicule the chief for thwarting the attempt to subvert the Second. Are some states not saying we want our smoke irrespective of what the fed says? Why then ridicule Republic for its undertaking to let law-abiding citizens have their Second.  What is at stake is more than gun. It is about total emasculation of Americans who have the balls to bear arms, which is antithetical to the desire of a government wishing to go south. A government wishing to go south first get in bed with the press (control it) then take away the people's guns. 
A gunless America is an America with patsies and violets who give up their rights willingly. An America with men and women who declare that the government will have to take their guns out of their cold dead hands is frightening to the girlie boys shown on TV as role models for American boys. Let praise President Trump for his stance on the Second. It is what is prevents Muller from confronting him directly and what has the girlie boy and man-hating women press going hard for his impeachment.
Jeffry Gilbert Added Dec 18, 2018 - 6:19am
Chief Lauren Culp should be fired for failing to follow the law. If he isn’t fired, that would mean nobody would need to adhere to any law passed at the State or Federal level. It’s a recipe for anarchy 
Spoken like a true statist. 
Marty Koval Added Dec 18, 2018 - 8:33am
Dr. Rupert Green:
Firearms command a higher degree of cultural significance in the U.S. than any other country in the world. Since the inclusion of the right to bear arms in the second amendment to the constitution of the U.S., firearms have held symbolic power beyond their already obvious material power.
From 2018 data, about 43 percent of U.S. households had at least one gun in possession. It is estimated that there are 360 million guns, which means many households have multiple guns.
The vast majority of the gun owners are independent minded, likely to be quite politically, and detest government intrusion into their lives. This group of people is the largest informal army in the world and will resist in vigor, any attempt to take these gun rights away. These gun owners know without the second amendment, the U.S can be the next Venezuela. Anyone who things this cannot happen is  a fool.
FacePalm Added Dec 18, 2018 - 11:38am
Chief Lauren Culp should be fired for failing to follow the law.  If he isn’t fired, that would mean nobody would need to adhere to any law passed at the State or Federal level.  It’s a recipe for anarchy and that system of government never works. 
Just curious; did you read anyone else's posts on this thread?  Do you agree or disagree that in order to take the office, Chief Culp had to first swear an oath to "...preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."?
Do you believe that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land?
What do you think of the following citations of long-established Law?
"The right to defy an unconstitutional statute is basic in our scheme.  Even when an ordinance requires a permit to make a speech, to deliver a sermon, to picket, to parade, or to assemble, it need not be honored when it’s invalid on its face."
-- Justice Potter Stewart(1915-1985), U. S. Supreme Court Justice
Source: Walker v. Birmingham, 1967
"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."
16th American Jurisprudence 2nd edition, Sec 177, late 2nd, Sec 256
 'An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.'
~Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 p. 442
'The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.'
16 Am Jur 2nd, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256  Citizen’s Rulebook link.
You might be right; the town council or even some sworn agents at the State level in Washington might indeed fire him, but if they do, they're setting themselves up for a helluva lawsuit, based on these citations of American Law, don't you think?
FacePalm Added Dec 18, 2018 - 11:41am
(couldn't check, earlier, but the citizen's rulebook link is inop.  If interested, i suggest a websearch of that term.)
Ken Added Dec 18, 2018 - 2:50pm
. Republic is in northeastern Washington state hundreds of miles from Seattle in a conservative and rural area.
Pretty sad how easy it was to guess where the town was simply based on what happened.  That is how ideologically opposed we are as a nation
Ken Added Dec 18, 2018 - 2:52pm
Gee Thomas, to reduce your wordy post into  a summary, If soneone doesn't follow a law you  like, they should be fired, yet if someone doesn't follow a law you don't like it is complicated and OK to nullify it.
Try rereading your comment until you realize how hypocritical it is.
Ken Added Dec 18, 2018 - 2:53pm
As far as "two wrongs don't make a right" - it is simply playing the left's own game. Calling you out for the hypocrites you are.
Rusty Smith Added Dec 18, 2018 - 3:52pm
Ken many Brits are outrageously critical of America's gun laws, but secretly ashamed of their own countries violence.  They indignantly stand on the high ground for having disarmed their own public and strongly criticize the US for not doing the same. 
After they took all the guns away from their own law abiding citizens their homicide rates became worse than New York's.  
A more sane focus would not be on the tools used, but rather the cultural reasons why they seem so inclined to kill each other using whatever weapons they can get their hands on.
Marty Koval Added Dec 18, 2018 - 3:57pm
You are correct about the comment : How ideologically opposed we are as a nation. The major oppositions are, but not limited to : 

More governments control, versus less.
Restriction of speech (political correctness), versus free speech.
Total gun control, versus freedom to own guns.
Immoral behavior, versus moral behavior.
Restricting religious beliefs in public, versus full religious beliefs.
No limits on abortion, versus abortion is murder.
Same sex marriage, versus opposite sex marriage.
Government healthcare, versus non government healthcare.
Free collage education, versus the individual funds his own education.
Legalizing more mind alter drugs, versus restricting these drugs.
Ignoring laws on the books, versus full conformance of laws.
Government is the savior, versus Jesus Christ is the savior.
Worshiping the way of the world (Satan), versus Jesus Christ.
And many, many more, that are too many to list

If this ideologically opposition continues to accelerate, America could be heading for another civil war. If and when this occurs, the people who own guns, are the ones, who will have a better chance of surviving.
Doug Plumb Added Dec 18, 2018 - 5:23pm
Always good news when someone in office opposes the "do as one wilt" batch of dope dealers, pedophiles and child molesting satanists.
Ken Added Dec 18, 2018 - 7:53pm
Rusty - as I noted on another article, when the brits stole their citizens guns, violent crime and in fact all crime increase.  interestingly, the top selling item became a baseball bat - and we all know how much baseball they play across the pond.  It became the #1 weapon for defense.....and offense...
Ken Added Dec 18, 2018 - 8:01pm
Yep Marty - I don't see this ending well.  Either we cave and lose our country and the American experiment is a failure or we fight and throw out the statist progressives with force.  Either way is not a good day for America
Marty Koval Added Dec 18, 2018 - 9:03pm
This ideologically opposition we are seeing in America, is the work of Satan, The Father of Lies and Great Deceiver. Satan’s plan is to Divide and Conquer! He is using his deception to recruit the vast majority of people to do his dirty work for him.  Satan already knows what his future is and he wants to take as many deceived Americans with him to the Lake of Burning Sulfur. 
There is still hope, as long as America does not turned completely from God. But, if it does, America will become the next Sodom Gomorrah and will be completely destroyed.  And it will be well deserved.
Johnny Fever Added Dec 19, 2018 - 4:47am
@ Thomas Napers
Excellent comment.  I totally understand why Marty Koval had no choice but to ignore it, as it completely undermines everything he just wrote.  
Marty Koval Added Dec 19, 2018 - 3:11pm
Thomas Napers and Johnny Fever:
If you believe that Chief Lauren Culp should be fired for failing to follow the law. Then that same philosophy must be adhered to for all Washington State city, county and state officials. You will see everyday these officials are also not following or enforcing laws.
There are many Washington State laws that are not being enforced by the state, such as, but not limited to the following:
No person may walk about in public if he or she has the common cold.
Destroying a beer cask or bottle of another is illegal.
All lollipops are banned.
People may not buy a mattress on Sunday.
All motor vehicles must be preceded by a man carrying a red flag (daytime) or a red lantern (nighttime) fifty feet in front of said vehicle.
It is illegal to pretend that one’s parents are rich.
One may not spit on a bus.
When two trains come to a crossing, neither shall go until the other has passed.
You cannot buy meat of any kind on Sunday.
City Laws:
You may not carry a concealed weapon that is over six feet in length (Seattle).
No one may set fire to another person’s property without prior permission (Seattle).
Persons may not wear a life jacket near the Spokane River. (Spokane).
TV’s may not be bought on Sundays. (Spokane).
No structure shall contain more than two toilets that use potable water for flushing. (Waldron Island)
You may not ride an ugly horse. (Wilbur)
From some of these laws that were passed by the state and cities, they are not being enforced by the regulating officials. When they pick and choose, which ones they will enforce, is a form of discrimination. And discrimination is against the law
Johnny Fever Added Dec 19, 2018 - 7:45pm
Excellent response. 
It would appear we have a lot of stupid Municipal, State and Federal laws on the books, many of which are not enforced.  I wonder what the remedy is for a situation where a law is not being enforced that the governing body wants to be enforced.  For example, at the Federal level we required schools to be integrated and the Federal Government had to make sure all the states/municipalities followed the law.   
As it relates to Chief Culp, I suppose he exposes himself to being fired if that’s how far the Washington wishes to pursue their gun laws.  If the state chose to go that far, I think it would be totally within its right to do so.  The same is true for Marijuana distributors, at any time the Federal Government is within its right to shut them down.  Does that mean we agree on the matter of Chief Culp?
Dr. Rupert Green Added Dec 19, 2018 - 9:27pm
@ Marty. "
You cannot buy meat of any kind on Sunday.
City Laws:
You may not carry a concealed weapon that is over six feet in length (Seattle)."
Really! I never knew that flesh peddling was prohibited on Sundays.
If a person places six six shooters butts to barrels, that would amount to six feet of weaponry. Thus, the law may be saying a person may legally pack five irons, not six. Could it be a person may not carry two shotguns in his or her trousers?
Marty Koval Added Dec 19, 2018 - 9:37pm
Johnny Fever:
Washington State and it's cities have set a precedence to ignore certain laws due to their incompetence and laziness. They have allowed probably tens of thousands of people to get away with breaking certain laws, without prosecution, fines or prison sentencing.  
This puts Chief Lauren Culp in a position saying that Washington state is being selective on who they want to prosecute. This is a very slippery slope to go down, that might not turn out well for the state.
The state law stating a person must be at least 21 years old to own and use a gun is limiting people in this age group to not be able to work as a security guard or police officer. At the same time over the decades, millions of 18 to 20 year old people were and are deemed more than responsible to carry and use guns in the military.
This country needs more people like Chief Lauren Culp to take a stand against the government that passes ill advise legislation that cause more harm than good. To answer your question, I do not agree that Chief Lauren Culp should agree with this law. He and hundreds of thousands of Washington residence must pressure the state to change this discriminating law against 18 to 20 year olds.
Marty Koval Added Dec 19, 2018 - 9:54pm
Dr. Rupert Green:
Some of these laws I stated are laws that have been in existence for many decades that do not make any sense or apply to current technology advances. Due to the laziness and ineptitude of the state, city and country officials, they are not through legislation eliminating or revising these laws.
Many politicians lack common sense or want to take the time to make changes on existing laws, because it does not buy them votes to keep them in office.
Dr. Rupert Green Added Dec 19, 2018 - 10:25pm
@Marty. But are such laws not conveniently kept to indict a ham sandwich should a score need to be settled with a citizen? Tell me how this one operates: "When two trains come to a crossing, neither shall go until the other has passed."
Marty Koval Added Dec 20, 2018 - 8:15am
Dr. Green:
When two trains come to a crossing, neither shall go until the other has passed." If this is an actual law in some state or states, it just proves how incompetent and foolish some elected officials are. The elected official made this law, so it is up to them, to tell you how this operates!!!!
Have a "Great" day.
Ward Tipton Added Dec 20, 2018 - 9:54am
"If a person places six six shooters butts to barrels, that would amount to six feet of weaponry."
Not necessarily true. My Charter Arms .44 Pug, the .32 ACP ... would take more than just six ... though the .44 is a five shot ... and the ACP semi auto with a magazine ... but the same holds true with the .38 Detective Special or any snub nose revolvers. 
Just sayin' ... 
"The elected official made this law, so it is up to them, to tell you how this operates!!!!"
Arbitrarily of course! 
FacePalm Added Dec 20, 2018 - 7:21pm
Yeah, Marty-
i vaguely recall some town council or other passing a "law" that a river couldn't rise past the posted flood stage (or similar), too.  Reminds me of something Jefferson wrote:
"It is not only vain, but wicked, in a legislature to frame laws in opposition to the laws of nature, and to arm them with the terrors of death.  This is truly creating crimes in order to punish them."
-- Thomas Jefferson(1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President
Source: Note on the Crimes Bill, 1779
Marty Koval Added Dec 20, 2018 - 8:00pm
When you hear or see some of the statements that elected official make, it starts to become obvious some of them would never survive in the business world. Their actions and statements point to lack of common sense, tunnel vision, limited thought process and inability look beyond their own narrow view.
This is why we are seeing numerous bad legislation being passed that doesn't solve problems and in some cases creates new problems.  
FacePalm Added Dec 20, 2018 - 11:22pm
Thomas Paine opined that "The trade of governing has always attracted the most rascally members of mankind."
It is unfortunate that these prophetic words have come to pass, but they are our reality.
i think that we could reverse this rather simply; we could use the expedient of the Oath of Office.  Every breach of that Oath would be a felony perjury charge, which felony conviction should make such a convict ineligible to hold office.  Problem solved!
i feel that each public servant so convicted of betraying the Public Trust should be fined an amount equivalent to the entirety of the value of both their salaries and all benefits dating back to the first instance of their betrayal of the public trust, then imprisoned for a term not to exceed ten years - and then, the kicker: a permanent ban upon their ever serving in a position of public trust on the public dime again, first, for being so incredibly stupid as to NOT know the terms of their Contract, the Constitution, and second, as an example for anyone disposed to do similarly in betraying the public trust.
But, that's just me, i guess.
Ward Tipton Added Dec 20, 2018 - 11:39pm
Not just you, but certainly not enough of us to get such a law implemented. 
FacePalm Added Dec 21, 2018 - 2:37am
Well, nothing can stop an idea whose time has come.  What it would take, IMO, is to get the idea out, widely disseminated, say via an MSM pundit...or several.
To me, that's a seed worth sowing, repeatedly.
Marty Koval Added Dec 21, 2018 - 8:23am
I like you thought process about how elected official should be treated. Some things to consider are:
The Founding Fathers of America never envision or anticipated that elected positions would become a lifelong career for people. That's why I strongly believe that there should be term limits for each position, such as two or four years.
The vast majority of politicians are known for talking out of both sides of their months and passing gas at the same time. In other words they are Big Liars and cannot be trusted. They say one thing to get elected, then in office they ignore their promise. For each lie, a mandatory lying penalty of $1,000 should be accessed. If they do not pay the penalty on time, the amount of the penalty will be automatically deducted from their salary.
If they run out of money to pay the fines, a lien is place on their house or business. If they have no property, then they must spend time on weekends with criminal work gangs picking up trash on highways.
Ward Tipton Added Dec 21, 2018 - 8:38am
"The Founding Fathers of America never envision or anticipated that elected positions would become a lifelong career for people."
Ummm, actually that was the whole point behind many of the writings in the Anti-Federalist Papers, though they referred to them at the time as the "American Aristocracy". They also warned us against parting into factions and the ability it would grant to the government to divide and conquer the people. That part came alongside a warning about democracy. 
FacePalm Added Dec 21, 2018 - 10:38am
Your ideas on what to do about lying politicians have some merit, however:
“An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.”
-- Thomas Paine, Dissertations on First Principles of Government (July 7, 1795)
A rather eloquent, if verbose, re-statement of "As you would that men do unto you, do also unto them," don't you think?
Marty Koval Added Dec 21, 2018 - 3:38pm
Matthew 7:12 is considered the Golden Rule and has always been a basic part of the Bible’s message.
One practical way to love others better is to imagine ourselves in their shoes. When we pause to think how we might like to be treated in a certain situation, we build empathy for those actually living in that situation. Do we like to be treated with love, respect and honesty? Then we should give that gift to others.
When you look at the actions of many politicians, particularly the lying and deception, that is not treating the American people with love and respect. The Bible talks a lot about these sinful behaviors of lying and deception which are seen in:
Leviticus 19:11 - 11 “‘Do not steal. “‘Do not lie. “‘Do not deceive one another.
Proverbs 12:22 - 22 The Lord detests lying lips, but he delights in people who are trustworthy.
The Bible also states that we are to show respect for authorities we disagree with, which we see in:
1 Timothy 2:1-4 - 1 I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— 2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.
The Bible also states, do not join with rebellious officials, which is seen in:
Proverbs 24:21 - 21 Fear the Lord and the king, my son, and do not join with rebellious officials,
The rebellious elected officials are those that seek to set aside the worship of the true God and not follow His ways. They are lying and using deception for their own selfish desires. These officials  need to change their sinful behavior or be removed from office, because they are doing evil in the eyes of the Lord.