Letter: ‘I contend that the evidence of his own website and speeches argue that (Rey) Reynolds is closely aligned with the (Constitutional sheriff) movement’

Ann Donnelly
Ann Donnelly

Vancouver resident Ann Donnelly responds to Clark County Sheriff candidate Rey Reynolds

Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in this letter to the editor are those of the author alone and do not reflect the editorial position of ClarkCountyToday.com

Sheriff candidate Rey Reynolds, in his Sept. 16 response to my Sept. 4 opinion column stated that he could “rebut just about every sentence in her editorial.”  Yet, here are just two of many that he could not rebut: 

“Each has decades of experience in law enforcement here.  Each is a personable and persuasive advocate addressing the public safety crisis.” 

But more substantively, Reynolds states I have ‘smeared his name’ and “defiled his stance” by contending that he is “leaning toward a Constitutional sheriff movement.”  I deny that any smearing or defiling could be identified in my column, or in any column I have ever published. To disagree is not to defile or smear. 

I am secure in contending that Reynolds is by his own words affiliating with the constitutional sheriff movement. I have been in audiences on several occasions – the Aug. 9 meeting of Republican PCOs, for example – in which Reynolds, passionately addressing a cheering crowd, as “your constitutional sheriff,” “the only candidate who will be a ‘constitutional sheriff’.”   

On his website, he clarifies what that means: “We have seen them (state authorities) force masks many of us against our will, we’ve seen them attempt to issue what is essentially a passport regarding vaccines. If I’m elected and we face similar circumstances during my term, I vow to not enforce any unconstitutional law” (https://reyreynolds.com/issues/). 

He quotes Martin Luther King’s Letter from a Birmingham Jail, in which King states that we have a duty to disobey unjust laws. “I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws,” King wrote. “Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”  But King was a private citizen leading a movement of private citizens, not a county sheriff sworn to uphold the Constitution and laws of his state as well as the U.S. Constitution. 

Reynolds introduces the case of Homer Plessy in Plessy vs Ferguson, a quietly heroic champion of civil rights in New Orleans who was not exonerated for 122 years, as an instance in which an unconstitutional law should not be enforced.  This same case was raised eloquently by Loren Culp, a leader in the constitutional sheriff movement, several years ago when I attended a Lincoln Day Dinner prior to Culp’s run for governor. This case came close to convincing me, as I told Culp after the event, but did not ultimately succeed in doing so. 

So when Rey Reynolds disavows belonging to this movement, I contend that the evidence of his own website and speeches argue that Reynolds is closely aligned with the movement.  I contend that Reynolds’ supporters believe he is part of the movement and many support him because of it.  They have every right to do so, as do those of us who disagree have the right to express our viewpoint courteously and factually. 

Ann Donnelly
Vancouver


Also read:

Receive comment notifications
Notify of
guest

10 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Robert
Robert
5 days ago

Except, Rey Reynolds is the Clark County Republican Party”s ENDORSED candidate. A majority of actual Republican PCOs CHOSE Mr. Reynolds through a VOTE to be the Party’s candidate of choice.

Somehow, Ann Donnelly forgot that one of her duties as a Republican PCO is to support and defend the platform of the Party. She should resign her PCO position immediately if her own personal political choices conflict so dramatically with those of the Party she supposedly represents.

Otherwise, Ann should be removed and replaced for her divisive insubordination and refusal to support the Party’s platform. Her belief that she can support and campaign for whoever she wants, regardless of her own Party’s endorsements, shows her utter contempt for and total misunderstanding of what PCOs actually are and how they serve the Party.

Mary
Mary
3 days ago
Reply to  Robert

The 49th LD run by Brain Gellatly typically goes rogue from the Clark County Republican Party. The party endorses Rey, they endorse Horch. The party endorsed Kent, they endorsed Jamie. The party has a fantastic candidate in Michelle Belkot. So they run Kim Hamlik. Nothing Donnally, David or Brian Gellatly or Carolyn Crane says should be considered a Republican position.

Kevin VanGelder
Kevin VanGelder
5 days ago

A Constitutional Sheriff is exactly what Clark County (and every county in the country) needs! The fact that RINO Ann Donnelly thinks that’s a slight is hilariously informative.

As to the “irrefutable” argument about Reynolds not having decades of law enforcement experience, that’s actually a wonderful thing. We don’t need our Sheriff beholden to some police union, stuck in the rut of doing everything the way it’s always been done, or having a police-vs-everyone mentality, like career law enforcement are almost always prone to. We need someone who is beholden to us, the electorate, takes their oath to the Constitution seriously, and is willing to break the mold, try new things, and bring a fresh perspective to the law enforcement community. People don’t trust the police because of career law enforcement top-dogs having serious disdain for their electorate.

There, that refutation was so easy it’s almost like it should have been entirely obvious… because it was.

Wolfie
Wolfie
5 days ago

What is the issue with him being a constitutional sheriff? I am all in for abiding by and upholding the constitution. As should all Americans. What is the problem here?

Crazy
Crazy
5 days ago
Reply to  Wolfie

The problem, Wolfie, is that constitutional sheriffs feel they are empowered and entitled to unilaterally select which laws they enforce based on their personal beliefs of what is and is not constitutional. This view is antithetical to our constitution. Our system of government is not set up to allow one person to determine what he or she thinks is constitutional or not. Our system of government (which I personally believe to be the best in the world) sets up the judiciary as the arbiter of what is and is not constitutional–not one sheriff. When one person decides they get to decide what is constitutional or not it moves us further from the constitution and closer to anarchy. When you swear an oath to uphold the constitution you are swearing to abide by the checks and balances created by the constitution even if you personally disagree with the laws created by the legislature or rulings imposed by the judiciary. Swearing an oath to uphold the constitution does not give you some superior moral authority to unilaterally declare what laws are constitutional or not when fulfilling your duty as a public officer.

Kirk VanGelder
Kirk VanGelder
4 days ago
Reply to  Crazy

You are wrong…. the oath to uphold the Constitution is just that, to uphold the entire system. For example, if the people voted to send you (and people who think like you) to “reeducation camps, should the Sheriff allow that to happen, just because it is a law??? NO WAY… In fact, the Supreme Court ruled that “any law repugnant to the Constitution is null and void”….. The other side of this “enforcement” coin is that the Sheriff is determining NOT to enforce a law. Almost never is a lack of enforcement of of a specific law a problem. A person will not often be harmed for NOT having it enforced on him/her. When its a problem, is when an unjust/unconstitutional law IS ENFORCED on a person. It takes the judicial system sometimes years and years to rectify the problem. That is WHY it is SO critical that elected officials take an oath to uphold the Constitution (the HIGHEST LAW OF THE LAND!)…. You know, the LAW that is HIGHER than lesser laws. Otherwise, there is ZERO reason to take the oath in the first place. You couldn’t be more wrong!

Crazy
Crazy
4 days ago
Reply to  Kirk VanGelder

I think you need to re-take a civics class. The decision to determine what is and is not constitutional is vested in the courts. Yes courts are so slow to decide but the courts have the ability ( and have in the past) enjoined enforcement of laws that present serious constitutional issues pending a decision.
So, following your logic, if I am elected Sheriff and I believe a law criminalizing abortion is unconstitutional I can choose not to enforce it. Or perhaps a law requiring me to ask for proof of citizenship. I don’t think a sheriff should be able do that regardless of how they think (or how you presume I think). No sheriff has the right to pick and choose. That is not the rule of law-that is anarchy.

Mary
Mary
3 days ago
Reply to  Crazy

If a law is constitutional it should be enforced. If the legislature passed constitutional laws the courts wouldn’t be so slow. Legislators continually pass garbage because they know by the time it gets through the courts it will be years later. How long will it be before the 10 round limit on magazines in Washington gets to the Supreme Court and they rule it is infringing on our 2nd amendment rights? Rey was asked, hypothetically, if Inslee wanted gun confiscation would he enforced it. He rightly said, he would not enforce unconstitutional law.

Sheriff’s are elected unlike police chiefs. Elect Rey Reynolds if you care about your rights and freedoms.

Wolfie
Wolfie
4 days ago
Reply to  Crazy

Has he stated in any platform this is his belief? All I am hearing him say and reading him share is that he will stand by the Constitution as it is held today. Basic Bill of Rights etc. I will keep an open mind and open ears if something different is afoot.

MJ_Clark County
MJ_Clark County
4 days ago

Ann Donnelly have you read the Constitution Lately maybe you should read it….I would rather have someone that has integrity, knows the constitution and that will uphold the law and Change Clark County and do what’s right to make Clark County a safer place to live. I am voting for Rey Reynolds because he is the Best choice for Sheriff.

Last edited 4 days ago by MJ_Clark County
10
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x