Listen to the article
In a surprising turn during a North Carolina House Oversight Committee hearing, Mecklenburg County Sheriff Garry McFadden was unable to correctly identify which branch of government his office operates under when questioned by Republican state Rep. Allen Chesser.
The exchange occurred during a hearing prompted by the recent killing of Iryna Zarutska, a young Ukrainian refugee, in Charlotte. When Chesser asked McFadden, “What branch of government do you operate under?” the sheriff initially responded with “Mecklenburg County.”
After Chesser repeated the question, McFadden said he operated under “The Constitution of the United States.” When pressed further about whether he knew how many branches of government exist, the sheriff admitted he did not know.
Chesser, an Army veteran and former police officer, then explained the three branches of government—legislative, executive, and judicial—and asked McFadden which one he belonged to. The sheriff incorrectly answered “judicial,” prompting Chesser to correct him: “You are incorrect, sir. You fall under the executive.”
The exchange highlighted underlying tensions regarding immigration enforcement policies in the county. McFadden has been a controversial figure in North Carolina law enforcement due to his previous stance on cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
Chesser subsequently questioned how McFadden reconciled his responsibility as an executive branch officer to enforce the law with his previous statement that “We do not have a role in enforcement whatsoever, we do not have to follow the rules and the laws that are governed by our lawmakers in Raleigh.”
McFadden defended himself by saying the quote was taken out of context and was specifically referring to immigration enforcement. He assured the committee that his office now complies with state laws requiring cooperation with ICE, stating, “We follow the law, when the law is produced, we follow the law.”
The hearing was part of a broader examination of public safety policies following Zarutska’s death. The Ukrainian woman had come to the United States seeking refuge from war in her homeland, only to be stabbed to death in Charlotte.
In an interview with Fox News Digital after the hearing, Chesser expressed surprise at having to provide “a fifth-grade civics lesson with a duly elected sheriff.” He had prepared to question McFadden about what he perceived as inconsistencies between the sheriff’s public statements and his testimony about following the law.
“Last summer, we had the unfortunate death of a young Ukrainian national that had sought refuge in our country and in our state,” Chesser noted. “I think that all North Carolinians, and all people who find themselves in North Carolina, should be able to count on one thing when it comes to public safety, and that is whether or not you are safe and whether or not the law will be enforced is not dependent on what county you find yourself in.”
The incident has intensified debate over local law enforcement policies regarding immigration enforcement in North Carolina. McFadden has been a central figure in this controversy, with critics arguing his previous reluctance to cooperate with federal immigration authorities has implications for public safety.
Chesser emphasized that the purpose of the oversight hearing was to ensure “the law is equally applied and fairly applied across all imaginary lines in our state,” highlighting concerns among some lawmakers about inconsistent enforcement practices across different counties.
The Mecklenburg County Sheriff’s Office did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the exchange or the broader policy issues raised during the hearing.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
8 Comments
This exchange seems to highlight a concerning lack of basic civics knowledge from the sheriff. As an elected official, a solid understanding of the structure and roles of government branches is crucial. Hopefully the sheriff can take this as a learning opportunity.
Indeed, this is a worrying sign. Elected officials should have a firm grasp of the fundamentals of government, especially those pertaining to their own roles and responsibilities.
While political tensions can run high, it’s important that all sides demonstrate a basic competence in the functions of government. The sheriff’s struggle with this civics question raises questions about his preparedness for the duties of his office.
You make a fair point. Regardless of policy differences, citizens deserve elected leaders who understand the system they operate within. This exchange suggests more civic education may be needed.
It’s concerning to see an elected sheriff unable to accurately identify the branch of government they fall under. Thorough knowledge of government structure and roles should be a prerequisite for such a position of public trust and responsibility.
While political disagreements are common, it’s troubling to see an elected sheriff struggle with such a fundamental question about the structure of government. Maintaining a strong civics education should be a priority for all public officials.
This incident highlights the importance of ensuring all elected officials, regardless of political affiliation, have a solid grasp of the basics of civics and government. Voters should demand a certain level of competence from those they elect to represent them.
Agreed. Elected leaders must be held accountable for demonstrating a foundational understanding of the government systems they operate within. Anything less undermines public trust and the integrity of our democratic institutions.