|
|
|
February 18, 2010 Opinions |
|
|
—Editorial—
We were saddened to hear of the death of Aaron Campbell, who was shot and killed by Officer Ronald Frashour Jan. 29 in a police altercation in Portland. But we think Rev. Jesse Jackson’s statement calling the incident an “execution” is erroneous given that a Grand Jury found there was no criminal wrongdoing on the part of Officer Frashour, and insulting to police officers everywhere.
No one knows for sure how they will react in a situation where it is perceived lives are threatened, and in the case of law enforcement their training for the most part dictates how situations like this are handled.
The Portland Police Department has announced that changes will be made in the way these types of situations are handled in the future, including the use of ballistics shields. It’s true, it’s too late for Campbell, but efforts will be made to help prevent something this tragic from happening again.
But for Jackson to turn this tragedy into a racial crime against humanity is uncalled for and unjust. If the U.S. Department of Justice and Congress’ House Judiciary Committee is called on to investigate as Jackson requested, it will be for them to determine if there was criminal/racial motives involved. Even if Frashour is found to have acted inappropriately, which we sincerely doubt, we really don’t think it makes much difference what color a perceived threat is. A threat to human life and safety could be initiated by a purple polka dotted alien and it would still be a threat and some kind of action would need to be taken.
Jackson was reported as saying, "What happened to Aaron (Campbell) is not a matter of black and white, it's a matter of wrong and right.” But we have to wonder if Campbell had been white or if Frashour had been African American, if Jackson would have shown up in Portland this week. Racism should not be tolerated in any form, and especially under the guise of justice.
—Letters To The Editor—
Forest Services Rules And Regulations
To The Record-Courier:
I would like to make a comment about the Forest Service and its Rules and Regulations or Code of Federal Rules (CFRs) as related to the U.S. Constitution law.
The CFRs are only supposed to “flesh out” the congressional intent of the legislative branch of our government, not the executive branch, as the executive branch only executes, not legislates.
This is called promulgate (flesh out) legislative intent as the language of proclamation has the effect of a king to direct and control instead of fleshing out intent by a legislative body of elected people, as a Republic form of government, so the Art (4) IV, Section 4, US Constitution guarantees to every state in this Union a “Republican” form of government, or elected officials to represent the people.
Article IV, Section 3, second paragraph states, “only Congress shall have the power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the UNited States, and nothing in this constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States or of any particular state.”
This applies to lands open to location and entry laws of the public domain to 1872 acts, as reserved from Forest Service leasing and surface related resources within the National Forest. (Forest lands reserved from system lands.)
The Forest Service likes to quote the Organic Acts of 1897 as source of authority to regulate mining activities related to federal mining claims subject to entry and location laws (1872 acts-30 US Codes).
If the 1872 acts of congress, under 30 US Codes are in conflict with the US Forest Service Code of Rules, the statutory codes preempt land agencies Code of Rules (or CRFs) conflicts of law?
The mandate to this is constitutional law of Article IV, Section 3, second paragraph states, “only Congress has the authority to make needful rules and regulations” for the property belonging to the United States. This is called the property clause of constitution law, as stated.
Art. I, Section 1 of Constitutional law states, “all legislative power here in granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives (US Statutory Codes).
Forest Service law enforcement body, under executive branch and CFR rules, in conflict with US Codes-Statues of the Article IV and US Codes - Acts of Congress (1872 acts) when in conflict, preempts Forest Service CFRs (facts).
The Organic Act of 1897 is in context (related) to Art IV, Section 3, second paragraph, designates only Congress to rules and regulations not executive branch to the property clause of US Constitution law. In proper context (in 1872 and 1897 acts).
Bruce Parke
Sumpter, Ore.
Grassroots Organization To Reclaim Our Country
To The Record-Courier:
“Liberty once lost is lost forever.” — John Adams
Last year, I was angry about the political realm and its steamroller tactics to develop a Health Care Reform package (read health insurance reform) and shove it down the throats of constituents who were skeptical of, if not totally opposed to, the package. This year, I had resigned myself to a position where I felt that things would resolve themselves.
Lately, I have heard our president talking about the economic situation while disdainfully referring to the “wealthy” as a major part of the problem. All the while, Congress is spending our money as if they were playing Monopoly. I can remember, when I was growing up, the concept presented to me, a child of a poor family. I was told that anyone who was born in the United States or immigrates here has every opportunity to become wealthy and improve his or her lot. I have many friends who have enriched their status or who have immigrated here and improved their situation.
The present political organization, not only Congress, but also the Administration, appears to be pushing the economy of the United States toward redistribution of wealth (read everyone poor). The average citizen does not have to accept this, however, and can fight for a different kind of change.
I am considering a grassroots organization with the intent of reclaiming our country. This non-partisan group would begin by examining the performance of elected officials and encouraging the removal of those who have been ineffectual. It would begin with Oregon and then provide solidarity with those throughout the United States also trying to affect change.
Is there an interest in Baker County in creating such a group? If so, please contact me at rheriza@yahoo.com. The November elections will be the people’s real chance for change.
Robert L. Heriza
Baker City
Response To Heriza Letter: Lots Of People Agree With You
To The Record-Courier:
Having read the letter from Robert L. Heriza (in today’s paper), I need to let you know you have a lot of people out here who agree with you and feel something needs to be done, the action may be along the line of the so called Tea Party or something of that nature.
One of the magazines I take is “Range,” published in Nevada and it has many articles of interest to anybody, especially people trying to make a living from any of the natural resources such as I did for 60 years. I fell our very lives as we have known them are being threatened by the actions taking place both in our state and federal governments. I have a list of things taken from this magazine that are important:
1. All people have inherent, natural, unalienable rights to life, liberty and property in the pursuit of happiness.
2. Governments exist expressly to protect these rights.
3. Government’s power derives from the consent of the governed, and is limited to those powers enumerated in the U.S. Constitution.
4. Public polices which constrain people’s rights must be enacted only by representatives elected by the people, not by appointed agency officials.
5. Freedom requires a free market economy — with minimal government intrusion.
6. Freedom and security demand abundant, affordable energy and food production, which requires high priority utilization of domestic carbon-based and alternative-fuel resources, as well as land and water resources.
7. Government has no authority to restrict or suppress nonviolent religious expression.
8. No foreign or international government shall supercede the authority of the government of the United States.
The first two articles of the Constitution have been ignored and there are many other examples where control of our country as we know it is being turned over to some world organization.
Eric Romtvedt
Baker City
|
|
|
