Email letters, December 13, 2013

Keep cross, remove judge

When any judge fails to support our Constitution and Bill of Rights, should we honor the unjust judge — or should we, the people, support the Constitution?

The Bill of Rights was hammered out in the Congress of 1789. In the seminal Commentaries on the Constitution, Justice Joseph Story supports our First Amendment.

In the Reports of Committees 19 January 1853 U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Report Mr. Badger — and corresponding US House Judiciary Committee Report by Mr. Meacham — Justice Story — and the Congress that wrote and adopted our Bill of Rights are confirmed and affirmed. This “progressive” reprobate judge is either ignorant of — or rejects the constitution he is sworn — or affirms intent to support.

I remember visiting that memorial at Mount Soledad when I was waiting orders for the Republic of Vietnam. No unjust, unconstitutional judge can take that from me.

I took a code — and will honor it. I will never surrender of my own free will. I will oppose tyranny as long as I live, for resistance to tyranny is obedience to God. I will support our Constitution and defend our memorials against all enemy, foreign or domestic.

No judge has power over the Constitution but is sworn or affirms intent binding him or her to support for our Constitution. When any judge fails in that duty, that judge should be IMPEACHED.

Keep the cross at Mount Soledad — remove the judge. Support the Constitution and reason. Either we have a written Constitution and all Judges are bound to support it or we suffer the tyranny our Founding Fathers stood to oppose.

ROBERT JAMES BURKHOLDER

Fruita



COMMENTS

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
Page 1 of 1


I am wondering which Constitution to which Mr. Burkholder refers.  The one I remember says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”

Must be a different one, eh?

Maybe Mr. D’andrea does not understand English. What part of “does not ESTABLISH” does he not understand. A cross on hill, a nativity scene, or the Ten Commandments on display does not ESTABLISH anything. I would remind him that it says “freedom OF religion” not “freedom FROM religion”.

Perhaps it’s Mr. Patton who needs to understand English a little better.  The First Amendment does not say “does not ESTABLISH.”  It says “respecing an establishment of religion.”  I understand that very well.

Touche Robert. Wouldn’t it be a grand day should the sorry worthless judges, who violate their oath and legislate from the bench, were banished?

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof: or abridging the freedom of speech , or of the press: or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” D’andrea conveniently selected a portion to support his comment. Typical liberal tactic.

Typical liberal tactic?  You mean paying attention to the Constitution?

Guilty as charged, although I don’t know too many people who consider me “liberal.”

I listed the Establishment Clause because that was the basis for the lawsuit and the basis for the Ninth Circuit’s decision.  See:

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1551143.html

Indeed you are guilty. I, personally, could care less about the ninth circuit. Probably another hussein appointee. Exactly WHAT do you see as Mr. Burkholder’s error? I hope it is not jaw flappin for the sake of jaw flappin.

Page 1 of 1






Search More Jobs






THE DAILY SENTINEL
734 S. Seventh St.
Grand Junction, CO 81501
970-242-5050
Editions
Subscribe to print edition
E-edition
Advertisers
Sign in to your account
Information

© 2014 Grand Junction Media, Inc.
By using this site you agree to the Visitor Agreement and the Privacy Policy