Printed letters, March 12, 2013
Recently, the Colorado Legislature rejected House Bill 1045, Jared Wright’s essential legislation nullifying the president’s practiced authority of detaining U.S. citizens without due process, counsel or habeas corpus.
Based on that action, one might assume it means the majority of our legislators believe that the federal government is at war here in Colorado and that our own military should ignore the Constitution and apply the law of war to our citizenry.
Through the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force and the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, the president has exercised this assumed authority and has held a U.S. citizen, Jose Padilla, for more than two years without counsel, charges or trial. Eventually he was afforded due process, charged and convicted in a court of law.
Contravening the Constitution and violating the right of due process and habeas corpus are serious offenses to the people. The situation becomes even more nauseating when numerous other state legislatures have recognized this threat and have passed the same law our Legislature rejected.
The danger of this situation is apparent when we recognize that a memorandum has been issued by the executive branch identifying people afraid for the destruction of the Constitution as potential terrorists.
This issue will not go away. I thank Rep. Wright for attempting to address it.
We owe our thanks to Wright for a principled, reasonable stand against the destruction of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments and expansion of the state. He did his best. Unfortunately, those who believe in blind subservience to the state were too numerous.
Those of us here in Mesa County who believe in constitutional government and rule of law support Wright and are proud to have him as our representative.
He should keep up the good fight, and as long as strong people are willing to stand up and fight, the truth will prevail.
DAVID L COX
Vote “No’ on Measure A for the good of community
Here are three reasons you should vote “No” on Referred Measure A, (i.e. “No” to industrial zoning on the riverfront).
First, one doesn’t have to look too far for scenarios similar to the issue we face on our riverfront today. For example, some guy buys land near a school and hopes the city will give him the green light to build a strip club.
Zoning or variance after the fact, to suit the personal gain of a property owner at the expense of the city’s planning and best interest of its citizens, should not happen.
In this instance, approval is just as inappropriate as allowing industrial zoning on the riverbank. The existing community asset trumps the intruding interest.
Secondly, if I-1 industrial zoning is left in place, it forever opens the door to anything from junkyard to hazardous waste disposal by the next owner of the property — signed, sealed, delivered.
Thirdly, the particular property owner’s proposed conciliatory narrow easement for a bike path to marginally connect the parks on both sides of this industrial property would be under water during many spring runoffs.
Don’t be fooled into thinking that this is a vote for or against business or jobs.
What are we teaching our children if we say it’s OK to open industry, dumps and waste disposal on our vital waterways?
There should be no fence-sitting on this issue. You either vote “Yes” because you want to see industry on the river or you vote “No” because industry on the river is inappropriate and an affront to all the efforts that precede this decision, and you vote “No” because you want parks and recreational access along our waterways.
Either way, a river will always run through it. In one case, it will just pass us by.
DAVID M. CALE
Regulatory overkill impairs U.S. economy
About two months ago on a Sunday news program, I heard Nancy Pelosi make a statement to the effect, “We need to figure out where the revenue and growth are going to come from.” Initially, I was shocked that she would make such an admission.
But then I realized — and I can’t believe I’m saying this — Pelosi was right. Government has regulated everything in our country to the point that we no longer have any productivity. It’s form over function, and everything is being spent on compliance.
(Yep, Nancy, it’s hard to find an egg when you’ve killed the goose.)
Perhaps we all would be better served if members of Congress would spend some time reading Machiavelli’s “The Prince.” Sure, it’s a hard read, but they’re not doing much anyway so they should have the time.
JOHN R. MCCALLISTER
Streets are city’s turf, so feds should hit the road
I have two questions about the streets in Grand Junction.
First, under what authority does any entity of the federal government have the right to decide that city streets are now under its jurisdiction?
Second, what steps can be taken to remove this authority? City streets belong under city control.