Previous Story
Wild swings versus ‘natural’ rights
|
Posted on Jan 12 2012
If Keith Brooks did his homework, he would have learned and come to terms with the founding fathers’ thorough defense of the fundamental rights of citizens under the First Principles upon which was penned, “We the people” of our rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
Had he critically probed the issue with his scholarly pen, he also would have learned that there’s nowhere under the U.S. Constitution authorizing the U.S. Congress to amend fundamental provisions of the law of the land by its approval of Section 805 of the Covenant Agreement or land alienation. Isn’t it true that fundamental provisions of the U.S. Constitution are enduring, therefore non-negotiable? Isn’t there a set of laws governing amendments to the U.S. Constitution? It requires ratification by 39 states, true?
Had he probed further, Mr. Brooks would have discovered that the U.S. Constitution didn’t grant the U.S. judicial system the authority to blindly violate the equal protection clause by conveniently embracing the flag. The Ninth Circuit failed to realize that its anomalous assertion to fulfilling U.S. international obligations under a UN document on indigenous rights that our country is a signatory too. It affixed its signature because it included a provision ruling out discrimination on landownership in U.S. soil.
I am also a local, sir, and I definitely disagree with your lame and bigoted view. No sir! Advancing purposeful ignorance isn’t the vehicle to fostering synergistic working relationships among citizens all across the country. Shall we uphold “We the People” so we all read and work out of the same page in “I Pluribus Unum?” “In many, one.”
John S. DelRosario Jr.
As Gonno, Saipan
