Federal Judge Curtis Collier has an article on the Bill of Rights. While some of the details on this subject are correct, its historical recognition, etc., the substance of the rest of his remarks are perfectly ludicrous, claiming that the supreme Court has upheld the Bill of Rights.
I had to laugh - whenever did the supreme Court ever rule in favor of the original wording and intent of the Bill of Rights? We have had nothing but re-interpretation and conglomerated "opinions" since 1964 from this uneducated and illiterate sitting Court, from Scalia ruling that it is a "first amendment Right to burn the American flag," to other unAmerican "opinions" and wishes of the Court. Attachments and leech rulings are the order of the day. Whoever ruled, for instance, that excessive bail is unacceptable?
Or that one has a Right to Represent themselves in Court without a passel of intimidation and favoritism toward the so-called "legal system?" The ludicrous and favoritism-laden so-called "Dead Beat Dad" Act, under the rule of Queen Mary Hillary Clinton who have virtually burned up thousands of men at the stake....all under the so-called "Women's Lib," as its pernicious sharp fingernails have dug their way into the most basic rights, - to say nothing of those imprisoned for speaking out against the murderous practicing of putting your child to death or attempting to address their elected officials about a stolen election....where is the Court on the Exercise of First Amendment Rights? How about Red Flag laws which brought about the murder of men who merely wanted to protect their Second Amendment Right...?
What happened to the Montana Militia and others who stood on the Second Article to the Bill of Rights? Where was the wrath of the Court against these violations?
The list is too long, your Honor, for this post. Why not just back off and admit that the Court is guilty of attempts to destroy the Bill of Rights, overtly or covertly, of treason and violating their oath of office. The best thing the Court could do is to voluntarily resign, if indeed it has any integrity at all. Those of us who hold to Americanism and its roots didn't really go along with ordering prayer and Bible in the schools - do you think? Yet the omnipotent Court thought itself better than the founders of this Great Republic in destroying the Tenth Amendment.
The banquet is coming up next Tuesday, Dec. 17, in Dayton, its 23rd year. Invitations are still open and the judge is welcome to pay his $40 to attend. It is remedial instruction for all who need a little education. And the food is good.
June Griffin
* * *
First I would like to thank Judge Collier and his clerks for taking the time to write these pieces. Thank you.
June, I know that arguing with you is like wrestling a pig in mud, the pig likes it and is better at it. However I will attempt it.
Yes, the court should look at the original wording and intent. However language has changed over 200+ years. And interrupting the intent is difficult. No one that was there is here now.
Free speech means that I can express myself in ways you do not like, that I can express opinions that you do not like. If I cannot do that, I am not free! You just exercised your First Amendment right in writing your opinion to the Chattanoogan. And they their First Amendment right by publishing it
“Whoever ruled, for instance, that excessive bail is unacceptable?” Well June, that would be the Eighth Amendment.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
This is very short and simple. You should not need a law degree to understand.
The Sixth Amendment gives you the right “to have the assistance of Council for his defense”. You may forfeit that right if you chose. Of course doing so is at your own peril.
The real problem is the appointment of judges based on their political ideologies, not their knowledge of law.
George Odom