2/11/2010 6:00:00 AM Letter: Ekstrom needs to read Constitution
I am a 79-year old Korean War veteran. Mohave County attorney "Lord" Ekstrom is incorrect when he says, "County property is not meant to be a forum for constitutionally protected free speech." Lord Ekstrom's concept of free speech would not have gone over well with our Founders. The present law, if it is a law, has to be reversed so the citizens of Mohave County can exercise their 1st Amendment rights. Lord Ekstrom needs to do some serious studying of the U.S. Constitution, then, he needs to show respect for what it says about free speech.
Dean Jacobs
Bullhead City
Reader Comments
Posted: Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Article comment by:
We Can Recall Sockwell
Folks, the recall is really charged up, we are raising money and getting signatures! This county has been under the corrupt thumbs of this BOS for too long, and they have gone too far. We can now remove Sockwell from office. Help us do this. Please go to RecallSockwell.com to help! We meet every week, we need your help, be part of history to clean up this county! RecallSockwell.com for info!
Posted: Thursday, March 18, 2010
Article comment by:
Please Step Up and Help with www.RecallSockwell.com
To help with RecallSockwell go to www.RecallSockwell.com or e-mail MohaveFreedom@Yahoo.com The cause is growing stronger every day, but we still need people to circulate petitions and we need donations. Now is the time for change and we can do it.
Posted: Saturday, February 13, 2010
Article comment by:
azmac
Publius
I see you did not read what I wrote. I did not say there wasn't a militia.
In the constitution is a list of what the federal government can do. If not on the list, then it is not their job.
A little history.
Against the Federalist leadership and determination, the opposition in most states was disorganized and generally inert. The leading spokesmen were largely state-centered men with regional and local interests and loyalties. The anti-Federalists attacked on several fronts: the lack of a bill of rights, discrimination against southern states in navigation legislation, direct taxation, the loss of state sovereignty. Many charged that the Constitution represented the work of aristocratic politicians bent on protecting their own class interests.
The call for a bill of rights was the anti-Federalists' most powerful weapon. The anti-Federalists, demanded a more unequivocal Constitution, one that laid out for all to see the rights of the people and limitations of the power of government.
Richard Henry Lee despaired at the lack of provisions to protect “those essential rights of mankind without which liberty cannot exist.
Posted: Friday, February 12, 2010
Article comment by:
Tench Coxe
To Publius,
The Sword and every terrible implement of the soldier is the birthright of every American.
Posted: Thursday, February 11, 2010
Article comment by:
No name provided
@ No Name
The correct term is Bill Ekstrom was the County Attorney - retired, and then Matt Smith was appointed County Attorney. Here's to double dipping, Matt Smith then appointed his good old boy buddy Bill Ekstrom as the Deputy County Attorney. And we the taxpayers will pay for a second retirement, and it is all legal thanks to the State of Arizona. I dont know about you but my checkbook is getting pretty low supporting all this highpaying do nothing and dare I say full of corruption individuals. I say time to RECALL the Board of Supervisors all three and fire Ron Walker and Bill Ekstrom. At least it would be cheaper in the long run.
Posted: Thursday, February 11, 2010
Article comment by:
SEN. GOULD SPEAKS OUT ABOUT THIS IN TODAY'S STANDARD!
TO The BOS and all Citizens, Senator Ron Gould Speaks up about County politicking controversy in today's standard!
Posted: Thursday, February 11, 2010
Article comment by:
Publius
I guess AZMAC's missive hits my point exactly. The Founders intent, other than as expressed in the Federalist paper, thus my nom de plume, is a flag of convenience for one person's view of the Constitution, almost always to support their predetermined view. You say there were no militias, but that is wrong, each colony did have a militia that could be called up, thus the Massachuetts militia met to oppose British intrusion at Concord. My own ancestor was in the New Hampshire militia in the revolution, and another was a company in the Michigan Militia called to arms in 1861.
The Federalist Papers, if you read them, which appears you did not, dismisses the need for a Bill of Rights, that you cite. Hamilton in Federalist #84, states, " But a minute detail of the particular rights is certainly far less applicable to a Constitution like that under consideration, which is merely intended to regulate the GENERAL political interests of the nation, than a consitution which has the regulation of every species of personal and private concern.. . . I go further and affirm that bills of rights, . . .are not only unnecessary, but would even be dangerous." So my statements have only marginally to do with the 2nd amendment, which was not the point of my statements. You have a predetermined position, the private ownership of guns is a right. But there is no Constitutional statement like that and the Federalist papers do not discuss it. Otherwise, See Hamilton in Federalist #25 on the regulation of militias.
Posted: Thursday, February 11, 2010
Article comment by:
Woody
"Publius"... what kind of greek name is that?
That was not a point you made, but a blunt-ended, liberal opinion. If you care to talk POINT and the INTENT of our Fore Fathers, try reading the "Federalist Papers". Then we will be able to discuss it intelligently. Until then, the only point you have is on your head.
Also for your information, Militias are authorized, not only in the 2nd Amendment, but first and FOREMOST, in Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution... You should read it some time. (You and a few others who have taken the "Oath".) It lists some of the duties of the congress. You know... things they can and can not do, that they now do and could not care less about doing. Sort of like the bos(s) here in mohave county...
By the way, No... the 2nd Amendment does not classify bazookas and automatic weapons as "Arms"... DUH!
Then Again, todays school books say little, if anything about our Fore Fathers struggles and pains that enable you to ignorantly slam and slander them and all they have sacrificed. Much less ANYTHING about God, Jesus Christ or ANYTHING pertaining to that Divinely Inspired document, the Constitution...
Posted: Thursday, February 11, 2010
Article comment by:
azmac
Publius
You want to know what the founders thought? They wrote it all down, it is in the federalist and anti federalist papers.All there for anyone to see. Those who have read them can say what the founders were thinking. Hve you read them? Have you read the constitution? Do you know what bills are now in congress? Do you know how your congressmen vote? By your answer I can say your answer is no to all above.
Many millions of United States Citizens believe that the Second Amendment ONLY refers to each State's power to form militias. This is simply not the case. The Second Amendment does indeed refer to the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right.
When the Second Amendment was written, there wasn't any National Guard. The People were the National Guard. In fact, the National Guard did not exist for another 116 years.
Private Firearm ownership is a guarantee against the breaching or transgression of all the other rights reserved to the People. Private and free gun ownership is a guard against any possible tyranny or dictatorships. The Founding Fathers knew what they meant and meant what they wrote.
The Founding Fathers clearly did not believe that limiting lawful access to firearms by law-abiding, honest and upright citizens of good moral character would either diminish crime, nor be constitutional.
When considering ANY legislation that has the slightest hint of curtailing our freedom and liberty, we should closely examine it as if it was taken to the most extreme limit, then treat it accordingly.
Last year we had 14 million American citizens apply for a hunting license. That is more people than the top 5 armies in the world all put together.
The American people are the militia.
Have you ever read The Declaration of Independence?
Learn about your country and you will know what the founding fathers thought.
Posted: Thursday, February 11, 2010
Article comment by:
Dorcas
Publius,
If gun control is your issue then bring it up in your own letter for debate.
Dean Jacobs was the other citizen with Luca Zanna back in November who was told he could not pass out his materials reflecting the voting record of Sen. McCain. So if you want "more light" on the subject, you need to read it. He definitely has his right to print it.
The issue is did this limit or abridge their 1st Amendment right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America.
Posted: Thursday, February 11, 2010
Article comment by:
No name provided
Just a little information for Suzanne Adams and readers: Bill Ekstrom is a Deputy County Attorney and should be titled as such. Matt Smith is the County Attorney.
Posted: Thursday, February 11, 2010
Article comment by:
Publius
There is nothing in the Constitution about bazookas, automatic weapons, abortion, women’s rights, stem cell research, the Ten Commandments, the pledge of allegiance, the internet, or photo speed cameras, social security or Medicare. The point being that citing the founders intent seem to be a matter of convenience to support a position one takes on one issue, and ignoring the rest. The Second Amendment does have a reference to militias and guns but the militia citation is ignored when convenient to support a pro gun position. Same here in this writers statements.
Posted: Thursday, February 11, 2010
Article comment by:
The Memo
Dear Mr. Jacobs
You served your county just like Mr. Walker and Mr. Sockwell, the only problem is you didn't get the memo that free speech is only for the elected and privilege. Here's the MEMO. BOS shall make laws when they want respecting 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 lunatic fringe peaceably to not assemble, and to petition the BOS for a redress of grievances.
