Comments on: Redfield Voices Position On Constitution

By: Carlos Otero

Carlos Otero — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 20:51:50 +0000

Verdel, free association is nothing like status quo because it is based on an agreement between two parties. Last time I checked, we didn’t agree to the Organic Act, (although some people think we should which would be a big mistake. Free association is based on mutual consent. That is, one party cannot impose legislation, rules, etc. on the other. This is clearly not the status quo where the feds can impose laws and regulations, and deny support at their whim. If you want to read about free association, check out the Federated States of Micronesia or Palau, or even better, check out Greenland. These are modern relations between governments, not modern-day colonial arrangements where an Interior Department continues to hold sway over us like it does the other property it controls.

No wonder our youth are freaking out…

By: Verdel L. Petersen

Verdel L. Petersen — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 22:23:48 +0000

Free Association sounds like a fancy term for the Status Quo.

By: Count your Blessings

Count your Blessings — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 18:55:36 +0000

Listening to Abdul Ali radio show today, there was a guest speaker. I tuned in late and don’t know who he was. However, from what I made out of his comments, he is in favor of independance or free association. He stated he was in the Cayman Island a few years ago and that they are striving. Their currency is worth more than the dollar and they have a very good banking system that can sustain the economy. All of that is very good.
The rich and famous flock to the Cayman Islands. They are the ones that built up the economy. What would we use for our currency and what means of wealth would we back it up with. A few years ago, a hurricane struck and they had to call Great Britain for help. We don’t have a work force that could fill any higher up positions. We can’t sustain ourselves with argriculture since most of our land is alread built up with homes. Just picture for a moment, the people that are on food stamps. They don’t work now and never will. Their children grows up with the same mentality. Will our seniors still receive their social security? People dying to come to the US, the land of oportunity, we trying to get rid of the US the land of hope and charity. You think crime is bad now? Break away and suffer the results. Remember the saying, “you don’t miss the water til the well run dry”
Be careful what you ask for. You just might get it.
Two men were trying to drive across a bridge from either direction. It was a very narrow bridge which allowed for only one car to pass at a time. One of the driver got ou his car and shouted to the other,” never back up for idiots” the other driver replied “that’s okay, I do”
.

By: Crucian to me heart

Crucian to me heart — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:45:34 +0000

Amen! U-Turn.

By: U-Turn

U-Turn — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 06:17:34 +0000

What must be noted is the same governor and attorney general who said that the draft constitution was unconstitutional are the same persons who convinced the legislature to pass an unconstitutional property tax act and they were the same ones who lost their arguments in two courts which found the reasoning and actions of the governor and the attorney general to be unconstitutional.

By: Busted

Busted — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 03:03:56 +0000

I think the court should determine that, not the governor or attorney general. Governor deJongh should have filed a motion in court rather than issue a ruling as if he’s a judge. How on earth does he or AG Fraser rule a document unconstitutional? Please review Public Law 94-584 again and take note that while the President of the US can comment on the document, the Governor is only allowed to forward it as head of the territory.

Congress is the only one allowed to deem the document, in part or as a whole, in violation of their mandates in Public Law 94-584. As an unincorporated territory, we are a creation of Congress and, as such, they determine what laws govern us.

By: Verdel L. Petersen

Verdel L. Petersen — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 01:58:56 +0000

The governor did not violate any laws;his instruction was to transmit “such constitution.” The law referred to a proposed constitution which must adhere to certain criteria. Read the public law to familiarize yourself with the requirements or parameters under which a VI Constitution must be written.The document submitted to him failed to meet all of the criteria;therefore, the governor was not obligated to forward the “document.”

The drafters of the “document” either have a literacy problem or simply are being defiant. Which of these do you think applies? Do they comprehend the English language or did they chose not to comply with the public law?

By: Busted

Busted — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 13:57:06 +0000

Was it the delegates or the drafters responsible for the spelling and grammatical errors in the document? The delegates provide their ideas and the attorneys converted it to “constitutional lingo” if I am not mistaking.

“Grossly flawed” is a bit of a stretch in my opinion. The same people complaining about errors and flaws in the document are the ones who were against time extensions and funding requests for staff. Also, don’t complain that they added sections without researching when you were against providing funding for research and researchers. When you consider the constant roadblocks the delegates faced, I am surprised a document was able to be produced. I think that’s what’s really irritating all the whiners.

Yes, I am not in full agreement with this document, however I can’t whine about it because I only participated in 3 meetings, I didn’t submit my ideas via email or phone, there were 30 diverse opinions crafting this document, the media focused on the “native rights” issue and ignored just about everything else, members of the government prevented the meetings from being broadcast on public tv stations, etc…

The governor simply needs to follow the law and forward the document whether or not he feels embarrassed by it. His first opportunity for input has passed and he will now have to wait for it to return to decide whether he will support it or not.

By: Verdel L. Petersen

Verdel L. Petersen — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 13:02:07 +0000

Why are the former delegates afraid to express their views on this site? Do they have the ability to write a proper sentence? They’re good at spewing their rhetoric on the airwaves, especially the class clown, but were not able to draft a document free of grammatical errors. Except for Gerard Emanuel and Eugene Petersen, have any others posted comments on this site? Can they survive the scrutiny and criticisms?

If any of them is reading this, I hope the challenge to respond will be accepted. Why was the document not proofread and edited before presenting it to the Gov. or the public? Why should the Gov. be coerced into forwarding this grossly flaw document? What happened to the mission to educate the public? Is it a futile effort since the document is so transparent now and the sinister motive for composing it is glaring? Why is Gerard Emanuel mute about his opinion regarding the Guv’s decision? Is it because he and his wife are unclassified government employees? It does not cost me a dime to post my comments and open myself for aspersions. What would it cost for the former delegates to utilize this site to convince the masses that the proposed VI Constitution is a better document than the Revised Organic Act? I suspect that they are only comfortable appealing to those who are illiterate and lack computer
skills. The narrow-minded callers of Mario’s talk show believe the garbage of the class clown, because they have not read the draft.The naturalized citizens who advocate to disenfranchise themselves have been indoctrinated.

The only persons who need to be educated about writing a constitution and all the processes it encompasses are those who voted for the draft. This draft is an insult to intelligent minds. It is decomposing matter and only idiots can not understand that it is not acceptable.

By: Crucian Confusion

Crucian Confusion — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 12:56:38 +0000

As for Redfield, he is the one that kept saying “Vitelco is solid. Vitelco is not going bankrupt. Vitelco is strong”
Don’t worry about him running. The only place he is going is to hell and back.