Hi Gary,
Just wanted to honor your request with my
comments on the hearing.
I must preface my comments with the fact
that this is the first time, ever in my life; I entered a courtroom, for any
reason. So, my mind was wide open as to what to expect.
I could not help but be struck by the ‘appearance’
of such a mismatch, as what I witnessed before the hearing started.
My father always said that ‘with
age, comes wisdom’. I don’t know from where he learned that adage …
scriptures, wives tales, whatever. But, it appeared to me that I was going to
witness a baseball game between the 2009 World Series Champions, and the local Little
League team. Again, this was the impression I received before the hearing
started, as the representatives of each side of the argument became seated in
front of me.
I immediately began wondering where the ‘seasoned
professionals’ (as opposed to the ‘new’ professionals) were
on the side of the US Government. I mean absolutely no disrespect to the young
ladies who represented Uncle Sam, because assuredly it takes great commitment and
ability to operate in this field. But, I wondered what the implied position was
by the US Government with the absence of any ‘perceived’ heavy
hitters.
I pondered two things. One, did the ‘powers
that be’ on the Holder side, want to stay absent because of the impaling
they would ultimately receive due to the validity of your argument. Or, two,
did they stay absent because they gave very little to no thought, to any possibility,
that your argument will go anywhere.
I wasn’t sure.
But, as the hearing progressed, I was more
able to follow the line of thinking of the supporters of MFFA, than the
opponents of MFFA. I don’t remember which of your representatives said
it, but mention was made of the effect of the 17th amendment, the
loss of true state representation at the federal level. I caught that one. And,
I believe that to be a major factor in this, and many other 10th amendment
arguments.
And, I must admit, maybe I found myself
most able to follow the arguments of your supporters, precisely because of my
intense study of the Constitution in the past 15 months. I must be truly (and properly,
I believe) biased toward Constitutional principles … and not ‘government
as nanny’ principles.
I was also struck at the many attempts of
the Judge, to try to prompt from the MFFA supporters, a ‘disagreement’
with Mr. Rhodes (sp?). Is that normal? Does that indicate a predetermined bias
by the Judge? I’m not sure how these arguments usually progress due to my
newness to this.
Anyhow, I was very glad to be in
attendance, in support of your efforts for what they mean, to not only Montana,
but the rest of these united States, and most importantly, the People.
If I were charged with the task of deciding
a ‘winner’ of the debate, it was MFFA.