From:
libertyAmerica@aol.com
From:
heidiaz3@aol.com
Dear Editor: 1/16/2010 Commenting on Mike McClellan's opinion in Mesa Republic's 1/16/2019 issue titled: "Rein of terror by Arpaio, Thomas goes beyond immigration."
There's more of us that supports the Sheriff, Mike, because he enforces the law period. That's why we keep voting him in as Sheriff. There is also plenty of others like you who obviously believes certain laws should not be enforced. Isn't that rather strange? You, being a teacher, should know that all laws are on the books for a purpose and they all must be enforced. Your attitude is an insult to the electorate.
You called Sheriff Joe a "Terrorist" because he specifically enforces immigration laws. Then wouldn't it be fair that you could be called an "Outlaw" because you go against one specific law because you don't like it?
Mike, you also accuse Sheriff Joe Arpaio of not enforcing all laws. If you did your home work you would clearly see he certainly does the best he can. He's a very busy law enforcer having his hands full enforcing immigration laws because no one else, who should, is doing it. Isn't that rather strange also?
Mike, if you did your home work you would clearly see that there is, in fact, a vast conspiracy against Arpaio and Thomas calling Sheriff Arpaio a liar. You probably haven't checked up on the political structure of Maricopa county Supervisors.
Those of us who have know very well that for one thing is that their structure, politically, has clearly violated Arizona's separation powers and "appointees" rules the roost having power over the elected.
As Sheriff Joe always says" "I get my mandate from the people."
An old wise saying seems to fit you in this case" "Be sure to get your brain in gear before you run off at the mouth."
Respectfully Submitted, Kirby Allan 2043 East Hackamore Street Mesa, 85213 Phone (480) 969-0000
From:
KirbyAllanAZ@aol.com
The east valley group who fights Mesa City Hall corruption are liken to the target shooter who hits the target but always miss the bulls eye and/or the Doctor who always treats the effects of a patient's ailment while ignoring the cause. Even the battles they win are lost in the end because Mesa's corruptable's move the chessmen on the chess board around to checkmate them.
Example; When the group successfully got the 1/2 cent food tax removed, the rent tax was raised in same amount. Although this group is admired for fighting City hall, in reality they wind up fighting windmills. This writer has spoken to the group leader David Molina who said he was aware that the bulls eye was the City Charter and It is what runs their highly devious political machinery but he doesn't think his group can win in getting it removed. He said he only wants to fight the things they can win.
I Ask you who read this letter to obtain a free copy of Mesa's Charter by calling the City Clerk's office at 480-644-2381, then log onto website, MesaAzCorruption.com and pit the "Fact Sheet". They are against the wording of the Charter and see for yourself how every Mesa Citizen is getting extorted. If what you see doesn't anger you enough to unite, rise up and dump this unconstitutional Charter, then join the thousands of UN American weak kneed socialistic people who are now in exodus to Canada.
Kirby Allan 2043 East Hackamore St. Mesa, 85213 Phone 969-0000
From:
KirbyAllanAZ
We have read much about the political and financial difficulties with Maricopa County
government. Sheriff Joe Arpaio has gone to court over questionable administrative
legislative rulings. However, the cause of this political muddle can be found in he violation
of separation of powers within the structure of county government. Article !!! of the Arizona
constitution under "Distribution of Powers" reads as follows; "The powers of the
government of the state of Arizona shall be divided into three separate departments,
the legislative, the executive, and the judicial, and, except as provided in this constitution,
such departments shall be separated and distinct, and no one of such departments shall
exercise the powers properly belonging to either of the others," Since separation of
powers is a constitutional mandate, how did the elected board of supervisors end up with
responsibility for both county legislation and county administration? The board of
supervisors of Maricopa county serves as a legislative body charged, for the most part, with
responsibility for financial legislation. It is directly responsible to the electorate. But, the
executive or administrative sector of Maricopa county government is entirely divorced
from direct responsibility to the electorate, instead, a county manager is appointed by the
board of supervisors. He in turn appoints his deputy manager. Six appointed assistant
county managers are then in turn are appointed to rule over their numerous political
dynasties from economic development, financial services, general services, health care,
environmental quality, transportation, and development of who knows what. Their assistant
administrators are responsible to the appointed county manager who in turn must answer,
not to the electorate, but to the board of Supervisors. Clearly, legislative powers have been
combined with the administrative powers, thereby violating the constitutional mandate of
separation of powers. Moreover, with regard to administrative control, the electorate has
been left out in the cold. The violation of separation of powers has clearly been
contributed to the present political and financial problems within Maricopa County. The
problem is that the article XII, section three of the Arizona Constitution has omitted a
requirement for a necessary elected official; a chief administrative officer. If that had been
included, the separation of powers mandate would have been observed. All it takes now is
a constitutional amendment to authorize an elected chief administrator and return Maricopa
County back to constitutional requirements. Question; why has this never happened over
the years?
From:
KirbyAllanAZ
We have read much about the political and financial difficulties with Maricopa County
government. Sheriff Joe Arpaio has gone to court over questionable administrative
legislative rulings. However, the cause of this political muddle can be found in he violation
of separation of powers within the structure of county government. Article !!! of the Arizona
constitution under "Distribution of Powers" reads as follows; "The powers of the
government of the state of Arizona shall be divided into three separate departments,
the legislative, the executive, and the judicial, and, except as provided in this constitution,
such departments shall be separated and distinct, and no one of such departments shall
exercise the powers properly belonging to either of the others," Since separation of
powers is a constitutional mandate, how did the elected board of supervisors end up with
responsibility for both county legislation and county administration? The board of
supervisors of Maricopa county serves as a legislative body charged, for the most part, with
responsibility for financial legislation. It is directly responsible to the electorate. But, the
executive or administrative sector of Maricopa county government is entirely divorced
from direct responsibility to the electorate, instead, a county manager is appointed by the
board of supervisors. He in turn appoints his deputy manager. Six appointed assistant
county managers are then in turn are appointed to rule over their numerous political
dynasties from economic development, financial services, general services, health care,
environmental quality, transportation, and development of who knows what. Their assistant
administrators are responsible to the appointed county manager who in turn must answer,
not to the electorate, but to the board of Supervisors. Clearly, legislative powers have been
combined with the administrative powers, thereby violating the constitutional mandate of
separation of powers. Moreover, with regard to administrative control, the electorate has
been left out in the cold. The violation of separation of powers has clearly been
contributed to the present political and financial problems within Maricopa County. The
problem is that the article XII, section three of the Arizona Constitution has omitted a
requirement for a necessary elected official; a chief administrative officer. If that had been
included, the separation of powers mandate would have been observed. All it takes now is
a constitutional amendment to authorize an elected chief administrator and return Maricopa
County back to constitutional requirements. Question; why has this never happened over
the years?
| |||||||
|