By Constitution Staff

In January, a judge in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma announced his decision that an Amendment to the Oklahoma Constitution that passed with a 75% majority vote by the voters in the 2012 general election was "unconstitutional." To his credit, he immediately issued a "stay" until the matter could be appealed to the Tenth Court of Appeals, which sits in Denver. Thus the Amendment, that states that a "marriage" is between one man and one woman, which in my understanding is the historical definition of the word "marriage" stays in force pending the appeal.

According to subsequent news and talk show reports, this judge was appointed by former President William Jefferson Blithe Clinton in the 1993-2001 administration. In my view, this is part of the continuing "war on Christianity" being carried on by the forces of the C/S (Communist/ Socialist) world power followers. After all, both types of political dictatorships are based on the principle of atheism and can only exist under the control of a complete dictatorship, except in the few cases of a voluntary religious community such as a convent or monastery.

This is another example of the ever more embolden group of those called "activist judges" who render decisions based on personal bias rather than the written words of our Federal and State Constitutions. Another example is the public statements of Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg that she uses "international law" instead of the Constitution in arriving at decisions.

Another such judge surprised us with a decision when she ruled in favor of the owners of Hobby Lobby in issuing a stay of the implementation of fines contained in the "AHC" (ObamaCare) law. Before being nominated to the Court, she was the lawyer in the Justice Department that represented the Government before the Court in that case, which resulted in the questionable decision by Chief Justice Roberts that it "was unconstitutional but as a tax is constitutional."

It should be remembered that Federal Judges at all levels are nominated by the sitting President, but must be approved by the U.S. Senate in session. Unfortunately, in recent decades the Senate Judiciary Committee and whole Senate have passed too many nominees who clearly were unsuited for the position, from a Constitutional basis.

All too often, the Republican members have taken the attitude that "he is the President so we must let him have his appointees." Unfortunately, when there is a Republican President, the Democrat Senators will resort to the most onerous tactics to prevent conservative appointees being approved. One example of this is the treatment received some time ago by Mr. Justice Bork, and more recently by Justice Clarence Thomas where phoney accusations of sexual harassment were brought up in attempts to destroy his nomination and his person.

It is the duty of the Congress to implement the impeachment proceedings against judges who so flagrantly violate the oath of office. However, I do not expect any Democrat members to bring up such charges against these activist judges, since they are achieving their goals that could not be passed by the normal law making procedures in Congress. In the current situation with the Senate under the dictatorial control of Sen. Harry Reid, D-NV, it is considered probable that he would not allow impeachment charges from the House to even be accorded a hearing in the Senate.

All this gives more urgency that we, the voters, send more sensible representatives to the House and Senate. Oklahomans can be proud of both Senators and most Representatives.

Robert W. McDowell, Jr.

Broken Arrow, OK

Enforcing Unconstitutional Laws

The enforcement of any law creates situations where government agents may hurt, cripple and yes even kill people to force compliance on those that disagree with the law.

Any statute (law) that is unconstitutional is illegal and therefore every act to enforce the illegal statute (law) is an illegal act by the government and ignorance of "the law" is no excuse, the "law" of course being our God given rights which are guaranteed and protected by the U.S. Constitution.

Cantwell versus Connecticut: US Supreme Court ruling -- "The fundamental concept of liberty embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment embraces the liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment. The enactment by a State of any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof is forbidden by the Fourteenth Amendment. Under the constitutional guaranty, freedom of conscience and of religious belief is absolute; although freedom to act in the exercise of religion is subject to regulation for the protection of society. Such regulation, however, in attaining a permissible end, must not unduly infringe the protected freedom."

See God gave man dominion over the earth, animals, fish and fowl, and our Constitution is written to ensure that each man is equal in these God given property rights. Neither my neighbor nor my government officials have the authority to supersede God and deprive me of the dominion (total authority and control) that God himself gave me over the land and the animals that I own. For simpler explanation as an example -- Gamecock farmers (cockfighters) simply perpetuate, admire and honor the natural genetic traits of athletic ability and courage that God put into the jungle fowl "gamecock" when he created it. Harvesting our gamecocks is our free exercise of religion which is guaranteed under the 1st amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

A complete and thorough comprehension of the 1940 "Cantwell versus Connecticut" US Supreme Court ruling above proves that the Animal Welfare Act of 1966 and every animal welfare/animal cruelty law in America are unconstitutional and are the foundation of the communist UN Agenda 21 plan to destroy property rights, seize control of all food sources and move nature, animals, fish and fowl above human lives while assuming the unconstitutional ability to control the property of all property owners.

The only way for government to infringe on these individual property rights and freedoms is to prove a "significant government interest" such as stopping fracking for oil when it causes natural gas and/or oil to be released into the water supply of the neighboring citizens and thus protect the general welfare of all citizens and property rights of all land owners in that region.

Have you ever wondered why our state legislators who take an oath to support and defend the Constitution have not had the courage to repeal the unconstitutional law criminalizing the gamecock harvest industry (cockfighting) before a rural Oklahoma gamecock farmer is hurt, crippled and/or killed by government agents defending chickens? Because the state chamber of commerce supports Agenda 21 and the plan to destroy our rural communities, even if it means destroying and even killing rural Oklahomans.

The gamecock harvest industry generated more than $100 million into the Oklahoma economy injected primarily into the rural communities and our rural areas desperately need this animal agriculture industry back.

Will our elected officials have the courage to repeal this unconstitutional law before another Oklahoma gamecock farmer has their family ripped apart, their lives turned upside down and is quite possibly hurt, crippled and/or killed by government agents defending chickens?

B.L. Cozad Jr

Indiahoma, OK

For more information about the court rulings that prove all animal cruelty/animal welfare laws in America are unconstitutional, illegal and directly tied to the UN Agenda 21 you can contact Mr. Cozad. at 580-246-8027

[Editor's note: Mr. Cozad uses the "incorporation doctrine" of the 14th Amendment -- the belief that the 14th Amendment applied the restrictions of the Bill of Rights to the states -- in making his argument above. Without addressing Mr. Cozad's arguments about the topic of cockfighting, many conservatives do not believe that this interpretation of the 14th Amendment is the correct one. See Rauol Berger's classic book, The 14th Amendment and the Incorporation Doctrine.]