I’m compelled to respond to letters being critical of Sheriff John D’Agostini’s lawful and required actions. In my opinion, they were merely flawed opinions and void of facts.
This is to the woman who stated she was “evolved” and asked the question, “Is D’Agostini a Constitutional scholar,” and to John Garon’s shameful letter in which he impugned the Sheriff’s bearing, character and resorted to no-class name-calling. The questions on the table are: (1) Is John D’Agostini a Constitutional scholar or does he have a degree in Constitutional law? (2) What’s the Sheriff’s reason and authority to write Biden and terminate the U.S. Forest Service?
The questions of “the evolved one” and Mr. Garon revolve around the Sheriff’s education, authority and gun control. In answer, I don’t believe the Sheriff is either a Constitutional scholar nor has a degree in Constitutional law. Regardless, I cannot see how the answers to those two questions have any bearing on the Sheriff’s lawful actions. Fact: The Sheriff is duly elected and legally viewed as the sworn “Chief Law Enforcement Officer” of this county. Fact: The Sheriff takes oaths to uphold both the U.S. and California State Constitutions. Fact: Our Sheriff has been trained and has 20 years of law enforcement experience. Ms. Evolved and Garon seem to believe the President and VP are better educated and equipped to arbitrarily and unilaterally make rules, laws and executive orders, in violation to those Constitutions, that trump our county elected official’s opinions and sworn-to duties and responsibilities. How does one only vested in scholastic theory trump the educated, and experienced?
I am of the opinion that anyone who believes that the President is a Constitutional scholar is delusional. Is a person who practices law for barely one year, teaches a class on the U.S. Constitution and who has never argued a case before the Supreme Court a Constitutional scholar? I offer a resounding no. In the recent past two major issues were “settled” by the Supreme Court with 5 to 4 votes. Indisputable evidence that even the “real” Constitutional scholars cannot agree on what is Constitutional or not.
The Second Amendment provokes controversy and debate, however, read the quotes, letters and memoirs of the Founding Fathers to know the true meaning of that God-given unalienable right for America — a right that Americans are born with, not given to, therefore cannot be taken away. The Second Amendment is the only place in America’s historical foundation papers that contains “shall not be infringed” and arguably the most important of all. If the Second Amendment, allowing the citizenry to be armed, is “infringed,” the balance of our rights and freedoms could not be protected.
A personal analogy regarding the educational/degree issue. I’ve been an aircraft pilot for 51-plus years with thousands of hours of actual experience at the cockpit controls. I was a naval aviator logging 2,700 hours in seven years followed up by a career with a major commercial airline. I’m not a person of letters with degrees, nor an aeronautical engineer. A simple question: “Whom would you trust to safely fly your family from here to anywhere, a person like myself or an aeronautical engineer with a Doctorate degree who has never flown as a pilot?”
Folks would be well advised to learn and understand the Sheriff’s authority, responsibilities and duties before judging. Character, trustworthiness and reputation are necessary traits for me to support any elected representative. Whom do you trust, our elected Sheriff upholding the law of the land or a mysterious guy in the White House who we really know nothing about, including his education, since all of his records from birth to present day are sealed or nonexistent?
It doesn’t take a Constitutional scholar to understand the Constitution — only to subvert it.