Chris Hadlock

Chris Hadlock 5 days, 1 hour ago on Premiums could go up in Routt County under new health insurance map

You can count a dogs tail as a leg and say "dogs have 5 legs" till the creeks rise, but calling a dogs tail a leg will never make it a leg.

Putting a gun to the head of ones fellow man, taking their property, and giving it to another, is armed robbery, not "compassion".

A tax is not armed robbery no matter how much you disagree with it. Please review your Constitution one more time about the "General Welfare" clause.


Chris Hadlock 5 days, 3 hours ago on Joe Meglen: Is Constitution relevant?

If it makes any difference, from what I have read, I am more in agreement with you than with the Building Dept in your case. Perhaps you should run for the County Commissioners office and help to change the process.


Chris Hadlock 5 days, 3 hours ago on Joe Meglen: Is Constitution relevant?


As this thread is largely about the US Constitution and Amendment process I am not entirely sure that your feud with the Routt County Building Dept. belongs here, but your questions do make sense in the larger scheme of the regulatory environment.

I too have had my run-ins with the previous head of the Building Dept. and it seems they are more in the business of feathering their budget than in making common sense decisions. It does seem that the gentleman who built the buildings down in the flattops was able to work through his concerns with them after the fact instead of with prior approval and maybe that should be your tact also. I do know that the building dept's mode of operation is to look at the property not as you want it, but what happens if/when it changes owners. When you propose upgrading an 80 year old barn structure you do bring those kind of questions into play and are placing a different load on the existing structure from what I understand. (Not an engineer)

In general, I agree with your concerns about the seizure of private assets and the militarization of the police force and you need look no further than what the swat team did to that couple in Stagecoach to become concerned about their tactics right here at home.

However, the bottom line remains that when citizens arm themselves and promise violence to any authorities that may appear, our Country is headed in the wrong direction. Each of us has a right and a responsibility to voice our concerns and to vote, but I personally am not comfortable with the idea that the citizenry should be arming themselves against their legitimately elected officials. There is a clear difference between expressing contrary opinions and promising violence should the Sheriff or other elected officials show up on your doorstep.

The Constitution grants each of us the Right to Freedom of speech, but it does not necessarily grant you the absolute right to interrupt public functions or the guarantee of blocking public right of way. In your case, you have access to the County Commissioner and have expressed your concerns in a very public way for quite some time now. Your Freedom of Speech on this issue has not been infringed IMO.

How do you react as an individual when there is not really any public interest in your personal fight with the county and no one else really seems to care? You have a valid point, but so does the building dept. Your only choices are to defy their rulings, or run a very public campaign to overturn their rules. No one is asking for blind obedience and it appears you have chosen the latter course. I wish you luck in resolving your concerns and hope that your very public pronouncements might cause the County to re-think their position as you make some very valid points.


Chris Hadlock 6 days, 5 hours ago on Steamboat City Council to consider downtown parking meter proposal Tuesday

Anyone who think that Steamboat has a parking problem should be forced to live in any major metropolitan area for two weeks. You will quickly come around to the view that walking a block or two is not a big deal. Other than special events, I have never failed to find a parking spot within 3 blocks of my destination.


Chris Hadlock 1 week ago on Joe Meglen: Is Constitution relevant?


Thank you for your well reasoned response. I also acknowledge David Inde's response that there are only 27 actual amendments. But I still have a few concerns about your statements in the article above:

Progressives claim that the Constitution is a “living document” and the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is constitutional. This is a myth. A “living document” usurps the 9th and 10th Amendments.


“We the People” is all inclusive. Women benefited immediately from the recognition of constitutional rights.

If the amendment process is valid, the the Constitution is in fact a living document. I can see no other explanation.

If women benefited Immediately at you claim then why was the 19th Amendment necessary?

I see your point about the 10th amendment, so what then in your view is the process to overturn those things that you disagree with?

You refer to "Natural Rights" which free people are born with. Please explain how the "entire" 2nd amendment is a "Natural Right" when the the amendment actually calls for regulation and the entire notion that firearms are clearly a man-made construction and really cannot be called "natural". Note, I am not calling for any changes here and I do see a "Natural Right" to defend what is rightfully yours however defending against criminal intruders and defending against your rightfully elected Gov't are two different animals.

Amendment II A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Finally, you refer to the "Bill of Rights" as being unalienable and not subject to further amendment. This fly's in the face of your call to repeal other amendments that you disagree with. It seems to me that apples are apples and amendments are amendments regardless of which order they were passed and if the process is followed, each and every one of them is subject to further amendment. The obvious example would be the later repeal of the 18th amendment.

Yes, as a citizen of the USA I am saying that you are required to follow the current laws, All of them and if you disagree with said laws there is a process laid out in the Constitution to change them. Just saying that you disagree with Law X does not give you the right to annul that law in your activities no matter how strong your opinion may be. At the State Level, the answer is clearly different and more complicated, States do retain a large measure of control over their borders and citizens but even they are required to follow the restrictions of the Constitution. (ie - the Current Gay Marriage and the previous Civil Rights fights.)

Have fun in your travels and safe return. I too will be traveling for an extended period of time starting soon. Once again, I look forward to your response and continuing this dialog in an informed and principled manner.


Chris Hadlock 1 week, 2 days ago on Donald Ferry: Prop 105 truth

No Jerry, I am not....... I am very sure you are a much better biblical scholar than I.

Please do not lump me in with "Those Liberals" because my personal beliefs span a range of positions from both sides of the isle.

I am sure that in a one on one conversation we would be in agreement about some things and could agree to disagree about others without spewing hatred at one another. That is what I would hope our leaders could do without the partisan rhetoric that so dominates these discussions.


Chris Hadlock 1 week, 2 days ago on Brodie Farquhar: History check

I stand corrected here. David is right. There at 27 adopted Amendments that are now considered part of the Constitution. 4 additional Amendments that have been passed by both houses of Congress but not ratified by the required number of States , and 2 further Amendments that were passed by both houses but are considered failed or or closed.