LOL
John Ford. Democratic Sen.
January 25, 2005
litterateur.chattablogs.com
TN State Senator John Ford, 62, who authored a law which allows him and others to pay less child-support, has yet another illegitimate child on the way.
Now there is a man who, apparently, the people have voted in a number of times. Senator John Ford is currently ruling and reigning in the Tennessee State Senate, along with numerous other blackguards no doubt. Before touching upon the precise objection that I have to this Senator, I shall first list other shortcomings which were revealed to the readers of The Chattanooga Times Free Press, 01/25/05.
“State Sen. John Ford testified in a juvenile court hearing that he keeps two homes, living with two different women whose children he fathered.” (Emphasis Mine.) According to the article, by his ex-wife Tamara Mitchell-Ford he has three children. By his “long-time girlfriend” Connie Mathews, he has two children. And by Dana Smith, who won a sexual harassment suit in 1996, he has a 10-year-old daughter. Ford’s ex-wife also stated that “she is six months pregnant, and the father is John Ford.”
I chose the word ‘blackguard’ intentionally when deciding how I should denote the person in this article from the Times. A ‘blackguard’ is, of course, “a thoroughly unprincipled person; or a scoundrel.” This definition Mr. Ford fits perfectly. A man who has divorced the wife who bore his three children; currently lives with this ex-wife and girlfriend simultaneously; has at least three illegitimate children with two by one woman and one by another; Whatever this man may be, he is certainly not principled. That is, he is not principled unless the reader believes fathering bastard children is a “rule or standard, especially of good behaviour.” (Microsoft Bookshelf, American Heritage Dictionary, 2000.)
While his actions are stupefying; while his actions are appalling; and while his conduct is certainly unbecoming of one who leads, well anything whatsoever, much less our State Senate; there is another difficulty I wish to voice in regards to Mr. Ford. It is this.
“The Memphis Democrat heads a Senate committee that guides the state’s child welfare policies, and for the past year he’s tried to make use of a law he authored that keeps court-ordered support lower when a father is financially responsible for other children.” (Emphasis Mine.)
Please observe that Mr. Ford authored a publicly enforced Law which requires a court to accept a lower amount of child support than it deems necessary. Mind you, I am not here arguing that the Court has the authority to enforce any law; that would be preposterously absurd. What I am upset about is that there was a law authored by Mr. Ford that specifically gives him, personally, an advantage which the general public does not have. Yes, the general public does have the advantage of the use of this Law now. But that Mr. Ford could author a Law which aided him in a hardship that he was then having is absurd! That others now may make use of this law is irrelevant.
This philanderer; this wicked man who carried on apparently numerous extra-marital relationships, also known simply as ‘Adultery,’ took upon himself to author a bill into law which would allow him to continue his promiscuous ways unfettered by financial obligations. And that is what is vile. That is what is reprehensible. That, in fine, is what is contrary to our Federal Constitution which declares that a senator may be removed for a “breach of peace,” which thing this certainly is. Our State Constitution, in Article II and Section 12, that “Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, [and] punish its members for disorderly behavior,” (Article II and Section 12) it is only reasonable for citizens to think that the Senate should punish him for his moral disorderliness, but especially for authoring a bill which subsequently became law, and which allows him to continue in said disorderliness.
According to Article VII and Section 1, the General Assembly is duty bound to have any county executive, sheriff, trustee, register, county clerk, or assessor of property “removed from [because of] malfeasance [misconduct or wrongdoing, especially by a public official] or neglect of duty…” [Brackets Mine] Is Mr. Ford's conduct not malfeasance? No, it certainly is malfeasance!
Mr. Ford’s conduct denies his oath of office as listed in Article X, Section 2 of the Tennessee State Constitution. “I ____________ do solemnly swear (or affirm) sic that as a member of this General Assembly, I will, in all appointments, vote without favor, affection, partiality, or prejudice…” Clearly, by virtue of his promiscuity and his appeal to referenced Law, Mr. Ford was quite partial in his vote and was not impartial in his appointment.
Again, Mr. Ford’s bill become Law mocks Article XI and Section 8 which says that “the Legislature shall have no power to suspend any general law for the benefit of any particular individual, nor to pass any law for the benefit of individuals inconsistent with the general laws of the land; nor to pass any law granting to any individuals or individuals, rights, privileges, immunitie, [immunities] sic or exemptions other than such as may be, by the same law extended to any member of the community, who may be able to bring himself within the provisions of such law.” What, in Mr. Ford's case, is a Law which denies the court certain child-support provisions when a father has a “hardship” but a "suspension of," or "passing of" a law for the benefit of a “particular individual?”
In short, Mr. Ford authored a bill which became Law that allows him to pay only “$500 a month” for his illegitimate children by Ms. Smith. By the by, $6,000 a year would only cover one of my children’s private school tuition. Further, Mr. Ford’s income was “$356,899 in 2003,” so what is his problem? To top this off, Mr. Ford “argued [that] all five children live in his household—a household that encompasses two homes—and because of that his [should be] exempt from rules requiring strict proof of his financial support of them.” [Brackets Mine.] If anything, this disgraceful behavior merits removal from office. At the very least, and based upon this last quotation, perhaps we could charge him with “intent to commit polygamy,” or with "commision of polygamy."
Rest of article >>>
litterateur.chattablogs.com |
