Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

Tag: Constitution

Sep.
25th

GUNS: Article misleading, an insult to intelligence

Re: “Blood on the Constitution” (TNT, 9-22).

Shame on you for printing such egregiously misleading information about guns and the U.S. Constitution. You have committed the worst type of editorial sin, and you will not get away with it for long.

You cannot keep insulting people’s intelligence by publishing misleading or false information and calling it editorial license.

According to the Wall Street Journal’s annual report of FBI crime statistics, for the decade ending in 2010 there were a total of only 165,068 homicides from all causes between 2000 and 2010, of which 3,920 were ruled justifiable; 54,065 were

Read more »

June
3rd

IRS: Why the liberal angst about patriots, the Constitution?

IRS targeting of tea party groups is preposterous, but there is a certain Machiavellian logic behind it.

It defies any logic that decent groups with “Constitution” or “Patriot” in their names were also targeted.

By President Obama’s own admission, Democrats were shellacked in the 2010 elections. Liberal stalwarts, including ideologues running amok in the bowels of the IRS, were overwrought with Post-Electoral Stress Trauma. The remedy for afflicted IRS scoundrels was to conjure a diabolical scheme to squelch tea party participation in 2012.

But why do patriots and Constitution aficionados elicit such angst? Liberals are patriotic, so it’s befuddling that

Read more »

April
22nd

GUNS: Support access to muzzle-loaded weapons

I am all for the Second Amendment as it is written – to include the part about the “Well Regulated Militia” (whatever that is), just so long as the application is limited to the technology of the time that it was written. That is to say, muzzle-loaded, single-shot weapons.

There is no way the authors of the Constitution could possibly have envisioned the weaponry of today. They are clearly outside the scope of the Second Amendment and should be regulated and/or banned as necessary to protect the population.

Lest this seem extreme, machine guns, cannons, bazookas, etc., are banned. Where

Read more »

March
26th

MARRIAGE: Supreme Court shouldn’t legislate

The U.S. Supreme Court will be “legislating” when hearing same-sex marriage cases this week. There is nothing in the Constitution permitting same-sex marriage.

Marriage, since time immemorial, has always been defined, practiced and recognized as the union of one man and one woman – in every nation, society and religion. Same-sex relationships are quite different from “traditional marriage” – physically, morally, legally, spiritually and in their essential ability to procreate our species.

No single group has a legal, moral or ethical right to appropriate another’s definition of its behavior and then apply that definition to its own different behavior or

Read more »

Jan.
24th

GUNS: Military would protect Constitution

Re: “Good luck taking on the US military” (letter, 1-24)

The writer attempts to ridicule our constitutionally imposed domestic detente by using a straw-man argument. Surely he’s aware that our military personnel are under oath to protect and defend the Constitution against enemies both foreign and domestic.

Does the writer really think those under oath to protect and defend would turn their guns on their fellow citizens?

I realize his argument was hypothetical and directed against perceived “gun nuts.” I don’t know how it advances his argument to cast our military (and by extension our first responders) as potential

Read more »

Jan.
23rd

CONSTITUTION: Concern for rights is inconsistent

Why is our respect for the Constitution only partisan deep?

Over the last 11 years, I’ve noticed that people only respect the Constitution when it fits their parties’ political motives. When the Patriot Act was passed, so many left-leaning citizens were outraged over the infringement of their constitutional rights to due process. After Barack Obama was elected, I didn’t hear a peep from the left about the National Defense Authorization Act, which is just as damaging to our rights as the Patriot Act, if not worse.

Then the folks on the right started preaching that the Affordable Care Act is

Read more »

Jan.
23rd

GUNS: Base arguments on reality, not paranoia

Re: “Ultimate goal is civilian disarmament” (letter, 1-23).

Like so many on the pro-gun side of the ongoing debate regarding guns and gun control, the letter writer ignores the one major fact that renders his whole synopsis pointless: The U.S. Constitution does not allow the president or anyone else in this country to prevent its citizens from owning guns.

Despite the writer’s argument otherwise, the Supreme Court cannot implement disarmament. In order for President Obama to go down the road the writer suggests as inevitable, change to our Constitution would be involved. A constitutional change to disarmament requires that

Read more »

Oct.
22nd

ELECTION: Steve O’Ban supports the Constitution

How many voters are at all knowledgeable of the Constitution of the United States? My guess is not enough.

In recent years, many of our politicians seem to consider that document an obstruction to their cause and therefore choose to ignore it or lobby to change it. The age-old axiom of be careful what you wish for was never more relevant. The unintended consequences of ignoring or altering the constitution can only lead to eventual losses of our basic freedoms.

We have an opportunity to correct the damage by voting for politicians who support the Constitution as it was written.

Read more »