Is a ‘Second Amendment solution’ so silly?
To the editor:
Instead of taking Republican Senate candidate Sharron Angle to task about for mentioning a "Second Amendment solution," we should consider its merit.
More and more people are losing faith in the process of democracy because it is more about passion than logic. Regardless of rhetoric, the day is fast approaching when it will not matter because our medium of exchange known as the U.S. dollar will have been destroyed by central banking inflation. When buying and selling has been reduced to bartering, what then?
The Declaration of Independence acknowledges that tyranny may have to be removed from power by arms if peaceful means fail. The debt bomb must be disarmed before it explodes. If it does go off, no one escapes. I don't mean to ramble, but there is no sound-bite explanation. Ms. Angle over-condensed what I just expressed by skipping to the final alternative.
May this never happen.
Matt Davis
Henderson
A living document
To the editor:
For all those so-called liberal scholars who say our Constitution is a living document, they are correct -- but not in the way they try to push it on the uninitiated electorate: It lives through the amendment process, not the judicial interpretation process.
An oath that should be required of all Supreme Court nominees, if our country is to survive as envisioned by our Founding Fathers, would read as follows:
"I swear to uphold the initial intent of the U.S. Constitution without personal interpretation of any kind. I realize that our Constitution is a living document, but all changes to accommodate our evolving society must be accomplished through the amendment process, not the judicial process."
Since our Constitution was adopted, it has been amended only 27 times. The framers of the Constitution were well aware that as the nation grew, there would be required changes. Changing the Constitution, by design, is not an easy process -- a proposed amendment must be ratified by three-fourths of the states -- but rather a lifeline to keep our republic from drowning in a sea of centralized government takeovers.
If the United States is to remain a democratic republic, we must be ever vigilant to elect presidents, senators and congressmen who will assure the selection of Supreme Court justices who are strict constructionists and not political/social advocates in black robes.
John J. Erlanger
Las Vegas
Accomplished nothing
To the editor:
The Democrats' slogan of "Yes we can" so far has turned into "Big business is still our true Senate."
I thought a Democratic government had a responsibility to satisfy the majority of the people. Boy, have I been misled for the past 10 years.
We wanted our troops and war dollars back home, but that was only wishful thinking.
We wanted single-payer health care, and you know where that went.
We want controls on our environment -- that should be a no-brainier -- but let's watch the lobbyist's Senate at work.
I like many others feel as though no matter what the majority votes for, it will never come to pass. The lobbyists have control of too many of our senator's throats. The Democrats never had a true 60-vote majority in the Senate, but they and the president were too weak or did not want to swat a couple of big-business controlled flies.
You've got to give the Bush administration and the Republicans credit: No matter how bad their actions of destroying our economy or environment, they got their agenda passed. Never once did I hear the Republicans say, "We don't have the votes."
I am really getting tired of hearing the Democrats preach that they got a lot accomplished in a short time. The president and the Senate have not yet accomplished anything that amounts to a blue-collar, win-win situation.
Don Ellis
Henderson
No amnesty
To the editor:
Thank you for Monday's editorial, "It's in the job description." Amnesty for illegal immigrants was firmly rejected by the American people four years ago. Spontaneous enforcement of our immigration laws several times at meat-packing plants and even Reno-area fast-food restaurants demonstrated that many more illegals than those arrested voluntarily left the country.
We newspaper buyers and readers want this on the front page frequently. Otherwise, how can we ever convince the administration that we are serious?
Richard E. Law
Las Vegas
Words don't matter
To the editor:
As a former backer of Sen. Harry Reid, I found that words are not always what they seem.
For example, a short time ago the senator spent megabucks telling us that he would fight anybody who was against gun rights. These words turned out to be not true.
He wholeheartedly supported Sonia Sotomayor for the U.S. Supreme Court. One of her first acts as a justice was to vote against gun rights.
Beware, Nevadans. Sen. Reid's words are for votes, and his actions tell the truth.
Carl Schultz
Reno
