LETTERS: Limiting executive power upholds rule of law
To the editor:
In his May 20 column, the Review-Journal’s John L. Smith accused me of being on the wrong side of history. Earlier this year, with a majority of the states, I joined Nevada to a federal lawsuit to uphold the separation of powers under our Constitution. Mr. Smith believes that President Barack Obama’s unilateral executive actions on immigration reach the right policy outcome. He then argues that the lawsuit to stop those executive actions must be political in nature.
As I said at the time we joined the lawsuit, before the U.S. Congress, in an op-ed for the Review-Journal and once again now, the lawsuit is not about taking a political or even a policy position on immigration. As citizens of Nevada and of the United States, we cannot and we must not circumvent the Constitution every time we see an important policy objective we wish to achieve — that goes for Republicans, Democrats and everyone else. The structure of our Constitution must transcend politics. The Founding Fathers understood that separating legislative power from executive power protects our liberty. That insight is just as true in 2015 as it was in 1789.
There has always been and always will be a temptation to bend or even break the Constitution in order to achieve a policy objective at any given time. That was why Benjamin Franklin famously said that Americans have a republic, but only so long as we can keep it. We must resist the temptation to dismiss the Constitution when it strikes us as inconvenient.
As a former military officer and as Nevada’s attorney general, I swore an oath to uphold and defend our Constitution. The test of that oath is not when standing by the Constitution is easy, but rather when it is hard.
It is a fact that we are a nation of immigrants, and I believe that is a great thing. I am a descendant of immigrants, and I believe in the American dream. I believe that our nation needs immigration reform. But that reform must come from the U.S. Congress, the branch that the Constitution grants the power to write federal laws. The president cannot legislate. Presidential legislation masquerading as “selective enforcement” is not reform.
Such executive action is a shortsighted step toward a system of government that none of us wants. It is a step toward a system of government that none of us should desire. It is a step toward a system of government that none of us should allow.
If history is to be our guide, standing for liberty and the rule of law is standing on the right side of history. It is those things that have drawn immigrants to our borders for more than two centuries. It is our commitment to our Constitution that will draw immigrants to our borders for generations to come. Let us not confuse the separation of powers with political preference.
ADAM PAUL LAXALT
CARSON CITY
The writer is Nevada’s attorney general.
Policing police
To the editor:
Enough is enough. It is time to establish and improve policing in the United States through a citizen oversight committee that will mandate the highest ethical standards in police organizations.
In the May 15 Review-Journal, there were three articles evident to police abuse of authority from the county to national levels (“Former jail officials indicted in jail scandal,” “Former constable issued domestic battery warrant” and “Investigators: Secret Service supervisors failed to report two agents’ misconduct”). Any way you look at it, something is wrong.
Police officers must be held accountable to the people who pay for their service. To ask police to probe a police officer’s misconduct is no more logical then letting a coyote judge a fox for ravishing the chicken coop. The omnipresent “us versus them” mentality estranges police departments from the communities they are sworn and paid to protect.
A recent Department of Justice study revealed that a whopping 84 percent of police officers report that they have seen colleagues use excessive force on civilians, and 61 percent admit they don’t always report “even serious criminal violations that involve abuse of authority by fellow officers.” Overall, officers fired or reprimanded for misconduct often appeal the decision then get reinstated by obscure judges in secretive proceedings based on reports generated from police internal investigation units.
As John Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson, “Power always thinks it has a great soul, and it cannot be trusted if left unchecked.” A citizen oversight committee is a solution the police don’t want but the basic rights granted by our Constitution demand.
MARC KAPLAR
BOULDER CITY
The art market
To the editor:
When I read about the insane egos of today’s billionaires I feel a great need to criticize their thinking and priorities. A recent article blew my mind by reporting that Elaine Wynn spent in excess of $146 million on a painting (“Picasso purchase bumps Elaine Wynn to No. 2,” May 13 Review-Journal). The same article pointed out that her $146 million figure was topped by some other billionaire who spent $149 million on another painting.
I can understand the need for high-on-the-hog living, but not the stupidity of creating a market for exaggerated pricing. The only place for a nice painting or relic is in a museum. I would rather have a well-framed certificate of charity or goodwill hanging on my wall than a relic that belongs on a wall for the viewing of all.
DON ELLIS
HENDERSON
