LETTERS: States have constitutional right to land
To the editor:
I read with some interest Ian Bartrum’s op-ed on Cliven Bundy (“Bundy doesn’t understand Constitution,” April 27 Review-Journal). Since Mr. Bartrum is a “student” of the Constitution, he should know that the federal government owning and administering raw land within a state is a direct violation of the Constitution. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 (the Enclave Clause) states in part that the only reason for the federal government to own land within a state is “for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings.” A state-to-be ceding land to the federal government as a condition of statehood does not alter the fact that the action at that time was and remains unconstitutional.
Violating the Constitution is nothing new for the federal government; it does it on a regular basis and has been doing it for many years. The Constitution gives vast powers to the federal government in foreign affairs, but very limited powers in domestic matters. This was done for a reason: to protect the citizens from dictatorship. I would suggest people read Article 1, Section 8 (the enumerated powers) and its corollary, the Tenth Amendment.
The continuous and growing unconstitutional intrusions by the federal government into the lives of private citizens is one major reason for the anger on display at the Bundy ranch. Until the federal government starts following the rules, this anger will only increase and the civil divisions will intensify.
LEWIS SHUPE
LAS VEGAS
Computer predictions
To the editor:
Laura Myers’ “Political Eye” article (Monday Review-Journal) mentions the “Election Lab” calculator of The Washington Post and its inferred predictions of Nevada’s House seats, specifically Nevada’s 1st Congressional District. But this is pure dysfunctional reporting and hyperbole on the part of The Washington Post. It would seem the press in Washington, D.C., is on par with its politicians.
Any predictive computer model is only as good as its assumptions. In the case of the 1st Congressional District, this is especially crucial, since the district was only created from the last census; hence, there is no historical data series to draw upon from which to calculate predictive results. The number of exogenous variables far outweighs the number of endogenous variables from which a mathematically valid conclusion could possibly be construed within 3 or 4 degrees of mathematical validity.
ED DROST
HENDERSON
Death penalty
To the editor:
The botched execution of a death row inmate in Oklahoma has prompted discussions of abolishing the death penalty. I hope this never happens, because it is not fair to the taxpayers to guard, feed, clothe, shelter and provide medical care, for decades, to people convicted of heinous crimes. These people should be executed expeditiously, certainly not more than one year after being convicted.
What we need to abolish is the use of lethal injections for executions. We need to revert to less-expensive and more effective means such as the guillotine or ligature strangulation. With these methods, there are no botched executions. They are quick, inexpensive, 100 percent effective, and humane in the sense that they do not prolong suffering.
ROGER WITCHER
LAS VEGAS
Crosswalk safety
To the editor:
I’ve seen Greenspun Junior High School students so unaware when crossing at normal, marked crosswalks in my residential area. They don’t stop, look or listen. It’s amazing how many small groups never stop talking, just keep moving and don’t look before crossing. Their safety is truly in jeopardy if a driver is careless or hasty. Perhaps someone should conduct some on-campus discussions with students regarding pedestrian safety.
PEGGY GANOPOLE
HENDERSON
