Separation of powers concept is alive?

To the editor:

Did I slip into an area of the "Twilight Zone"? Is it possible that an official governmental body in the state of Nevada actually ruled in favor of our constitution's separation of powers doctrine ("Opinion might affect public workers," Oct. 17 Review-Journal)? Could the separation doctrine be reviving? Will the ethics commissioners actually read the Nevada Constitution and accept its clear wording?

Former Assemblyman/PUC employee Ron Knecht's comments at the end of the article show clearly where previous decisions have gone so wrong. He said he "did not make policy decisions (at the PUC) and therefore was not exercising power in both the executive and legislative branches of government." Our constitution does not read power in one branch/power in another branch. Ours reads power in one branch/functions in another branch. That's a huge difference, and if it ever, finally gets acknowledged instead of being swept under the rug, then every government employee will be removed from elected office --- as they should be.

Just for the record: The state constitution reads, "The powers of the Government of the State of Nevada shall be divided into three separate departments: the Legislative, the Executive and the Judicial; and no persons charged with the exercise of powers properly belonging to one of these departments shall exercise any functions appertaining to either of the others except in the cases herein expressly directed or permitted."

knight allen

LAS VEGAS

Wild about Harry

To the editor:

Can we stipulate that the Review-Journal editorial page staff doesn't like Sen. Harry Reid and will take every opportunity to criticize him?

I like Sen. Reid and have supported and voted for him in the past and will do so again. It's nice to think that not everybody in the Senate is a rubber stamp, and he is a thinking, reasoning, functioning citizen and legislator.

We need more of them.

Mark Bradshaw

HENDERSON

Budget cuts

To the editor:

In response to John L. Smith's Tuesday column, "Gibbons takes one (or 10) in the kisser over proposed budget cuts":

Based on the state's current and projected economy, I commend Gov. Jim Gibbons for being proactive in requesting state department heads to prepare for possible budget cuts in a "worst-case scenario." Gov. Gibbons hasn't stated he is going to push for budget cuts at this time, he just doesn't want anyone surprised if and when the time comes.

Unlike our previous governor, Kenny Guinn, Gov. Gibbons isn't trying to push through (with a little help from the state Supreme Court) an overkill tax hike. Of course, Gov. Guinn ended up with egg on his face a couple of years later and decided the state should give a little money back to the rightful owners, the taxpayers of Nevada.

Now what is happening? As has always been the pattern with government bureaucrats, none of them wants any cuts in his department. And what do the bleeding-heart liberals march out with? Let's hear all about hits the children, education and public assistance are going to take.

I've never heard of a Democrat who was for a budget cut (except when it comes to military spending) or a tax decrease. For some reason, they think a citizen's hard-earned money belongs to the government.

I am disgusted that some officials are refusing to comply with the governor's request. Shame on all of them. Gov. Gibbons is only doing the job he was elected to. The rest of you are thumbing your noses not only at the governor but the citizens of this great state.

Terry Prichard

HENDERSON

Missile command

To the editor:

The current debate over U.S. "interceptor" missiles to be based in Poland and the Czech Republic is another profitable go-around for the defense industry ("Gates not doubtful of deal," Oct. 22). In 1959-1963, the United States installed and maintained 30 Jupiter Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles in Italy and 15 in Turkey. All were aimed at Russia. From Russia's perspective, can you see the threat?

In the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, Russia firmly intended to install nuclear missiles in Cuba. President Kennedy thwarted the Russian effort by (covertly) agreeing to dismantle the Jupiter sites in Europe.

As far as I am concerned, the Gates plan is a case of "here we go again." Mr. Gates defined the planned missiles as "interceptor" missiles. I question that we have an interceptor missile that works. I also question the necessity of the United States "protecting" Europe from the Middle East. Can't Europe take care of itself?

David L. Sullivan

LAS VEGAS