>>Valley Patriot>> |
Dear Editor: It was brought to my attention that a rumor is been spread regarding a connection between State Representative William Lantigua and myself in the sense that the legislator is either supporting my candidacy or that I’m campaigning with him (or he is campaigning with me). I hereby wish to clarify that there is no link, nor has there ever been any connection whatsoever between Mr. Lantigua and myself. Furthermore, I wish to remind the voters that I have been forever the harshest critic of said state representative and have expressed my dissatisfaction of his ill-conceived political maneuvers many times as a local political columnist for some local newspapers. These rumors are unfounded and intentionally spread to harm my campaign by sending the wrong message, especially to the members of our community that are sick to their stomach with the dirty and demagogic tactics of Mr. Lantigua during elections. As a candidate for city councilor at-large, I assure you that I will serve all Lawrencians with dignity and respect and, most importantly, without any strings attached. I will be everyone’s leader. Respectfully, To The
Editor, The Veterans Memorial Football Stadium, originally built after World War I to honor all the Greater Lawrence men and women who served during that conflict, has since been rededicated as a War Memorial to remember those who served in all wars defending the freedoms, liberties and values we believe in by protecting the United States of America. Over the years at this stadium, thousands of future veterans from the Merrimack Valley have played football and other sports, held their graduation exercises, grown to maturity and responsibility and then went off to serve their country during times of war. Now, a mighty effort is being made by many dedicated citizens concerned with the War Memorial Stadium and the future of Lawrence. We in the American Legion Post #219, North Andover, Massachusetts and thousands of veterans from this area support the restoration project and we thank LISC and the NFL organizations for their financial support which will bring this once great stadium to a new beginning of excellence. Best wishes to the City of Lawrence, all its veterans and their families, and God Bless America. Joe E. Smith,
Commander To the
Editor: Of course, this is historically accurate. We can be sure that the drafters did not intend for justices to be rulers; the Constitution does not grant any such power to them. I have no quarrel with that. The problem I have is that throughout the article he advances a point of view which disingenuously mischaracterizes those justices whose jurisprudential leanings are at odds with his legal interpretations. Reserving criticism only for those justices who advance what he terms as “liberal” philosophy discredits his objectivity and ultimately the reasonableness of the article. Pejoratively using the word, he maintains that liberal justices have violated the rights of the people, distorted the original plain-text meaning of the Constitution, and have essentially made themselves more powerful than the democratically elected president and Congress. This is simply not true. The fact is, justices whether they be liberal, conservative or strict constructionist decide cases using their personal beliefs. To lend credibility to their opinions, they refer to previously decided cases and historical texts. Justices are also in no way more powerful than the democratically elected president or Congress; they exercise their power only when cases are brought before them. What does the plain-language meaning of the constitution mean? In my opinion, there is no such thing as an originalist textualist strict constructionist. It is essentially political babble, charlatanistic at its core and simply an attempt by those who espouse such philosophical theories to cloak themselves in an aura of credibility by aligning their views with those of a select few political leaders who lived during our nation’s infancy. The fact is, just as we have jurists today who have differing opinions, so too did our nation’s founders have differing political views. The Congress began departing from the plain-text meaning of the Constitution shortly after it was put into effect. Legislatures of two states as early as 1798, namely Kentucky and Virginia, even went so far as to adopt resolutions declaring a number of federal acts null. Even though the Constitution does not confer any specific housing right, if the Congress and president promulgate a law which creates a right to housing, they do so because they have the political will to do so. They do this today and have been doing so for 200 years. You or I may think, “The Constitution says nothing about housing rights … or a department of education, social security, a space administration, an FAA, FDA, or FCC for that matter.” But I am sure you would be hard pressed to find a strict constructionist who would refuse to cash his or her social security check, sue to enjoin these agencies from operating or author a legal opinion advocating their dismantlement. With respect to abortion, it baffles me that Dr. Ormsby considers this a “made up right.” I am at a loss as to how abortion can be lumped with a right to housing and that it demands that the rights of others be violated. I really don’t see what business abortion is to anyone other than the woman who chooses to undergo the procedure and the man who took part in the conception. I am curious as to if he believes that states, notwithstanding explicit textual constitutional limits, have plenary ability to intrude into the lives of the people without any restriction whatsoever; and that the Ninth Amendment with its “rights retained by the people” language refers only to those specific provisions spelled out in state constitutions. I reject that notion. Our common law legal principles are based on tradition, custom and precedent, many of which have no written basis. Traditions, customs and precedents by their very nature change as our society changes. To believe that they do not is to deny the obvious. Referring to the duties of the courts, Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist #78 that “Limitations … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.” The scope of their jurisdiction extending to “… all Cases [and] to Controversies… ,” the Constitution ultimately means what the justices of the Supreme Court say it means. This does not mean that they are rulers. It means that whether they are liberal or conservative, they have the constitutional authority to determine the constitutionality of laws and executive actions. Mark Walters *Send your questions
comments to ValleyPatriot@aol.com |
|
