Reader Responses, July 13, 2014

Published on Saturday, 12 July 2014 22:23 - Written by


Thanks for your recent editorial supporting the Supreme Court’s decisions to uphold the religious freedom of “closely held” corporations like Hobby Lobby, and the freedom of association of home health care workers in Illinois. While I too applaud these decisions, I remain fearful of the essentially unconstrained power our Supreme Court currently holds. Our nation’s founders never intended for so much power to be vested in the Supreme Court. In Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton wrote: “The judiciary is … the weakest of the three departments of power … the general liberty can never be endangered from that quarter.” Clearly Hamilton was wrong; today as few as five unelected people can set national policy from which there is no clear avenue of appeal.

In his book “The Liberty Amendments,” Mark Levin proposes a constitutional amendment that would alter how the Supreme Court operates. Specifically, his suggested amendment would do two things. First, it would implement 12-year term limits for all Supreme Court justices. Second, it would provide that decisions of the Supreme Court could be overturned by a super majority vote of the U.S. Congress or the state legislatures.

These proposed changes would effectively rein-in the Court’s excessive power.

Of course, since the Constitution isn’t easily amended, it’s unclear if these proposals will ever be implemented. However, if an incentive to act is needed, I suggest envisioning the damage that could be done by a Court composed of one or two more Obama appointees.

Cliff Hickman




Everyone supporting immigration “reform” these days claims we are a nation of immigrants (Obama said on July 6 that the U.S. always has been a nation of immigrants).

Yes, it’s a fact that is how this country began. I worked for 10 years in Passaic, New Jersey, from the mid 1950s.

I lived and worked among immigrants from Poland, Italy, Hungary, Germany, and many other nationalities.

Yes, I heard them speaking other languages, but most of them spoke English like a native. Some neighborhoods were predominantly recent immigrants, many first generation.

But they acted and thought like home-grown Americans. That’s the key. Never did I sense any animosity between new immigrants and those of us whose families arrived several generations earlier.

But that’s changed. Many immigrants are separating themselves from America, they don’t speak English, and it seems like they don’t particular like Americans. The president is a good example of that thinking; he didn’t spend much of his early life in America. He was influenced by time spent in the South Pacific, North Africa, and attending churches that preached against American values.

I’m not against legal immigration. But I am against government agencies that provide information in a dozen different languages. Nearly everywhere it’s “press 1 for English.”

We will never assimilate immigrants if they don’t speak our language and learn to treat America as their home. That’s the way it happened until a generation ago. In earlier times, immigrants never screamed “death to Americans.” But they did serve in the military against their home countries when necessary.

America should be for Americans, regardless of their origin.

Norm Beavers




The president is sending 300 or so of our military with the stated purpose of training the Iraqi soldiers with the surge of Isis militants approaching Baghdad.

Since our military spent the last 10 years training this bunch, I do not see how this hurry-up training exercise will do any good. With the takeover of many cities without much resistance from the Iraqi military, this attempt at “training” will mostly fall short.

What a waste of our brave solders who could be dispatched elsewhere — our borders, perhaps.

Jim Turvan