Quantcast
Opinion

Readers' forum: Follow the Constitution

Comments

Return To Article
  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 8, 2011 3:34 p.m.

    Wow T-Jeff, for me it's just a popularity contest eh? And you are basing that opinion on exactly what? Not that it's any of your business, but I have a fine history of voting for candidates that do not win. Hardly do I base my vote on who is "popular". I wonder if you can say as much. 

    From your comment about how easily we are bought out, can I assume you would be comfortable with removing the vote from the people? You have a low opinion of the constitutionally based government. It sounds like you would much prefer to have the decisions of who leads us made by our "betters". 

    As far as people voting for local politicians based on local issues: why would you assume this? Do you not think people are sophisticated enough to recognize that their local politicians would be determining their senator? If it is about who can buy the voters with the most, as you believe, well . . .

    My comment on scotus had nothing to do with if I agree with their decisions, but, rather, the fact that they have the final say on constitutionality. And guess what? I win.

  • T-Jeff Uinta Basin, Utah
    Sept. 8, 2011 7:14 a.m.

    We have been easily bought, Mark. At least until some fiscally responsible people recently got together when the government bailed out a bunch of bankers with the taxes our children will be paying for years and said "No more!".

    We would vote for local legislators based on local issues. Who they would vote into the Senate would be a secondary issue. If we are going to directly elect them then why have a Senate at all? The Presidents of late are avoiding the "advise and consent" clause by filling any controversial vacancies when the Senate is in recess anyway. The Senate has become a potted plant that takes up space and sucks up oxygen. Just eliminate them. For that matter, this President has even conducted war without even bothering to notify Congress and Congress did nothing about it. Congress is worthless and the Constitution is meaningless. Maybe we should quit pretending it means something and just dump it all and appoint a king every few years. For you, it's just a popularity contest anyway.

    As for your Article 3 comment, I suppose you think the Court can do no wrong and was correct in its Dred Scott decision?

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 8, 2011 12:44 a.m.

    Well Richards, your interpretation of the Constitution remains wrong. It is a theory you (and others) have, that's for sure, but, obviously wrong.

    But don't take my word for it. It's right there in the Constitution. Article 3 Section 1 to be precise.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Sept. 7, 2011 11:23 p.m.

    Some people just don't get the concept of what the Constitution is. They think that citizens can make demands on the government at any time for anything, and because they are "the people" mentioned in "We, The People", that the government MUST do what they demand.

    That is NOT correct.

    The Constitution limits the powers of government to those things authorized when the Constitution was ratified and amended. NO PERSON, nor group of people can demand that the government do anything that is not explicitly allowed by the Constitution. If the government did ANYTHING not allowed, it would be in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land. If the people asked the government to do something that is against the Supreme Law of the Land, they would be asking the government to break the law.

    The President signed into law legislation clearly in violation to the enumerated duties listed in the Constitution when he signed the Health Care Act. Those members of Congress who voted for it clearly violated the limits placed on them. Those citizens who demanded it encouraged lawlessness. Fortunately, 59% of the people told Mr. Obama to NOT sign the Act. He didn't listen.

  • wrz Kings Bay, GA
    Sept. 7, 2011 11:11 p.m.

    @Darrel:

    "Under the Constitution, the States are not enumerated ANY rights, it in facts limits them. The closest they have to rights is what is specified in the 10th Amendment."

    The rights of the federal government are supposedly enumerated. All other rights not so enumerated are states rights.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 7, 2011 6:51 p.m.

    "The United States' tax code is more progressive than virtually any developed country. That is, a larger share of this country's revenue comes from the rich, than almost anywhere else."

    And thank goodness for that, Duck.

    "The farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings.--Thomas Jefferson 1811

    "Senators learned they could buy the people's votes just like the Representatives could. All they had to do was go along with whatever spending was popular, even if it was against their state's interests."

    T-Jeff, you make it sound like it is almost too bad that we (the people) have the vote at all. I mean, after all, if we are so easily bought. . .

    But if your theory is correct, wouldn't we vote in state representatives only if they would appoint senators that would give us whatever spending was popular?

    And when you get right down to it what is wrong with people expecting spending that is popular?

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Sept. 7, 2011 6:34 p.m.

    Those who tell tales of people starving if "some rich guy" isn't forced to pay for their food, their medicine, their housing, their transportation and their retirement are just story tellers. Chances are that their jobs depend on that "rich guy" paying more than his share. Chances are that WE pay their salary, even though they might claim that they work for the "government", as if the government had money of it's own to pay anyone!

    Prices are high because government protects us from ourselves - in other words DuPont protects us from the dangers of Freon (that it sold for almost three decades - until the patent ran out) by making another Patent Protected type of Freon - all with the blessing of the regulatory agencies.

    The Constitution, if followed, would prevent that. Representatives would listen to the people. Senators would watch out for their State. The President would execute all laws passed by Congress and the Court would never have another 5:4 decision.

    Democrats would be thrown out. Republicans would be thrown out. Politicians would be replaced by Statesmen.

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Sept. 7, 2011 3:45 p.m.

    Subsidies are not the same as duductions duckie, logic is based on knowledge.

    You are stealing my money and giving it to farmers because they can't compete in the world market of farming. If they didn't mostly vote republican it probably wouldn't bother me so much.

    Here's our conservative future: No public schools, no post office, NO UNIONS!, the wealthy don't pay taxes, toll roads everywhere, lots of hunger and sickness from poverty, a few jobs building taller walls in those gated communities, no jobs with health insurance, 14 hr work days 29 days a month, pay by the gallon water meters in your front yard from a French private company, child labor, adults and thier children selling gum in the street to foreign tourists and acidic dark air from people burning trash to stay warm and no EPA to care. Oh it will be great. I can't wait so I'm moving to Columbia without a penny to my name.

  • TheProudDuck Newport Beach, CA
    Sept. 7, 2011 11:24 a.m.

    "Also, what's funny to watch is to see the tea party folks scream about following the constitution. Only to see them insist on the continuation of tax subsidies, tax breaks, and other costly handouts to their wealthy friends."

    Not a fan of subsidies, but as part of my continuing project to educate liberals in the concept of logic -- can you please explain what is inconsistent between "following the constitution" and having deductions in the tax code?

  • T-Jeff Uinta Basin, Utah
    Sept. 7, 2011 7:45 a.m.

    I suppose I would fit someone's definition of a Tea Party member since I don't want the government to spend more than it takes in and I expect it to stay within the confines of the Constitution as it was written. Since we are all equal in this country I don't believe the rich should pay any more taxes than the poorest man can afford to pay and I don't believe the Federal Government should be attempting any social engineering by granting subsidies or tax breaks to anyone. Rich or poor, black or white, are we not all equal?

  • T-Jeff Uinta Basin, Utah
    Sept. 7, 2011 7:33 a.m.

    At least a couple of you understand what the 17th is about. Until it was instituted the Senate was created to represent a State's interests and Senators were picked by state legislatures. The House was created to represent the People's interests and were elected directly by the people of their districts. The Framers of the Constitution were smart enough to know that a direct election of Senators would throw the balance of power out of whack. They meant for States to have a say in how things are ran but with the acceptance of the progressive 17th amendment the Senate was turned over to The People and each state gained two more "Representatives". Small states and the people that live in them lost any equality they had with large states and Senators learned they could buy the people's votes just like the Representatives could. All they had to do was go along with whatever spending was popular, even if it was against their state's interests.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Sept. 6, 2011 11:43 p.m.

    By legalizing slave labor, making it illegal for women to vote, and by leaving us even more vulnerable to corporations? Please no.

    Also, what's funny to watch is to see the tea party folks scream about following the constitution. Only to see them insist on the continuation of tax subsidies, tax breaks, and other costly handouts to their wealthy friends.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Sept. 6, 2011 10:42 p.m.

    Anti Bush-Obama | 3:26 p.m. Sept. 6, 2011
    Washington, DC
    LDSliberal.

    The 14th, 16th, and 17th amendments were only ratified by 10 states which makes them void.

    =====================

    Haha, hardy Har-Har!

    You don't the the Supreme Court would have rolled over and missed something like that, not once...but 3 times? Pah-leez!

    Wait...Wait...Don't tell me, yet another "Conspiracy"....right?

    Look - When you get back to reality, let's have a discussion.
    I'm not about to dive into a debate with someone who makes things up.

    BTW - You think lunatic fringe Republicans trying to invalidate existing Constitutional Ammendments, are going to muster up 2/3 of Congress to accept their Balanced Budget, Definition of Marriage, Definition of Immigration, and every other "problem" they see by constantly changing and tweeking the U.S. Constitution rather than just passing laws deemed "Constitutional"?

    I ask again....
    Who is TRAMPLING the Constitution?

  • Hellooo Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 6, 2011 9:17 p.m.

    Interesting comments on this article. I never knew that following the constitutional process to amend it or repeal and amendment was trampeling on the Constitution and threatening to make it "hang by a thread". And, thanks for the news that balanced budgets can't work today. Somehow states manage just fine, but not the national government. I suppose it will be even better now that we have an example of no budgets as the nation was governed under the last two years of Ms. Pelosi. Incredible how this modern world provides such valuable insights.

    Re: Darrel if you read the discussion with regard to the selection of Senators at the convention, I think you see the reason was not a distrust of the people, but the fact the Senate was to represent the States, while the House represented the people. Certainly, this was the purpose which Madison approved of this change to the document that he wrote.

  • TheProudDuck Newport Beach, CA
    Sept. 6, 2011 7:30 p.m.

    "The only way out of this mess is a balanced approach. Yes, we need to reduce our debt. But we can't just pull $1 trillion out of the economy in one fatal fit of knee-jerk conservatism."

    Agreed. Which is why conservatives have proposed to pull the unsustainable spending out of the economy gradually -- rather than waiting for the bond markets to it out all at once. Which is what will inevitably happen, if we follow the Democratic approach of making token cuts and raising taxes on only a handful of unpopular people.

    "We need to raise taxes substantially and cut expenditures judiciously."

    To paraphrase Bill Clinton, "it's the spending, stupid." Spending has increased *a lot* more than taxes have decreased.

    You need to clarify "substantially." You'd have to near double income taxes -- *everybody's* income taxes, not just taxes on The Rich(TM), to fix things. Got an extra thousand bucks lying around at the end of each month? Me neither.

    We can't tax ourselves out of this one. Math is math (hard though it may be to Malibu Barbie, and to the average Democratic senator). And calling Tea Partiers names won't change that.

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    Sept. 6, 2011 7:29 p.m.

    Anti Bush-Obama 3:22 p.m.:

    Have you even read the Communist Manifesto, or are you just repeating what some radio jock told you? You keep saying that "liberals" keep trying to quote it and pass it off as the Constitution. Do you have any evidence of that?

  • TheProudDuck Newport Beach, CA
    Sept. 6, 2011 7:21 p.m.

    "And they've twisted the system so that they pay less in taxes than they ever did less, even, than the poor do."

    And there's what we're up against. Willful ignorance in low, but too widespread, places.

    The United States' tax code is more progressive than virtually any developed country. That is, a larger share of this country's revenue comes from the rich, than almost anywhere else.

    The poor pay no income taxes. The payroll tax goes directly to fund their own retirement -- and doesn't even cover full freight for that, with higher-income earners making up the difference. The poor (and much of the lower middle class) pay virtually none of the federal government's general costs. A disproportionate share of their spending is on un- or lower-taxed goods (like food, rent, and utilities. The basic fact is that because America lacks a VAT, lower-income Americans face a far lower tax burden than do their counterparts in the supposed European and Canadian socialist paradises.

    Now, you may think the rich can, or should, pay more. But if you're going to make that case, please do try to make it based on an occasional true fact.

  • TheProudDuck Newport Beach, CA
    Sept. 6, 2011 7:14 p.m.

    "I am sure those of the Tea Party will interpret this to mean that we should do what the Founding Father's wanted, but in a complex, industrialized, digitized world that they would fail to understand, what does that mean?"

    It means that the same aspects of human nature that the Founders correctly diagnosed, and set out to keep their influence on government in check, are (surprise!) still there.

    This Tea Partier doesn't believe we should just mechanically "do what the Founders wanted." However -- unless and until we change the Constitution, as there is occasionally good cause to do when conditions warrant -- we are governed by laws consisting of words that only have legitimate force because they express the consent, of the people who enacted them, to be governed by laws that had a specific, particular meaning. If that meaning can be discerned (and this is true more often than not, if you're not actively trying to fudge), then you follow it. Or, if enough of us decide that they really are out of date in an industrialized, digitized, etc. society -- you change them.

    This really is not that hard. Ambiguity is often the last refuge of a would-be cheat.

  • Politicallyminded Spanish Fork, UT
    Sept. 6, 2011 6:44 p.m.

    I never stated that he would have disapproved of us helping during the World Wars, that was quite a leap that you made. When it comes to his other warnings, I stated that he warned us of excess political party spirit, which has created an inability to compromise and make the right choices for our country. Can you say that we do not have a political divisions in our country that were created by excess party spirit? Do we not have individuals that vote party line for no other reason then the fact that it is their party line? I also simply stated that he warned us against excess debt; our debt has had an enormous impact on our ability to function as a power on the world stage. We are facing a financial crisis that has had a disastrous effects on us, yet you claim that Washington basically had nothing to offer us. I am simply stating that you are wrong.

    He may not have had the ability to know about what kind of warfare, technology, encryption, or even what kind of world would exist, but he DID know what would cause us trouble, and it has.

  • JustGordon Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 6, 2011 5:26 p.m.

    @ Politicallyminded: Unfortunately none of the things you mentioned have anything to do with a complex industrialized world that is flat - but not in the way they would think of flat...and as for digitized...I am sure they would be thinking of fingers...not encrypted information for computers to process...nor did Washington conceive of war as fought by drones thousands of miles away with soldiers sitting in armchairs possessing more accurate firepower than he possessed at Valley Forge.

    And of course with France the only ally we had in the Revolution and at the time of those words, still a monarchy, a monarchy just like the one we had over thrown, I am sure the historical context of his comments are just that...limited by his experience and the horizon of his limited 18th century experiences. So you say he would not have approved of us helping Britain and France in WW I or II and that NATO is forbidden by his observation? Please!

    You delude yourself into making them more than what they were. What about their protection of slave ownership and limiting voting to those who possessed land?

  • JustGordon Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 6, 2011 5:23 p.m.

    Please...."true principles" to those of us who are not LDS, those are code words...what they actually mean no one has ever said. How about translating?

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    Sept. 6, 2011 4:18 p.m.

    I'm trying to imagine what we'd do in our business if we couldn't borrow more than we take in. No company lives this way, otherwise we couldn't make investments. Few families live this way, otherwise we wouldn't have homes, cars, or advanced degrees that require borrowing beyond our immediate means to pay. The notion of a BBA is an artificial limitation that leaves gov't powerless to respond to changing environment.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    Sept. 6, 2011 3:30 p.m.

    Where does it say that we the government can do invase searches against it's citizens on a permanent basis? If the government can't even uphold the constitution how do you expect anyone else to?

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    Sept. 6, 2011 3:26 p.m.

    LDSliberal.

    The 14th, 16th, and 17th amendments were only ratified by 10 states which makes them void.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    Sept. 6, 2011 3:22 p.m.

    LDSliberal @ 12:09 am

    Because the consitution is not the communist manifesto. If you read the constitution you will understand that they are actually different.

  • Bill_Walker AUBURN, WA
    Sept. 6, 2011 3:11 p.m.

    Given that public record proves the states have satisfied the two thirds requirement to cause a convention call, (see foavc.org),how can the author seriously suggest the Constitution be obeyed then urge it not be. If the states apply the Constitution mandates a convention call. The author says we should ignore this. He then rails against members of Congress doing the very thing he publicly supports. Frankly, I don't understand his position and should not therefore be heeded.

  • Politicallyminded Spanish Fork, UT
    Sept. 6, 2011 2:22 p.m.

    Our state legislature is extremely corrupt, and there is no way I would allow them to choose anything for me, especially someone to represent this state.

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    Sept. 6, 2011 2:12 p.m.

    @SuperArcher,

    The purpose of the Senate had nothing to do with States rights. The Madison plan, had it been fully adopted, would have essentially done away with States altogether. The Senate, if anything, was to ensure the minority (e.g. the smaller states) still had voice.

    Under the Constitution, the States are not enumerated ANY rights, it in facts limits them. The closest they have to rights is what is specified in the 10th Amendment.

    Looking at the Preamble, We the People formed the National Government, which then empowered the States Governments. This is further shown by the Supremacy clause found in Article VI.

  • SuperArcher Lehi, Utah
    Sept. 6, 2011 1:48 p.m.

    Some of you are not understanding the purpose of the Senate or the 17th Amendment. The People have the US House of Representatives. This is why we have direct votes. The Senate was for States and standing up for States' Rights. That all changed with the 17th Amendment.

    Don't know why everyon is after T-Jeff on this one. it MAY solve some issues but perhaps not all.

    The falacy that a BBA would fix anything is just that. The problem with the Tea Party is they back an "original" Constituteion but fail to define "original" since the Constitution has been ratified several times after the Constitutional Convention even by those who wer einvolved in creating it. Makes no sense. Mechanisms were in place to ratify it and change as the woeld changed.

  • Furry1993 Clearfield, UT
    Sept. 6, 2011 1:06 p.m.

    To T-Jeff | 8:33 a.m. Sept. 6, 2011
    Uinta Basin, Utah
    Maybe we should try repealing the 17th before we add a BBA. Get back to the basics and it may fix itself.

    -------------------

    Repealing the 17th Amendment is one of the worst things that can be done. We have enough problems with corrupt politicians as it is. I do NOT want to give a corrupt political machine the right to appoint my Senators (and just look at the antics of the just-past legislature to see the havoc and corruption they would cause).

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 6, 2011 12:35 p.m.

    Its easy to tell when a conservative is speaking, he will rail about government and then say we should support the Constitution.

    Conservatives, having found an easy way to change the Constitution, dont want anyone else messing with it. Nothing in our world has changed in the last 200 years, we are still just people going about the daily tasks of living. Heaven forbid that someone would think it might need updating from before.

    Oh, the conservative method of changing the Constitution, its easy, they just change the meaning of words.

  • Arm of Orion Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 6, 2011 12:21 p.m.

    Worf I was about to leave this thread alone. It is more of the same and I am bored with it. You though asked an intriguing question, one which I think is the crux of the issue. Our current political parties are the problem. To be more specific they are going farther and farther into the extreme ends of their movements. In other words liberals are becoming more liberal and conservatives more conservative.

    This extremeification of our parties is allowing the more, shall we say, devoted followers of the party, to take over convetion and only elct leaders that follow their own brand of politics. The battle lines become hardened and neither side dares consider the other to have any good ideas.

    It is my expreince that the best people know when they see a good idea no matter the source and run with it! However these good people would never be elected in todays climate. The solution though is simple enough. It is to change dramatically the current formula by throwing in a new third party. A party that is focused on reason more than rhetoric.

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    Sept. 6, 2011 12:17 p.m.

    @T-Jeff

    I really don't see how the direct election of senators is the cause of America's problems.

    The founding fathers initially had them indirectly elected becaues they didn't trust the population would be intelligent enough to understand the issues to elect the right people. With the flow of information we have through Internet, TV and radio, that no longer applies.

    If the problem is you think the people have made bad decisions by electing people with a D after their name, wouldn't the old Book of Mormon principle apply of we picked our leaders, so it's our own fault?

    Would you really trust the Utah Legislature with their track record of trying to hide things (GRAMA law earlier this year, Utahns for Ethical Government) to pick our senators?

    I would much rather have my voice directly heard and reap the consequences of that.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Sept. 6, 2011 11:37 a.m.

    With three hundred million people, why can't we find honest and patriotic leaders?

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    Sept. 6, 2011 11:35 a.m.

    While sounding good in theory, a balanced budget would be a disaster to the economy. It wouldn't work in today's world.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Sept. 6, 2011 11:35 a.m.

    T-Jeff | 8:33 a.m. Sept. 6, 2011
    Uinta Basin, Utah
    Maybe we should try repealing the 17th before we add a BBA. Get back to the basics and it may fix itself.

    =================

    Thanks for proving my earlier point.

    Why do Tea Partiers who "SAY" they are Defending the Constitution -- turn an about face, and become the very 1st guys in line shouting Changing it?

    [i.e., Repealing of the 14th, 16th, and 17th Ammendments - and adding their OWN -- like Balanced Budgets, and Definition of Marriages, ect.?]

    This is Why the Constitution will hang by a thread.
    Some people don't Believe in it.
    So - when they disagree with it, they are out constantly trying to change it to suit they own agendas - rather than just learning to live within it.

    As a Miltary Veteran, I swore the oath to Defend the Constitution to my dying breath.

    Follow it, and Leave it ALONE!

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    Sept. 6, 2011 11:00 a.m.

    If John McCain were in the White House right now, this "editorial" would have never been written.

  • Nonconlib Happy Valley, UT
    Sept. 6, 2011 10:34 a.m.

    I don't know how many times I need to say this, but federal spending amounts to nearly 25 percent of GDP. Republicans seem to believe that all this government spending happens in a vacuum. But like it or not, those government expenditures (directly or indirectly) support millions of jobs and a multitude of businesses. If we simply slash away, guess what? We will send the economy into a death spiral. Unfortunately, we have financed this economic support with debt instead of taxes. This started about 30 years ago with Reagan's tax cuts.

    The only way out of this mess is a balanced approach. Yes, we need to reduce our debt. But we can't just pull $1 trillion out of the economy in one fatal fit of knee-jerk conservatism. We need to raise taxes substantially and cut expenditures judiciously. Everything proposed so far by the misnamed Tea Party would be disastrous.

  • Mick Stupp Happy Valley, UT
    Sept. 6, 2011 10:26 a.m.

    Huh?

  • justaguy Out There in, WI
    Sept. 6, 2011 10:23 a.m.

    T-Jeff, I hope you are speaking of imposing term limits in the Senate and Congress when you say repeal the 17th amendment (which doesn't speak to members of Congress). To simply repeal the whole thing could create far more problems than it would solve. Before it was ratified state legilatures would frequently, if not usually appoint or elect the state's senators. The 17th amendment is the result of significant fraud that frequently occured under that model. Fraud and bribery were common; the interests of the people were often not considered at all. You remember Illinois' governor Rod Blagojevich, I hope. There is enough fraud in Washington today without reopening that avenue.

  • Politicallyminded Spanish Fork, UT
    Sept. 6, 2011 9:34 a.m.

    JustGordon... If our Founding Fathers had such an inability to understand our "complex, industrialized, digitized world", then how on earth, did George Washington warn us against political party spirit, excess debt, sectionalism, and permanent foreign alliances? It sounds to me like we should have taken their advice rather then dismiss them, like you seem so willing to do.

  • T-Jeff Uinta Basin, Utah
    Sept. 6, 2011 8:33 a.m.

    Maybe we should try repealing the 17th before we add a BBA. Get back to the basics and it may fix itself.

  • JoeBlow Miami Area, Fl
    Sept. 6, 2011 8:31 a.m.

    opinionated.

    I said there are no evil HIDDEN forces. A point I clearly made.

    May want to seek to understand before commenting.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Sept. 6, 2011 8:14 a.m.

    If congress, as the letter suggested, would pass budgets only allowing us to spend what we took in, the dems would increase their ever-present demagogueing about how the repubs were trying to wreck the economy and throw granny over the cliff.

    Since they are devoid of ideas that actually work, their only hope of holding onto power is to falsely demagogue against anyone or anything that opposes them.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Sept. 6, 2011 8:10 a.m.

    Is the constitution hanging by a thread yet?

  • Opinionated Sandy, UT
    Sept. 6, 2011 7:37 a.m.

    RE: JoeBlow
    You say "there are no evil hidden forces". Then two sentences later you declare the evil force is money. Looks like both sides of your mouth are working quite well this morning. One thing you have right, the pursuit of money is killing our nation, from the bottom where mothers leave their children to work, all the way to the top where almost all congressional decisions are based on money.

  • flyboy53 HERRIMAN, UT
    Sept. 6, 2011 7:19 a.m.

    LDSLiberal: Both parties trample the Constitution, mostly by ignoring it. IMHO, the liberals do it best in their Robin Hood approach.
    JustGordon: True principles, ie, not spending more than you have, know no time limits. It is up to us to apply those principles along with the understanding we've developed over the past 221 years.
    JoeBlow: Bingo!

  • Grover Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 6, 2011 7:07 a.m.

    Interesting that the letter espouses both amending the Constitution and then abhors the possibility of a Constitutional convention to consider broader changes. There has been a national debt every year of our existence. Why an amendment now? We need a Congress that does it job to control spending and set a tax rate that pays for services we demand.

  • Weston Jurney West Jordan, UT
    Sept. 6, 2011 6:14 a.m.

    And just what should they cut? FEMA? Social Security? Medicare? The Centers for Disease Control? Highways? Defense?

    There's a tiny group of Americans who have nearly half of all the money in the whole country. Some of them are making ten to a hundred times the salaries they were making forty years ago. And they've twisted the system so that they pay less in taxes than they ever did less, even, than the poor do.

    Why does no one, including the Deseret News, have the courage to say we should tax them?

  • JoeBlow Miami Area, Fl
    Sept. 6, 2011 5:48 a.m.

    "evil hidden forces" in Washington

    There are no evil hidden forces. They are clearly out in the open. And we have learned to accept them.

    The evil force is money. Our congress is bought and paid for by those with the money. Corporations and unions have paid for laws that will benefit them.

    Until you take the money out of the law making process, only those with Money will benefit.

  • JustGordon Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 6, 2011 4:20 a.m.

    I always love letters like this that seem to deliver such sage advice at first glance, but with a moment's reflection, then the reader realizes that the writer presented us with a pablum that is devoid of specificity and in reality says nothing of substance.

    I am sure those of the Tea Party will interpret this to mean that we should do what the Founding Father's wanted, but in a complex, industrialized, digitized world that they would fail to understand, what does that mean?

    Men with an 18th century understanding of science, government and political economy are ill-equiped educationally and experientially to lead us now, no matter how much foresight they may have displayed in creating this remarkable experiment we call America.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Sept. 6, 2011 12:09 a.m.

    Agreed!

    Why is it, the very people saying they are FOR the Constitution -- are indeed the very one trampling all over it?