For some, oath is lip service
On exiting the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Franklin was asked what sort of government the delegates had created; his answer: “A Republic, if you can keep it.”
And so the “Bill of Rights” guarantees civil rights and liberties to the individual—like freedom of speech, press and religion. It sets rules for due process of law and reserves all powers not delegated to the federal government to the people or the states. These 10 amendments are supreme and uncompromising. Nullification is firmly grounded in the text of the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article VI. It states: “This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof … shall be the supreme Law of the Land”.
Our elected officials have taken their oath “I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States…..”, sadly for some this is just lip service.
Today, more than ever, the concept of nullification is the constitutional safeguard that if the federal government overextends its powers, a state has a right and a duty to resist by declaring the unconstitutional action null and void, and therefore nullification is the rightful remedy. This concept extends down to all levels of elected government officials due to their solemn oath.
Do your part and don’t sit idle on the sidelines; apathy is the largest part of defeat. Step 1 is to remind your local elected officials to support and defend our Constitution, and not to cater to the largest contributing lobbyist.
Step 2 is to identify those that do not follow their sacred oath and expose them for their lack of integrity.
Step 3 is to vote them out of office on the very next election cycle.
This simple process will ensure that our constitutional republic will continue on throughout the ages, no matter of political party or affiliation.
Replace the hatred so many voice
Re: The opinion column by Michelle Malkin May 6. I read this article with disbelief. What a hateful article! She seems to think that it’s a matter of us vs. them, with them being “the world’s wretched” (her words).
Has she forgotten that when Donald Trump prevented so many people from entering this country that he quietly brought in large numbers to work on his properties? Obviously, they served an important service. While she disparages immigrants and refugees, she ignores the fact that they often take the jobs that no one else wants. They don’t enter our country on welfare. They offer valuable services.
They are so grateful to be here that they are hard workers and have a wonderful work ethic.
She refers to Replacement Theory. I would love to replace the hatred that so many people voice with more tolerance for individual differences. Also, we will need to replace the working-age people in this country as our birth rate is at a record low and many are retiring. Who will be the wage earners who pay into Social Security?
Who will be the workers who take care of the disabled and elderly? Allowing them entrance benefits all.
Are our hearts and minds big enough to include them?
Fran and Charles Amos
Malkin’s heartless harangue
In response to Michelle Malkin’s bitter screed against America opening its doors to refugees (Wave of refugees coming to America, May 6), I would encourage her to read some of the true-to-life circumstances of desperate peoples served by agencies such as the International Rescue Committee, Doctors Without Borders, Partners in Health, Oxfam, UNHCR (The UN Refugee Agency), and many others.
There’s a chance, just a chance, this might lead her to understand the meaning of the “humanitarian concern” she snidely derides, and she might then develop a heart made up of something other than stone.
Thoughts on racism
The terms “racism” and “systemic racism” are constantly used in the news and social media these days. There is no doubt that racism exists, not only in the USA, but in many parts of the world. How can we combat it? Some cases of hateful racism, obviously, need to be addressed and combated vigorously — especially incidents of violence.
There is so much in our society that is constantly being considered in light of race and ethnicity, however, which is unnecessary and counterproductive. When a person is appointed to a high government position, can we just consider his/her experience and qualifications, rather than dwell on their skin color or ethnic background? Discrimination, either for or against a person, based on the color of their skin or their ethnicity is wrong and unjust.
Martin Luther King put it very succinctly when he said he hoped for a time when his children would be judged, not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.
Until we can all look at another person and just see another human being, rather than this or that ethnicity or skin color, racism will not go away.