Weather Forecast


LETTER: Bill of Rights should not be amended

To the Editor:

I was a paperboy who delivered the news of JFK's assassination. If memory serves me, I delivered the newspaper the day Democrat Gov. George Wallace, later a contender for the Democrat nomination for president, stood in the doorway in Selma, Ala. to block the entrance of three black women to the university there. I only vaguely remember when Johnson signed the equal rights bill pushed through Congress primarily by the Republican Party.

My subsequent reading over the years makes me aware that Johnson signed the bill, stating it gave the blacks (he used a different term) just enough to keep them voting Democrat. Shrewd man... they still do.

But George Richard's contention that the racist Democrats of the "solid south" stepped into the Republican Party where they continue today to limit the opportunity and freedom flies in the face of what we know and seek to divert attention away from, the real issue: The shredding of our constitution.

While the Republicans today push for "strict construction" of the constitution, the Democrat from Emperor Oh-Bah-Mah to Queen Hillary down to their lordships Russ Feingold and Ron Kind, call for a "living document." Definition: The constitution means what we say it means. And if they want it to mean one thing this week and something else next week, well, that's a "living document."

The greatest irony is that these advocates of a "living document" owe their very existence to the document, the constitution that they and so many of their unthinking followers want to destroy. Without a constitution that we all agree to follow equally, there is no presidency, no Congress, no court system. Without a constitution might makes right. So, as we see in Afghanistan, if my militia is bigger and stronger than yours, in the territory I control, what I say goes. You have no recourse beyond my whims.

The constitution and its amendments were written by a people oppressed and exploited by their government. It was written to protect them, and us, from the same type of oppression and exploitation they fled from and later rebelled against. George Richards wants to throw that away? Diverting our attention from the real problem with his unsubstantiated charges. Of what?

This discussion began with advocating the curtailment of second amendment, constitutionally guaranteed rights. The framers considered possession of firearms by the citizenry important enough to make it the amendment following that which guarantees freedom of speech, association and religion. The second amendment is the amendment meant to enforce the other original nine against an out of control government. Gun and ammunition bans are to the second amendment what censorship is to the first.

In its role as a deterrent to tyranny and dictatorship, the second amendment is the amendment tyrants love to hate, which brings us to our current discussion, the attempts to crush second amendment rights has come almost exclusively from members and supporters of the Democratic Party.

The attacks on the first amendment, which in the last two or three years has been thoroughly folded, spindled and mutilated, have come from the Democrat Party. Under the last two Democrat administrations America's citizens have been in a constant struggle to preserve, not only our amendment rights, but the constitution as well. Not so under any of the Republican administrations I have lived under.

Which says to me that, contrary to George Richard's claims, it is the Democrat Party today, right now this administration that is making the effort to limit our rights. If we need to amend the bill of rights, judging by this Democrat's proliferate spending, the 16th amendment would be the best place to start.

Jim Schroeder

New Richmond