Letters to the Editor
We need to use our common sense in November says voter
Where has it gone? There is no excuse for losing our common sense.
It should guide us daily. Unfortunately, when people get cocky and think they know it all (political candidates) they run for office, or a seat in our government. Most of them don’t belong.
We have evidence of this right here in our own community. They get power-hungry. WE know who they are and we see the footprint they have left behind for the next cocky one. The first clue is their constant talk about how they will fix things and make changes. Then never give us how, why and evidence of their plan working. And most of all probably not what we want. These wannabes will convince you they are the answer to all our worries, yet history tells us, they are really no better than the one they want to replace. Yes, we here in Nye County have a few excellent candidates to choose from. Some in particular are very well liked and respected.
Those are the ones we need. New candidates and talkers need to be scrutinized with a questioning thought process. We need not get more of the same in our local government. Do we want to stick with Nye County red, not much blue, or purple?
Are we going to change this political makeup? Be aware, we don’t want to follow the other states into socialism … My theory, stick to what has worked the best for us. No, nothing is perfect, but are we really ready to just throw everything away and start from where we don’t know how and where we will go?
I will stick to what has worked here in this county. All these fancy ideas, maybe we don’t want or really need them. And we are being stomped on by many for ideas that are not good or that will work for us. Yes, we need to stand up and keep saying NO, NO, and more NO. Elect those we have that savored the same beliefs of our popular party. For me and many, we will vote Republican locals we love and trust, COMMON SENSE restored as it should be. Pray for our country and our Nye County.
Linda Clark
Reader reexamines the 14th Amendment for some clarity
The recent decision SCOTUS made regarding “Birthright Citizenship” from the 14th U.S. Constitutional Amendment has some words that at least call for some clarification. The part that should be clearly answered is “and under the jurisdiction of”. In reading Chief Justice Roberts’ written justification, it barely gave me, and maybe many others, a 25% good reason. I would guess he was justifying the time it was passed, 1868, when most of the country was agrarian-based and the industrial revolution was just beginning.
Most things required strong and plentiful manual labor, with limited skills that could be easily learned. There was little doubt that immigration laws were pretty lax. The one thing that wasn’t available to the millions of immigrants that came in those times, was government-sponsored, with taxpayer funded “safety-net” programs. Today, it’s estimated that at least 65% of legal and illegal migrants are relying, or at least subsidized, by the many programs today. Back then, the only support was either family, churches or private charities on a very strict, temporary basis, mostly direct as to ‘where to get work’.
In today’s automated, mechanized, and high-tech world, different demands are needed. Then there’s the “intent” part of the Amendment, which is the only way to find out what it is or was, looking at the words of those who authored it and presented it. It does take some digging, but things like that can be found in the Congressional Record, which I believe, to any fair-minded person, makes the intent very clear, which I believe should be required research for those entrusted with defining laws, and they do have researchers on their staff.
I found Rep. Jacob M. Howard of Michigan presented the Amendment that was passed in 1868. In 1866, he gave a speech to gain support for getting it passed, saying some very clear parts that seem to be ignored by many today. In his speech, he said, “Of course, this would not include officials from other countries, foreigners, or aliens”. It was clear he intended it for all newly freed slaves to become U.S. citizens, remembering that Thomas Jefferson signed into law in 1808 forbidding the importation of slaves into the newly formed U.S., and life expectancy was only in the 40s in the mid-1800s, so most slaves were at least second generation and beyond.
I do suppose some can and do some very complicated word contortions to argue “intent”, but I’d look at “their intent” or question their reasoning.
David Jaronik
