Fleshing out letters
In his excellent letter [DRC, July 18], Donald Pickens presents the question of what good are two political parties if they cannot get together and formulate a viable, national economic plan.
In his equally good letter, [DRC, July 22] R.J. Guditis questions whether decisions by the Supreme Court really comport with our Constitution and the founders’ original intent.
Concerning the first, the Keynesian theory of economics seems to have worked from 1929 to 1965, a period that saw us through the Depression and World War II, with booming industry and minimal national debt.
Emphasizing “viable,” shouldn’t Congress move now to create more jobs by appropriating money or subsidizing rebuilding of viable industries (big job creators) or worthwhile public projects?
Our population growth, an increase from 100 million to 300 million in the last century, and a multitude of future college graduates, should have a great bearing on this.
With regard to the Supreme Court, it seems to me that as great a document as our Constitution is, it is not perfect and contains vague language, subject to misinterpretation. Such as “due process of law” or language in Amendment 2, (right to bear arms).
Certainly the founders did not have automatic rifles/our present culture in mind when they framed the Second Amendment.
As for 5-4 decisions, these suggest that the court is not sure whether the Constitution renders a particular law constitutional or not.
Unfortunately, they do not have the prerogative to return the statute to Congress for redrafting or clarification.
H.L. Hall,
Denton
