Letters to the editor - Feb. 6, 2013

Proud of our lights display

Plains should be very proud of the Fairgraounds lights. You will not find a better display of Christmas lights in Montana. There are vehicles that go through there at night to admire the lights and most of those vehicles have children in them. To keep the nitpickers and tax dollars at bay, the private sector will pay for the electricity.

Joe Rogers, Plains

Youth of Superior's time

It is with deep regret and disappointment that I find that the tax payers voted down the youth community center. I hardly need to point out that the youth of Superior have no place to go and nothing to do for entertainment. What happened to you, the tax payers? Have you forgotten our wonderful young people? Please give them a chance to live and grow in a healthy, active community. I actually heard one person say “I can hardly walk, how could I work out in a gym or walk the track?” Maybe your turn has passed and now it is theirs. Just imagine that. Unless of course you have the entitlement, then shame on you. I personally probably would not use any of the facilities, but, I would buy a season ticket. But that is just me.

Marge Vigue

Superior

Sheriff Rummel has a point

I learned that someone argued that Sheriff Rummel is wrong to “pick and choose” which laws to obey; and opined the Executive Orders are law!

I offer this food for thought: If sheriffs cannot “pick and choose,” how might we expect them to honor their Oath of Office to “Uphold, protect and defend the Constitution”? If the sheriff cannot discriminate between laws that are Lawful and those that infringe on our God-given, Constitution-secured Rights, of what use is it to require him to take that oath?

By the way, congress may make a law, and the president sign it, but that is no guarantee that is “The Law of the Land,” or “The Rule of Law.” The Rule of Law is simple to understand once you understand that all United States laws must pass the test of being “Pursuant” to the Constitution; if not, then it is no law at all. The courts have reiterated that vital point, which is ably expressed in Article VI (the ‘supremacy clause’). It is up to the sheriff in each county to make that discrimination – not all congress does is the Rule of Law, and not all federal laws are superior to state laws for that reason alone. Are you listening, Women for a Better Sanders County?

As for Executive Orders being “law,” there are members of the United States government who believe that they are indeed law. However, holding that opinion does not make it fact. Often, we see the president issue EO’s with complete abandon, stating, “We cannot wait for congress to act...”

Well, political logic differs on that point: the president does not make law or policy – that job belongs solely to congress. Executive Orders may be warranted in certain limited instances; and then only to accomplish the purposes and obligations the Constitution and congress places on the Executive Branch. To know the truth, we need only to read the Constitution for the United States of America: Article I, section 1, [clause only] All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives; (I guess one might as well say that means the courts cannot make law either...); and, Article II, section 3, ...he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed...; and then Article II, section 1 says it all in his Oath of Office: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Now, I ask how can anyone, much less the president, even for a moment, believe that the president’s Executive Orders can possibly be law? Executive Orders, not provided for in the Constitution, are purely administrative; and act solely upon the members of the Executive branch and have no legal force anywhere else. Moreover, EO’s cannot have any direct bearing on the States or the people, only congress can do that; and even then there are Constitutional limits congress must observe, viz.: Article VI.

Happy Trails,

Dick Wells, Thompson Falls

It's a No Damage Zone

Without the hard work from past Montanans to protect our best protected ground, we would be “The Big Nothing.” All that good work deserves respect. Reasons are not good enough to destroy Northwest Montana’s Cabinet Mountain Wilderness area from two copper mines. Living in an area of few jobs cannot justify destroying our best ground. Lincoln and Sanders Counties must protect not destroy their pristine high mountain jewels. The value of our state’s most special public lands protected extends far beyond any reason to harm them. For 25 years water quality experts have told me digging tunnels will pollute valley waterways with a toxic brew. Three fourths of the U.S. is having water troubles and Montana talks of poisoning theirs. Our EPA must stop these mines from becoming reality. For over 130 years the monster Butte and Anaconda mines dumped their worst toxic waste directly into the Clark Fork River making it awful, even more awful came the dams. The river was the world’s worst mine toxic polluted. I remember the thick grey goo with white dead fish floating on top of it. The mining industry has had enough of the Clark Fork. Montana retire the river! The 1872 mining law and wilderness act signed by President Ulysses S. Grant must be changed for “the now times.” The antiquated statute wants to create jobs where they can’t be. Montana thrives on protect not destroy.

Lon LaBelle,

Thompson Falls