Although I wish to commend David Vail (”Time to Change,” Sept. 28) for his interest in the Constitution, I fear he is off-target in some of his concerns.
On clarifying religious freedom, Vail suggests that presidential candidates are saying their religious beliefs take precedence over state and federal law. He gives no examples, but I fear he is confusing the flouting of actual law with legal opposition to fiat executive orders and non-legislated bureaucratic rulings, such as the Department of Education’s transgender bathroom edict. The federal courts have regularly nullified Obama administration rulings as overreach.
As a related matter, U.S. Civil Rights Commission chair Martin Castro has declared that moves to gain religious exemptions to federal laws are attempts to cover up all sorts of discriminations. Expect the commission to face plenty of court suits against Castro’s moves to delegitimize the role of religion in the public sphere.
Next, Vail wishes to remove the 10th Amendment over fear it precludes nationwide federal standards. To ease his fears, he needs only to look at Article 1, Section 8, which gives Congress the authority to regulate both foreign and interstate commerce.
And finally, his plan to eliminate the Electoral College misconstrues why we have this entity. Each state gets a minimum of three electoral votes, which helps ensure that a few large states won’t have overwhelming control over who gets the presidency.
Again, I appreciate Vail’s concerns, but I suggest he more fully review the details of these matters.
John P. Orr, Swansea