The Ft. Worth (Texas) Star-Telegram printed my letter on this! Mine is the third in line
http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/opinion/local2/6010373.htm Posted on Wed, Jun. 04, 2003
Constitutional questions
Star-Telegram
After reading "Constitutional Do-over" in Sunday's Weekly Review and noting at the end of the commentary that the author is a Fort Worth teacher, I fear for the students he teaches.
Even without the anti-Republican, anti-administration vitriol that dripped from each paragraph, his labeling of our form of government as a "democracy" illustrated his ignorance. Our government is a constitutional republic, not a democracy, and anyone who teaches our youth should know the difference.
He claimed that we have "no reason to govern ourselves with an 18th-century document" and cited other countries that have "new constitutions" more to his liking.
I submit that none of the countries he named have the level of freedom we have here. Case in point: the excerpt from the constitution of Denmark, which read in part, "The police shall be entitled to be present at public meetings. Open-air meetings may be prohibited."
That "18th-century document" he would so quickly discard protects us from such oppressive behavior by the government and has allowed our country to grow into a superpower in a very short time, considering our tender age of just over 200.
Our form of government isn't perfect, but judging from the desire of millions all over the world to come here, it's better than anything else.
If Wheatcroft-Pardue doesn't agree, I invite him to travel to any other country he might admire -- and stay there!
Randal Bowen, Watauga
•
Many excellent editorials and commentaries have been written to awaken the people of this country to the alarming loss of civil liberties and of democracy itself. One of the most perceptive analyses of this tragedy was by Wheatcroft-Pardue.
Wheatcroft-Pardue deserves many thanks for bringing attention to an oft-overlooked need and also the Star-Telegram for printing it so prominently.
Now let's discuss how and who will begin the process of rewriting what could be as revolutionary in its effect as the original.
Dick Trice, Fort Worth
•
If Wheatcroft-Pardue is concerned that the Constitution "is not even particularly democratic," perhaps he should take a high school senior-level U.S. government course. In it, he would learn that the United States is a republic, not a democracy.
The Founding Fathers realized that there were many good reasons to establish a republic, the first and foremost being that a democracy does not protect the rights of the minority from the whims of the majority. Stated another way, democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper.
Strangely enough, much of Wheatcroft-Pardue's column concerned issues that aren't addressed by the Constitution. Where does the Constitution say that important issues must be debated for a certain length of time? Where does it state that the State of the Union Address should be met with catcalls?
Where does it address rates of crime, incarceration, poverty or infant mortality? What about voter apathy? The number of political parties?
None of this has anything to do with the Constitution.
Even when he got around to issues that are addressed by the Constitution, he showed an appalling lack of understanding. The Electoral College and the selection of two senators for each state also were intended to avert the tyranny of the majority.
A society that selects its representatives in a purely democratic way would be ruled by the populace of a relatively few metropolitan centers. That may work out well for folks who live in Fort Worth, but Fort Worth isn't representative of all Americans.
Wheatcroft-Pardue did get one thing right. The Constitution is not a sacred document that can't be changed.
If he wants to make the United States a democracy, he's more than welcome to try. That outdated document that he seems to despise so much provides an avenue for change. He should take it up with his legislators.
Stephen L. Wakefield, Bedford