Should president be subject to up-or-down vote?
The Republican leadership in Congress claims that in a democracy, issues such as the president’s nominations for judgeships should be decided by an up-or-down vote determined by the majority. I think they have a point, but the democratic principle they espouse should include not only the president’s nominations, but the president himself.
This means, of course, that George W. Bush, who did not receive a majority of the votes in 2000, became president through an undemocratic election, and his occupation of that position should be declared null and void by the Supreme Court.
No doubt the honorable members of Congress, who believe in the up-and-down vote, with the majority prevailing, will now demonstrate their firm adherence to principle by proposing a constitutional amendment correcting this error in the thinking of our founders, and thus ensure that in the future the president will only be that candidate who receives a majority of the votes cast.
John G. Watkins, Longmont
Outing of Watergate investigation’s Deep Throat
Re: “‘Deep Throat’ did right thing,” June 1 editorial.
Now that we know that W. Mark Felt, the former No. 2 man at the FBI, was the mysterious Deep Throat of Watergate fame, we should all tip our hats in appreciation of his courage. In a time of deep corruption within the controlling political party, Felt chose a path of action that was best for the country, not his employers. For this he will be criticized by party loyalists, but for those of us who put America first, we should honor him.
Philip Baker, Golden
…
In giving W. Mark Felt credit for pushing the crimes of Watergate to a conclusion, I am bothered by several issues: the fact that Felt was reportedly convicted in the 1970s for authorizing illegal break-ins of domestic radicals and was pardoned by President Ronald Reagan for wire-tapping crimes; the fact that he lied repeatedly about his role in leaking information to Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein; and the fact that he was reportedly bitter about not being selected to succeed J. Edgar Hoover as FBI director. These things cause me to pause before viewing him as an American hero.
An untold number of concerned government employees have sacrificed their jobs, careers and reputations by coming forward to expose governmental misdeeds. They never lied about their identity, and stood fast under threats and sanctions.
The real heroes of bringing down the flawed Nixon presidency are Woodward and Bernstein. They kept their word under what must have been unimaginable pressure in order to uphold the principles of a free press and their own personal integrity. The nation owes them a great debt. I’m not so sure about Felt.
Earle O. Meyer, Denver
…
Before we get all teary-eyed over the “courage” of W. Mark Felt, let us keep a few facts in mind:
1. Felt was a member of the FBI at the time of his leaks to a reporter. It was his sworn duty to keep investigations confidential until such time as there was enough evidence to justify filing charges.
2. If he was unable to gather enough information to file criminal charges, he could have resigned and taken what information he had to Congress or the federal special prosecutor.
Either of the above choices would have led to his losing his job at the pinnacle of law enforcement power, and would have required real courage. Instead he chose to compromise the integrity of the FBI in order to protect his job, skulking around in the dark to leave clues for the reporters.
3. Lest anyone think he was interested simply in maintaining some ideal of civil rights that were not to be violated, Felt was convicted of civil rights violations when it was revealed he had led a campaign to use the FBI to conduct illegal warrantless searches of homes of friends and relatives of left-wing fugitives. He apparently believed he had the right to perform the sort of illegal activity he found so abhorrent among the Nixon crowd.
Ambrose P. Rikeman, Aurora
Killing of prairie dogs in development areas
Re: “Town alters its wildlife law after prairie dogs invade,” June 1 news story.
I was dismayed to read that Castle Rock has changed its wildlife ordinance to make it easier to “get rid of” prairie dogs. These native animals are as much a part of the Front Range as any of us two-legged residents.
Prairie dogs are a keystone species that do much more for our communities than the strip malls and rows of pre-fab houses that force them from their colonies ever could. Their burrowing loosens soil, which helps it to sustain plant life, and prairie dog towns provide food and habitat for many other animals.
If they must be removed, it is important that it is done humanely. Fumigation causes them to slowly suffocate to death. Prairie dogs that are vacuumed out often die from blunt force trauma, or suffocate in the machine before they can be removed. Those that are flushed out with water often drown. The only humane method involves a live trap and relocation.
Killing animals is never the answer. As we continue to swallow up the natural habitats of animals with our intense development, we must do our best to seek humane solutions to wildlife conflicts and to peacefully co-exist with all of our animal neighbors.
Steve Greig, Denver
Treatment of prisoners
Re: “Bush: Gulag charge absurd,” June 1 news story.
The president dismisses the charge of Amnesty International that the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, prison is “the gulag of our times,” saying the accusation comes from the prisoners themselves. His administration’s perfection of the arts of secrecy and irresponsibility has guaranteed that independent observers are scarce.
Administration efforts to maximize the secrecy of government operations – starting with the vice president’s energy policy taskforce; minimizing legal responsibilities by redefining “torture” and “prisoner of war” and by sending prisoners to other countries for interrogation; and holding the lowest GIs responsible when irrefutable evidence of mistreatment surfaces – constitute a total subversion of the transparency necessary for trust. Such secrecy and irresponsibility explain the worldwide refusal to believe the administration’s constant claims of good and honorable intentions.
Baldwin Ranson, Longmont
Effect of heat on pets
As the summer heats up, it’s important that people be made aware of the dangers of leaving their companion animals inside hot cars. People tend not to realize that during the “dog days” of summer, the temperature inside a car can climb to well above 100 degrees Fahrenheit in just a matter of minutes. Every year, dogs die after being locked inside cars while their guardians work, visit, shop or run other errands. These tragic deaths are entirely preventable.
It’s just not cool to leave a dog in a hot car. During the warm summer months, the safest place for Rover is indoors.
Emily Allen, Littleton
CU prof Ward Churchill
Re: “CU students’ vote favors Churchill, but award withheld,” May 27 news story.
In your story about University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill, your attempt to rewrite Holocaust history did not go unnoticed. According to your article, “Churchill sparked a national furor earlier this year after an essay surfaced that he wrote comparing some 9/11 victims to a Nazi bureaucrat.” Is this your way of minimizing Adolf Eichmann’s part in the murder of millions of people, and justifying Churchill’s outrageous behavior?
Robin Backstrom, Parker
TO REACH US
Phone: 303-820-1331
Fax: 303-820-1502
E-mail: openforum@denverpost.com (only straight text, not attachments)
Mail: The Open Forum, The Denver Post, 1560 Broadway, Denver, 80202
Letters guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 200 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address and day and evening phone numbers. Letters may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.
