Letter Submission

To submit a letter to the editor, please email us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Letters must contain the author's name, hometown (state as well, if not in New Hampshire) and phone number, but the number will not be published. We do not run anonymous letters. Local issues get priority, as do local writers. We encourage writers to keep letters to no more than 400 words, but will accept longer letters to be run on a space-available basis. Letters may be edited for spelling, grammar, punctuation and legal concerns.

 

Nowhere do Founding Fathers mention need for limited government

To The Daily Sun,

I found it very interesting that Mr. Brooks would agree that the Founding Fathers were liberal; although, not the liberals of today. I would agree that the liberals of today are not the liberals of 1787, but, then again, our nation is not the nation of 1787, and the world is not the world of 1787.

 Knowing that the framers wanted a strong national government doesn’t tell us exactly how strong. There’s no way to know what they would have thought about specific modern legislation. Ultra-conservatives may want federal power to be microscopic, but for the most part our Constitution embodies a different vision — good or bad.

After throwing off the British monarchy in 1776, our first attempt at a constitution for the United States was the Articles of Confederation, which were in force from 1781 until 1789.  States feared a central power holding too much power and created a governing document that left many important powers to the states. This early constitution failed. 

States failed to comply with the “constitutional” requisitions of the government, encroached on federal authority, trespassed on each other's rights, violated treaties, failed to pay taxes, etc. Because of these actions, the states left the young nation bankrupt and destitute, and on the verge of collapse. George Washington argued that Congress had not been granted enough power.

“In all our deliberations on this subject (the Constitution) we kept in our view, that which appears to us the greatest interest of every true American, the consolidation of our Union.” — George Washington

Nowhere does Washington or other Founding Fathers mention “a limited republican government.”

Our present Constitution, after unanimous endorsement, does not say, “Our goal is to make the federal government as small as possible.”  The text of the Constitution promises, among other things, a “more perfect union” that would “promote the general welfare.”  It also authorizes Congress to make laws that don’t fall within those listed in the Constitution but are “necessary and proper” to carry them out.

Mr. Brooks and today’s Tea Party members would surely have been opponents of the Constitution.  The Constitution is, first and foremost, a grant of power to the federal government. The Founding Fathers consciously sacrificed state sovereignty in the interests of national unity. The whole point of the Constitution was to make the federal government much stronger than it had been under the Articles of Confederation.

I’m not a religious man as much as I strive to be a Christian man, and as an American, I live — not in a Christian Nation, but a nation with Christians in it.  If Mr. Brooks is referring to me as being “non-religious,” I consider his efforts at degradation a compliment.

L.J. Siden

Gilmanton

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 379

Why would one direct so much energy toward hating Obama?

To The Daily Sun,

I try not to answer every letter written by Steve Earle, but during this season of peace and love I felt compelled to respond. The dictionary meaning of the word hate is: to dislike intensely or passionately; feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility.

I have to ask, why Mr. Earle puts so much energy toward just hating the president. One has to ask if President Obama has personally affected your lifestyle and well-being. Has President Obama personally changed your health, happiness and prosperity? Have you languished in distress or hardship? Have you suffered a case of terminal melancholy since President Obama was elected?

Do you feel that you have to lash out at President Obama because of some perceived injustice? Has he or his administration been unjust or unfair to you personally? Or maybe it's just the fact that he was elected and is president?

Maybe, just maybe, at this time of year when we extend kindness, peace and love to those around us and others we don't know, you can find it in your heart to be more magnanimous, free from petty perceived hurts and allow yourself to feel the love that comes your way.

May you have a happy holiday Mr. Earle. As Pope Francis has said, "Who am I to judge."

Bernadette Loesch

Laconia

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 281