To The Daily Sun,
No one should ever get into a war of words with someone much smarter than they are, but E. Scott Cracraft's Feb. 13 letter to The Sun continues to puzzle the heck out of me. Why would a man with such a gifted mind be so troubled by those who challenge an existing court ruling?
I'd like to return to 1857 when the Supreme Court ruled in the Dred Scott lawsuit. Scott was a slave whose owner Dr. John Emerson brought him to a "free state." Upon Dr. Emerson's untimely death, Scott sued for his family's (wife and two daughters) freedom. Scott lost his case. Our Supreme Court ruled that by being a slave Scott could not legally sue the government since he was not truly a person but a property. So the question is: Whose vision was blurred in 1857? Was it the Supreme Court that stood steadfast to protect the law or were the folks the miscreants for raising their voices and clamoring for change?
No law should be etched in stone merely because another group of people thought of it. Nor should people be disparaged for pursuing principles and beliefs they espouse. It is vital that American people keep thinking independently.
In the 19th century the Dred Scott ruling caused people to raise their voices loud enough to change America's Black Race from property to citizenship.
In the 20th century Susan Anthony rallied women and men alike to alter a long standing Unites States Federal law not allowing women to vote.
In the 21st century a concern exist on the practice of abortion within Planned Parenthood. It's a dubious practice, in this "land of the free," with some folks seeing images of infancy carnage that won't let them rest. These same folks are also asking what kind of freedom is this and wondering too what kind of country America has become?
Abortion in American politics wouldn't be able to fly under its own banner. Thus it comes to us in subtle guise under the clever name of Planned Parenthood.
Not long ago, while sitting through an orientation for jury duty, I recall the judge explicitly stating: "Should there be an inkling of doubt you cannot rule the defendant guilty." The judge's emphasis on the word doubt lingered with me all the way home. I then began to think at what point, in a nine-month pregnancy, is the fetus considered an infant child? Of course there's no clear answer because medical science has been unable to address this question. It's this unknown that stirs the voices in the fetus vs infancy debate. Voices which are now asking another question: "Shouldn't the court be protecting the fetus in the same way it protects alleged criminals?"
It's surprising that a man of Cracraft's high intellect is so defensive over someone else's rational concerning the Roe v. Wade law. A man of such academic stature should be sharing his own thoughts on why the law should remain as it is rather than discourage a different viewpoint.
Cracraft writes often and well in The Laconia's Daily Sun and oftentimes comes across with ideas well worth contemplating. But why his pen becomes so negative when other people also seek to have their voice heard is something only he can answer.
Finally, I don't fault any women who might have consented to an abortion. The law allows it and surely that decision was made with the best of intentions. What I hope for, however, is a future re-consideration of this law with modest amendments attached.
Last Updated on Tuesday, 18 February 2014 10:36
To The Daily Sun,
I am writing to urge voters to support Mike Cryans in the March 11 special election. We have lost a great public servant in Ray Burton and it is important that we replace him with someone who holds the same level of public service and devotion that Ray did.
Mike is a thoughtful and reasonable man who shares the values that New Hampshire citizens hold dear. Mike will support keeping contracts with Planned Parenthood, which is an organization that supplies public health services to our rural citizens.
Ray's family has come forward to endorse Mike Cryans and I hope that citizens will show up to support him in the March 11 special election.
Rep. Beth Arsenault
Last Updated on Monday, 17 February 2014 09:59
To The Daily Sun,
The Gilmanton Cub Scout Pack 242 would like to thank all who participated in their recent cake auction on Feb. 15. The auction included 12 cakes and raised $94 for the pack's overnight trip to the Montshire Museum in March.
The cake that raised the most money was a three-layer cake with chocolate fudge frosting made by Melissa Angle, a Gilmanton Cub Scout family.
Last Updated on Monday, 17 February 2014 09:55
To The Daily Sun,
Grafton County budget appropriation documents and County Commissioner meeting minutes clearly show that, between 2009 and 2014, Commissioner Michael Cryans voted to give a total of $143,280 in taxpayer money to an organization (Headrest, Inc.), which pays him a substantial salary as its executive director. These documents also show that, on April 23, 2012, one of Mr. Cryans' fellow commissioners asked that he recuse himself from voting on this appropriation, due to an obvious conflict of interest. Cryans refused to sit out the vote.
My observations of Mr. Cryans at Grafton County budget meetings have convinced me that he is a big spender when it comes to taxpayer money and would likely continue that behavior if elected to the Executive Council. Voters need to ask themselves if they really want to give Michael Cryans a third job and yet another opportunity to squander taxpayer money.
All of the factual information contained in this letter can be verified by going to the Grafton County website and viewing the budget appropriation documents for fiscal years 2010-2014 and the minutes of the relevant county commissioner meetings. The website for Headrest Inc. will verify Mr. Cryans' position as executive director.
Russell T. Cumbee
Last Updated on Monday, 17 February 2014 09:50
To The Daily Sun
In the Feb. 14 issue of The Daily Sun, Mr. Valengavich asked for "... one right winger actually (to) give one instance where our president has violated the Constitution ..." This is in reply to that request.
The second paragraph of Article.1. Section. 5. of the Constitution reads as follows, "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member." Nowhere in Article.1. does the Constitution authorize the Executive or the Judicial branches to determine what those rules may be.
Article. II. Section. 2. of the Constitution states that the president shall have the power to nominate people to serve in a variety of positions, "... by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate.
That section also states, "The president shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session."
At issue was President Obama's making of a total of four recess appointments while the Senate was in session. The administration was challenged on those appointments and argued that the Senate was not actually in session as not all the Senators were physically there.
To this point, three Circuit Courts (3rd, 4th, and DC Circuit Courts of Appeals) have ruled the president violated the Constitution by making those four appointments while the Senate was in session. The administration has again appealed the decision and it is now going to be heard by the Supreme Court.
In the presidential oath of office, the president swears or affirms that to the best of his ability he will preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Beyond the above issue, to date, there have been twenty seven changes made to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) by the president, without those changes being codified by the House of Representative or the Senate. Even though the Congress has expressed a willingness to modify the law, the Administration has chosen to act unilaterally.
Also before the Supreme Court is the issue on whether the ACA is in conflict with the First Amendment to the Constitution, specifically with respect to the free exercise of religion. This issue is before the Supreme Court as a number of lower court have rendered differing opinions.
In my view, the primary reason for the Senate leadership to have exercised the so called "nuclear option," is so the Democrat-controlled Senate can roll over the opposition and provide the Advice and Consent of Presidential appointments who would not otherwise receive that Consent. For the longer haul, that decision may be one of the most destructive and divisive in the history of the Senate. Time will tell.
Last Updated on Monday, 17 February 2014 09:46