Gerald Brooks: U.S. governmental longevity due to constitutional protections

To The Daily Sun,

My last letter to the Laconia Daily Sun was edited by them, such as changing 233 to two hundred and thirty-three, for whatever reason.

Titled by LDS, “Pursuit of reelection hurts governmental advancement” was not my point nor was it suggested. The point was that nothing in the process of getting elected to office has changed, which has enabled it to survive so long. After all ours is the oldest current government.

Our government isn’t in need of advancement especially by the national government; any change to the Constitution as allowed by it must receive a three-fourths majority of the states. Any change put forward by the federal government (U.S. Congress) also must receive the states' three-fourths approval.

It is the U.S. Congress’ responsibility to effect laws by vote and signed by the president; no amendment has been effected which allows unelected bureaucrats to create law beyond the scope as defined by congress. That our current federal government is shirking its responsibilities off to agencies is not an advancement but is a way of not being held responsible for government action the next election. They had little problem effecting their pay before the 27th Amendment was passed; currently about $193,400 and benefits, which they collect regardless of performance.

Our government is the most advanced government, a constitutional republic originally accepted by a vote of the people, which New Hampshire was the deciding vote.

Gerald Brooks

Meredith