Constitutional tweaks

Updates needed

Regarding “Justice Thurgood Marshall’s answer to the originalists” (HoustonChronicle.com, Thursday), the article focused too much on Thurgood Marshall’s criticism of the U.S. Constitution. He was not opposed to the document. He was more against the originalists and for the growth and development of the Constitution.

The Constitution was an amazing document at a time when it was common practice to own a slave and to think women did not deserve the same rights as men. As time moved on, we have learned of the mistakes in the original document and have created amendments to fix the problems. I agree with Marshall's ideas that if society is changing and how we view the world is changing, then the laws we abide by should be changing or updated as well.

The Constitution is one of the most important documents in our nation's history and continues to affect our day-today lives. It shows us a way that we can live our lives, and it makes it possible that everyone has the right to the pursuit of a good life. Eric Charles Joekel, Houston

Originalists

I enjoyed the op-ed, and I believe that the ideas are represented fairly to all parties. There are some points that I agree with and some that I do not. Justice Thurgood Marshall represented key points across the issue of interpreting the Constitution. The op-ed could have been more interesting if the originalists’ argument had been presented.

I agree with Marshall in that the Constitution was not perfect and ready for democratic usage after the Philadelphia Convention. He is correct in that it required, “several amendments, a Civil War, and momentous social transformation to attain the system of constitutional government, and its respect for the individual freedoms and human rights, we hold as fundamental today.” There were a lot of things wrong with the Constitution from the beginning, and it is probably still not perfect as many politicians from all parties take advantage of it by loose interpretation. William Elkins, Houston

Red flag on Booker

Regarding “‘Spartacus’ moment was pure theatrics” (Page A9, Tuesday), when Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., had a “Spartacus” moment, I simultaneously had a “Crystal Ball” moment. Booker chose on his own to break Senate disclosure rules because he personally felt it in the best interest of the American people to do so. At that moment, I foresaw a presidential hopeful who would justify, all by himself, breaking other rules in his personal judgment to be in the best interest of the people.

If one is looking for tyrannical leadership: Here’s Cory Booker ready to go to work. Lester Smolensky, Houston

Thinking ahead

Regarding “Is Trump ‘mad’? (Page A14, Friday), the editorial is urging the “silent resistance” to stand up and show its face. But there is a better way to resolve this potential crisis: Trump’s enablers must stop enabling him.

We, the citizenry, have been subjected to an endless stream of books and articles and interviews and such that suggest that Trump is, shall we say, a lousy president. But so long as his base continues to cheer him on, nothing will change.

But consider the consequences if his support dried up: It is feasible that Trump might wake up and realize the seriousness of his role and would quit acting like an immature, dishonest, belligerent, uneducated, narcissistic brat. Or, he might resign. And Mike Pence takes over. Not a bad outcome, actually, if you’re a hard-core Republican. David M. Woods, Houston