In­cum­bent’s oath of of­fice and the Con­sti­tu­tion

Maryland Independent - - Community Forum -

Bev­erly Bowen’s let­ter [“In­cum­bents, re­call your oath and find your spine,” Aug. 17] high­lights the weak­ness in our leg­is­la­ture and in­ef­fec­tive in­cum­bents and a strong need for term lim­its.

The oath re­quires sup­port­ing the Con­sti­tu­tion which is also the for­got­ten re­quire­ment of all judges.

The ju­di­cial branch’s main pur­pose is to keep the other branches in line, not make laws. The po­lit­i­cal par­ties and large me­dia giants (TV and news­pa­pers — such as the New York Times, Wash­ing­ton Post, etc.) are tr ying to get judges ap­pointed on ide­ol­ogy. (As I write this I think maybe Trump should tem­per his wrath to the of­fend­ing news­pa­pers, the ones and like kind, that I quit read­ing.) TV and me­dia giants try­ing to in­flu­ence our elec­tions, to me, are as bad as for­eign gov­ern­ments when they se­lec­tively with­hold the truth.

The en­dorsers of the Con­sti­tu­tion prob­a­bly never imag­ined pro­fes­sional politi­cians as a ca­reer — get­ting rich in of­fice — in­stead of cit­i­zens go­ing to rep­re­sent con­stituents then re­turn­ing home. They couldn’t an­tic­i­pate the cur­rent life ex­pectancy. They would pick ex­pe­ri­enced peo­ple to sup­port the Con­sti­tu­tion, not change it for ide­ol­ogy.

Term lim­its, then re­tire­ment (or reap­point­ment) would be good for Supreme Court jus­tices. Jim Hill, Wel­come

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.