Letters to the Editor

Letters to the editor

McConnell, Crapo and Risch

So, Senator Mitch McConnell, leader of the Senate, has stated he will support the president in his effort to gain control of the appropriations responsibility given to the Senate by the Constitution in order to build a wall that the majority of the American public feels unwarranted. Of course, the two senators from Idaho followed suit. I wonder why these three are still in Washington? By supporting the president’s action they are telling me they no longer want to perform their duties. They should vacate their offices and return to Kentucky and Idaho to pursue another line of work. Perhaps their vacated offices could be rented to the president’s friends from China, Russia and North Korea so they could strengthen their efforts to destroy our democratic republic.

I write this as a veteran who took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, and while I do not speak for anyone other than myself, I can’t help but think there are many veterans who would feel they have been “sucker-punched” by what has taken place over the past two years. The silence of the Republican Party is deafening.

Harold R. Brizee, colonel, U.S. Army (Ret.), Boise

Child marriage

The Bill of Rights was not government overreach. Its purpose was to remove ambiguity and defend the weak. Any liberty, corporate or individual, ends when its exercise imposes tyranny on another. Any exception to said limits by any party for religious or any other exercise renders the Constitution not worth the parchment it’s printed on.

One of the main purposes of HB98 would have been to put an end to the ability to force a child to be married to someone much older. Under current state law, such marriages can be imposed without the child’s consent. HB98 would therefore have been a bill of rights to a group of citizens, particularly young girls. An empowerment to ensure life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

In striking down HB98, the Idaho Legislature has stood against human rights, and the Constitution. It has taken away the legal “guns” from a vulnerable part of the population, rendering them subject to tyranny. I think an explanation outside of the usual nonsense is due.

Richard Boozel, Star