Fast power transfer…
In May, the British Prime Minister called parliamentary elections for July 4, leaving just two months for the campaign. Polls closed at 10 pm, and by morning it was clear that the opposition had won, so the Prime Minister graciously conceded and went to Buckingham Palace to hand in his resignation to King Charles.
Meanwhile, large vans were lined up outside 10 Downing Street, the Prime Minister’s official residence, removing the Prime Minister’s belongings. Soon afterwards, the newly elected party leaders visited King Charles, who instructed them to formally form a new government, before returning to Downing Street to deliver their first speech as Prime Minister. All completed with grace and harmony in less than 48 hours.
Philip John Main, East Dallas
…and a six-week campaign
Consider the irony: the British election took place on the Fourth of July, America’s Independence Day, a day that some Brits consider Thanksgiving and celebrate the removal of troublesome colonists.
Today, Britons are even more grateful. Their election campaign was thankfully short, lasting just six weeks. With a simple resignation from the losers and a request from King Charles to the winners to form a new government, power was swiftly transferred the next day. There was no year of campaigning, no electoral college, no denial of the results, no lawsuits, no street protests, no storming of Parliament.
The US presidential election is scheduled for November 5th, which in the UK coincides with Guy Fawkes Day, when bonfires and fireworks are lit to celebrate Fawkes’ attempt (or thwarted attempt, depending on your perspective) to blow up the Houses of Parliament in London in 1605.
Very sadly, this seems emblematic of the current political situation in the United States. The last election saw a similar storming of the Capitol. Since then, anger seems to have only grown rather than subsided. Let’s sincerely pray that there will be no Guy Fawkes Day in the United States this November.
Ronald Briggs, Lake Texoma
Support the separation of church and state
“Make America Christian Again? Texas Has Sinking into a Toxic Mix of Religion and Politics that the Founding Fathers Would Not Have Been Amused,” by Alan W. Steelman, Sunday Opinion.
Steelman aptly points out the dangers of intertwining politics and religion. Separation of church and state is crucial to upholding democratic values and ensuring freedom for all. We must uphold this principle to protect our Constitution and our diverse society.
Robert Seward, Mesquite
The Founders Didn’t Exclude Christianity
Steelman’s column is based on, if not outright lies, no basis in the history of Christianity in America. Separation of church and state was included to prevent any particular denomination or sect from favoring any one group based on their traditions or interpretation of the Bible. It was never intended to exclude Christian faith from governmental affairs and decisions.
Our Constitution and laws are based on the values and decrees of the Bible. Everything this former Congressman writes is heresy and lies, typical of current and past Washington politicians.
Charles Branscombe, Grand Prairie
Why the Court Lost Support
Views of the Supreme Court’s decisions are at an all-time low, and not just because we don’t agree with their decisions. When justices tell U.S. senators that they respect precedential law, but then they overturn decades of precedent, we know they’ve been lying.
We know that judges are hypocritical when they eliminate rights because they were not clearly stated in the original Constitution, then create new rights that were not in the Constitution. After we express concerns after reading the decision in black and white, we resent being spoken to condescendingly and then being told we are hysterical for believing what they wrote in black and white.
We recognize judges as politicians when they invent new principles to justify their decisions and then ignore them in other cases. We are astonished at their arrogance when judges say they will be the arbiters of medical, scientific, financial, and other expertise.
Finally, when the justices say that at the end of the day there is one person above the law, it is hard to believe that it is the U.S. Supreme Court.
Cathy Murphree, Richardson
Chevron’s decision is correct
Subject: “Agencies Have Expertise,” by Carol Stevenson, Saturday Letters.
The Supreme Court’s Chevron decision strips some powers from the executive branch. To be sure, executive branches have expertise that the courts don’t have. But the courts have access to independent expertise that they can use to inform and advance understanding of complex issues.
The problem with Chevron was that when an individual or corporation was injured by a government agency’s interpretation and enforcement of the law, their only recourse was to go to court. If courts automatically “deferred” to agency interpretations and even expansions of the law, plaintiffs were unfairly disadvantaged and had few recourses. This led to agency autocratic behavior — a “do it our way or get rid of it” attitude.
The letter writers are wrong in that this decision does not permit courts to arbitrarily block clearly defined and definitive law. The issue concerns an area not clearly addressed and not well defined in the law, and the agencies made an interpretation that they felt was within the bounds of the law’s ambiguity, i.e., was “good faith” and therefore enforceable under the Chevron Act.
Neil Akerblom, Dallas
We welcome your comments via letters to the editor. Please see our guidelines. Send your letter hereIf you have any problems with the form, please email us. Email:
