Do it right or get out
How can anyone “forget” the picture of Master Sgt. Todd Nelson on the front page of WHT’s May 28 edition?
This picture is a two-sided sword. One side is that of a hero (hero is defined as anyone who has been in actual combat) who has suffered the physical wounds that accompany combat — usually inflicted by an unseen enemy. The other side is of an American soldier who has been deprived of a normal life, whose injuries have caused great mental and emotional anguish to his loved ones, and lasting nightmare images to those comrades who first attended Marine Sgt. Nelson when he was wounded. All this in a country who was never a threat to the U.S. and whose (many) leaders want only our money and not our presence.
How many more Marine Sgt. Nelsons does the U.S. have to sacrifice before we stop letting the politicians run the war; if we must send over troops into combat, let the military professionals be in charge. Do it right or get out. Prolonged “conflicts” are not worth the sacrifice.
Col. William Ludwick
U.S. Marine Corps, Ret.
The court will decide
I, for one am truly impressed by the work that was done by Mr. Schulman in his letter to WHT May 31 regarding the “fitness” of candidates based on his citation-laden argument for mandatory support for same sex marriage.
And to think that Ted Olsen and Daved Boies were retained to fight Prop 8 in California before the 9th Circuit. No doubt, the author of said letter could have been happy to provide a brief for them and for use when the issue comes before the U. S. Supreme Court.
The three-judge panel of the 1st Circuit determination on May 31 found the Defense of Marriage Act to be unconstitutional but stayed any action until the Supreme Court makes a determination. The Defense of Marriage Act is currently the law of the land and following Mr. Schulman’s overarching constitutionality agument. Until such time as it’s overturned, it is to be enforced. This pre-empts any discussion relative to the constitutionality of the law. As long as it has not been overturned, it must be defended and enforced. The current administration has chosen not to defend DOMA in the courts, as a matter of its preference, and has unilaterally determined that it is unconstitutional — without a Supreme Court ruling?
Is that in accordance with the Constitution, Mr. Schulman?
The only litmus test that is to be applied to candidates is that of upholding the Constitution and the subset here is that of laws as they exist today. By that logic, the current incumbent of the White House is “not fit to serve.” One cannot unilaterally decide which laws are to be enforced based on their personal tenets.
I’m not in a position to accept or reject the legal citations of Mr. Schulman’s letter, as I have neither the educational background nor legal training to do so. I would only submit that the Supreme Court does not normally get ahead of situations wherein a preponderance of states have staked out a common position. Most states have addressed the same-sex issue with the passage of definitive laws, just as most states have taken objection to Obamacare. I believe the court will find same sex marriage as unacceptable as Obamacare.
We shall see.