Editor,
In response to Tylor Nelson's letter in Tuesday's Daily Lobo: Technically, the framers made sure the people weren't responsible for electing the executive.
That's why we have the Electoral College - people like us clearly can't make the right decision. If we did choose our president based on a popular election, we would probably be talking about Al Gore's second term - he won the popular vote in 2000.
I take exception to Nelson aggregating all of America into "The guy who voted for W." To be nit-picky again, the Constitution gives the president his power, not the people. He didn't come ask my permission to command the military or propose legislation to Congress. I mention this because Nelson argues as though each person has signed some petition to grant powers to government. Though we implicitly support the Constitution through citizenship and taxation, equating that with an explicit granting of power is not fair.
Nelson hits on something, then he runs away from it: We are responsible for our elected officials. What he fails to examine is how we are responsible for them when we neither directly choose them nor agree with their decisions.
The Bill of Rights, which came from the debate between those writing the Constitution and those not supporting it, grants us the right to assemble, to freely associate and to express our opinions - no matter how critical of government - and to petition our government when we are dissatisfied.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
What the Bill of Rights does not do is tell us we must always support the executive in his every action simply because he is elected. This was very much a concern of our framers, and is still an important point today. We're allowed to dissent and debate, if not encouraged to do so. Failing to support President Bush when you don't believe he's done a good job - even to the point of accusing him of terrorism - is your right and responsibility. Those who stand up and have their voices counted among those who do not agree are serving as the loyal opposition.
So I ask Nelson: What would you have those who do not agree with the president do? We do not, contrary to Nelson's claim, retain the power to remove him. This power resides in our Congress.
The House has not held any impeachment hearings to determine whether President Bush's actions warrant his removal from office. Citizens have taken responsibility and done what they can - many individuals have contacted their representatives in Congress to ask that the president be impeached, and one organization managed to send a petition to Congress for the same thing.
Again, these people have been responsible. What more does Nelson want them to do? Stage a civil war over their disagreement with President Bush's policies? That hardly seems like the responsible thing to do. Over and over in his tirade against laziness and irresponsibility, I read accusations, but I read no solutions, which seems somewhat lazy and irresponsible.
I ask readers such as Nelson to be less asinine. Writing a letter to the editor of any newspaper isn't lazy and it isn't whining. It's exercising your rights as an American to have your voice heard. My suggestion to Nelson, if civic duty and the responsible exercise of rights bother him, is to get off his lazy ass and read the Constitution.
Jared Thormahlen
UNM student
