A quick power transfer ...
In May, the British Prime Minister called for Parliamentary elections on July 4. This left a typically short two months for campaigning. Polls closed at 10 p.m. and when it became clear by morning that the opposition party had won, the prime minister delivered a gracious concession speech and went directly to Buckingham Palace and submitted his resignation to King Charles.
In the meantime, large vans were outside No. 10 Downing Street, the prime minister’s official residence, removing his belongings. Soon after, the head of the newly elected party visited King Charles, who formally instructed him to form a new government. He then returned to Downing Street to deliver his first address as prime minister. All accomplished with grace and harmony in less than 48 hours!
Philip John Mein, East Dallas
... And a 6-week campaign
Consider these ironies. Britain’s election was on July 4, American Independence Day. Some Brits consider this their Thanksgiving Day, when they celebrate ridding themselves of those troublesome colonists.
Today, Brits are even more thankful. Their election campaign lasted a mercifully short six weeks. Power was expeditiously transferred the very next day by a simple letter of resignation from the loser and an invitation from King Charles to the winner to form a new government. No year-long campaigning, no Electoral College, no denial of the results, no lawsuits, no protest in the streets, no storming of the Houses of Parliament, etc.
The U.S. election is scheduled for Nov. 5, Guy Fawkes Day in the U.K. Bonfires and fireworks celebrate Fawkes’ attempt (or the thwarting of his attempt, depending on your view) to blow up the Houses of Parliament in London in 1605.
In a very disheartening way, this seems emblematic of the current state of politics in the U.S. Our last election witnessed a similar assault on our Capitol. Passions seem to have grown rather than subsided since then. Let us earnestly hope that we do not have a Guy Fawkes Day in the U.S. come November.
Ronald Briggs, Lake Texoma
Uphold church-state separation
Re: “Make America Christian again? Texas bought in to toxic mix of religion and politics, and the Founding Fathers would not be amused,” by Alan W. Steelman, Sunday Opinion.
Steelman rightly highlights the dangers of intertwining politics and religion. The separation of church and state is crucial to preserving our democratic values and ensuring freedom for all. We must uphold this principle to protect our Constitution and diverse society.
Robert Seward, Mesquite
Founders didn’t exclude Christianity
Steelman’s column is baseless if not just outright lies regarding the history of Christianity in the U.S. The separation of church and state was included to prevent certain denominations or sects from establishing favoritism based on traditions or one group’s interpretation of the Bible. It never was meant to exclude the Christian faith from government affairs or decisions.
Our Constitution and laws are based on biblical values and edicts. What this former congressman writes is all heresy and lies, typical of D.C. politicians, both present and past.
Charles Branscum, Grand Prairie
Why court has lost favor
Favorable views of the U.S. Supreme Court decision are at historic lows. This is not merely due to disagreeing with case outcomes. When justices tell U.S. senators that they respect stare decisis then overturn decades-standing precedents, we realize they lied.
When justices eliminate a right because it’s not specifically in the original Constitution, then create new rights that aren’t in the Constitution, we know they are hypocritical. When we express concern after reading a decision in black and white, then are told we are hysterical if we believe what they wrote in black and white, we resent being talked down to.
When justices make up new principles to justify an outcome then ignore that principle in another case, we recognize they’re politicians. When justices tell us they will be the arbiters of medical, scientific, financial and other expertise, we’re astounded at their hubris.
Finally, when justices tell us there is one person who is above the law after all, it’s hard to believe this is the U.S. Supreme Court.
Cathy Murphree, Richardson
Chevron ruling correct
Re: “Agencies have expertise,” by Carol Stephenson, Saturday Letters.
The Supreme Court Chevron decision does remove some power from administrative agencies. Yes, these agencies do have expertise that a court may not have. However, a court has access to independent expertise that it can use to inform and enhance its understanding of complex issues.
The problem with Chevron was the fact that if an individual or corporate entity was harmed by an agency’s interpretation and implementation of a law, the only recourse was to sue in court. If the courts automatically “deferred” to the agency interpretation and even a possible expansion of a law, the plaintiff was at an unfair disadvantage with little recourse. This led to agency dictatorial behavior — “it’s our way or the highway” attitude.
The letter writer is wrong in that this decision does not allow a court to willy-nilly block a law that is clearly defined and determinative. The issue was about areas that were not clearly addressed and well defined in a law and an agency made an interpretation that it felt was within the vagaries of the law, i.e. “well intentioned” and therefore enforceable under Chevron.
Neal Okerblom, Dallas
We welcome your thoughts in a letter to the editor. See the guidelines and submit your letter here. If you have problems with the form, you can submit via email at letters@dallasnews.com