Letters to the Editor

Judicial law?

Peter Parisi’s column (“Taming judicial activism,” Commentary, yesterday) is right on the money. Why should we worry about terrorists in black robes taking away our freedom when judges in black robes are already doing it?

One subject I would like to see discussed is the stricture in the U.S. Constitution that “Judges shall hold their offices during good Behaviour.” Mr. Parisi’s reference to the proposed amendment for a 10-year review of judges fits into existing language.

Also, any discussion of judicial activism should include the constitutional guarantee to states of “a Republican Form of Government.” Since when does a three-judge panel have the right to overturn the will of the people’s elected representatives or the will of the people’s direct vote? Is it good behavior or republican for an unelected judge to mandate how the people’s tax money is to be spent?

Our Founding Fathers had some very good ideas. Too bad some of our activist judges are not familiar with them.

THOMAS M. WIKTOREK

Blytheville, Ark.

Diplomatic moves

In his Dec. 30 Op-Ed titled “A diplomatic affair,” former Ambassador to Hungary Donald Blinken makes some valid points, especially when he reminds us that “the role of the American ambassador has never been more critical” than now, in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks and the invasion of Iraq.

There is a larger issue that Mr. Blinken does not address. The American people deserve the best possible representation at our 164 missions around the world. The practice and art of diplomacy — whether encouraging Saudi Arabia to deal with domestic extremism or keeping together the fragile new coalition in Afghanistan — require experience, patience and understanding. Representing America is not a job for dilettantes or amateurs whose backgrounds often bear little trace of the standards in the 1980 Foreign Service Act: An ambassador “should possess clearly demonstrated competence to perform the duties of a chief of mission, including … useful knowledge of the principal language … and knowledge and understanding of the history, the culture, the economic and political institutions, and the interests of that country and its people. … Contributions to political campaigns should not be a factor.”

The American Foreign Service Association, “the voice of the Foreign Service,” has never accepted any quota for political appointees in its diplomatic missions. For the very reasons Mr. Blinken cites, backed by unfortunate experience, political appointees too often bail out or exhibit conduct that provokes their premature return to the United States. For these very reasons, the AFSA advocates that qualified, experienced career Foreign Service officers head our overseas diplomatic missions.

Despite the language of the law, too many people are named ambassadors only because they, their spouses or friends made or raised lavish contributions to political campaigns. Their seriousness of purpose and qualifications are often questionable. The American people are not well served when such people represent them.

The AFSA contends that the overriding principle guiding the ambassadorial selection process must be, Why not the best? All candidates must be judged according to the highest standards. We submit that the experienced, highly qualified professionals of the Foreign Service are the best candidates to uphold the high standards of diplomacy and to defend our country’s interests abroad. In such times, we cannot afford to settle for less.

JOHN LIMBERT

President

American Foreign Service Association

Washington

Correction: The author of yesterday’s letter “Check the numbers” was incorrectly identified. The author’s correct name is Paul D. Lowman Jr.

Preserving all species

Critics of the Endangered Species Act, such as Michael De Alessi (“The Endangered Species Act,” Op-Ed, Dec. 26), noted the law’s 30th anniversary by citing its poor recovery record and arguing for its repeal.

While it is true that only 14 species, including the bald eagle and peregrine falcon, have recovered and seven have gone extinct since the law’s enactment in 1973, Mr. De Alessi misses the point. Of the more than 1,200 species listed nationwide as endangered or threatened, about 99 percent of them are still around precisely because of the ESA. Species and their habitat, harmed by decades of human activities, are not recovering overnight, but populations are stabilizing or increasing in number. They could do even better if we adequately funded recovery programs.

It makes sense for Congress to consider improvements to the act, but we should not repeal the law. Perhaps the next cure to SARS or mad cow disease lies in a plant species. We will never know if we let species go extinct.

REP. NICK J. RAHALL II

Ranking Democratic member

House Committee on Resources

Washington: Would it not be simpler to just make it illegal to be an illegal alien?

TED DUNLAP

Nampa, Idaho

•

Wednesday’s article about Delegate Thomas C. Wright’s proposed bill to prohibit illegal aliens from carrying guns details one more example of unnecessary laws. Federal code Title 8 USC 922(g)(5) specifically provides punishment up to 10 years in federal prison for illegal aliens who possess firearms. Why not strictly enforce the existing law?

The article stated, “Federal law already makes it illegal for an illegal alien to carry a gun, but it’s difficult to convict anyone of the offense in a timely manner.” And why is that? If “(illegal alien) potential terrorists and drug dealers” are already in violation of numerous laws involving firearms, terrorism, drugs and illegal status, passing another law will not solve the problem. Fix the system.

DOUGLASS A. SULLIVAN

Cohutta, Ga.

Distinguishing red from blue

Ralph Z. Hallow’s article, “Americans deeply split over politics” (Nation, Wednesday) attempted to address the “significant demographic and ideological differences between … blue and red states.”

However, the ways attempted to identify the differences between the two populations — namely individuals’ personal opinions on tax cuts, homosexual rights, religion and gun ownership — were misguided. The choice of those politically contrived issues to attempt to understand the great American political divide fails to comprehend the true nature of the underlying motivations of voters today.

I would suggest, instead, that looking to see if there were differences in attitudes about self-reliance, personal responsibility and a willingness to make personal sacrifices might point not only to the true differences across the great divide in our country today, but might also serve as indicators of what the future of our society and culture holds.

TOM CHANDEL

Brunswick, Maine