Letters to the Editor

How about activist judges?

In Monday’s Commentary section, former congressman BobBarrbabbledabout “Amendmentitis.” While his comments on a Victims Rights Amendment may have merit, he uses far too broad a brush to paint all potential constitutional amendments as meritless. Mr. Barr fails to mention activist courts usurping power not given them, nor the failure of Congress (even while Mr. Barr was in Congress) to restrict the courts’ jurisdiction, or the failure of Congress to remove activist judges. When the people’s elected representatives forsake their oaths and their constituents, extreme measures such as constitutional amendments are all that remain if government by, of, and for, the people may survive in our republic.

Mr. Barr’s babbling belies these facts.

CHARLES D. JONES

Columbus, Ohio

Bush chokes on Clean Air Act

My thanks to The Washington Times for its coverage of clean-air issues, such as the recent article on the Environmental Protection Agency’s announcement that certain counties do not meet new standards for ground-level ozone (“EPA says local air quality fails, new controls needed,” Metropolitan, Friday).

Based on previous proposals by the Bush administration, I am skeptical about the conviction to get serious about cleaning up the air we breathe. For example, President Bush’s so-called Clear Skies initiative would slow air-quality improvement currently mandated by the Clean Air Act. The recent attempt to allow aging power plants to expand without putting on modern pollution-control devices also raised serious questions about this administration’s resolve.

EPA Administrator Mike Leavitt has an opportunity and deserves a chance to be a strong voice for clean air. Finalizing air-quality regulations in the coming months will be an important benchmark to judge his performance. I hope The Times will continue to report on these developments.

JONATHAN PEARSON

Takoma Park

Give voice to victims

How odd that in his Tuesday Commentary column opposing the Crime Victims’ Rights Amendment (“We, the clutterers … “) Bruce Fein should be commending the “accessibility of the constitution” when the U.S. Constitution is wholly inaccessible to victims of crime. How odd that he should assert that “a crime victim’s authenticity remains in doubt” until a conviction is reached. He should tell that to the parents of a murdered child or the victim of a mugging or an armed robbery, whose authentic trauma is never in doubt and who deserve fair treatment in our justice system.

It is ironic that Mr. Fein, a professed conservative, would find himself defending government action that so demeans the rights and interests of law-abiding citizens. No government should proceed with the prosecution of a criminal case without providing notice to the victim. No government should exclude a victim from the courtroom in a trial concerning events that are arguably the most important events in a victim’s life. No government should force a victim into silence in matters of life-and-death importance to the victim — matters such as decisions to release, offer a plea bargain to or impose a sentence on the defendant. These things are not the subject of “sympathy,” but the fundamental demands of justice, which no decent society should withhold.

Society would be better off to ignore misguided pundits and follow the lead of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the National District Attorneys Association, U.S. State Attorneys General, the Fraternal Order of Police and many others to give voice to victims in criminal cases.

STEVE TWIST

General counsel

National Victims Constitutional Amendment Project

Phoenix

RSVP, please

We, the voting public, are looking forward to presumptive Democratic nominee John F. Kerry’s accepting The Washington Times’ invitation to clarify his statement regarding his meetings with foreign leaders (“An Invitation,” Editorial, Tuesday). Frankly, though, we won’t hold our breath until he fulfills his promise to do so — and for good reason.

Mr. Kerry’s “credibility gap” foil in attacking his opponent, President Bush, is an old trick, skillfully executed by him and his allies to cover up the painfully huge abyss he has created and fallen into by his own propensity to follow the political wind and change his mind easily on major issues.

This is reminiscent of another promise, which he made to his staff when he was chairman of the Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs (1991-1992) — namely, that he would release all documents gathered by the committee. Those included records of sightings of prisoners of war missing in action in Vietnam and depositions made by former veterans, POW families and their advocates, which clearly attested to the fact that American soldiers were still alive and held against their will somewhere in Southeast Asia and not enough had been done to find and rescue them.

Unbelievably and without the slightest concern, Mr. Kerry ordered his staff to shred all documents, including the final report. It was only after objections by staff were made public that Mr. Kerry finally ordered his chief of staff to file a copy — not the original — of the report, a few days after the end of the hearings.

It was a disgraceful attempt to cover up the documented findings, to the detriment of POW families seeking answers about their loved ones, and it was a serious breach of promise.

We ardently wish The Times success in extracting unequivocal answers from the fully nuanced candidate Kerry, if he appears. Perhaps The Times also would like to join the growing chorus of voters who are demanding the release of former Lt. Kerry’s full military medical records in much the same way Mr. Bush released his.

CARIN SALA

Palm Beach, Fla.

Breaking the chains of oil dependency

Donald Lambro gleefully considers forcing Sen. John Kerry to vote against opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil drilling when gasoline prices spike this summer. (“Prices fueling debate,” Commentary, Monday). Sadly, that pretty well sums it up. President Bush is happy to use higher oil prices as an excuse to open up ANWR for his oil buddies and simultaneously score points against Mr. Kerry. Too bad this isn’t a serious energy policy.

The problem is that we are heavily reliant on oil, and global oil production will begin to decline soon. Oil discoveries peaked in the 1960s, and production has exceeded new discoveries since the early 1980s. Many oil geologists see oil production peaking by 2010.

Mr. Bush wants to burn the Arctic oil as soon as possible, fueling our sport utility vehicles for a few more years before we are pumped completely dry, leaving us to the tender mercies of Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), which has the lion’s share of the planet’s remaining oil . As long as we still haven’t burned the Arctic oil, that’s proof to OPEC that we aren’t completely at its mercy. That proof will disappear when we use up the oil.

There may come a day when we decide that it is in our best interests to use up this one-time inheritance in ANWR. Surely, we don’t want to blow it supporting our incredibly wasteful current economy.

CARL HENN

Rockville