Cruz to the court
Last April, I wrote that if Donald Trump could surround himself with really competent people, he might be a good president.
Even though I guessed wrong about many of the people I thought Trump would pick, I approve of his selections.
By adding Ted Cruz to the mix as his first nominee to the Supreme Court, he would accomplish two things: If approved, Cruz will have a lifetime appointment to keep him from running against Trump for his second term, and Cruz happens to be qualified for the court in the mold of Antonin Scalia, as Trump promised.
Already, Trump has demonstrated that he understands the “art of the deal.”
Hugh T. Lefler Jr.,
Here we are almost two months past the election and people are still whining about the popular vote.
When the Founders wrote the Constitution, they were worried about some large cities having too much influence.
So they designed the Senate and House to represent us by state, each state getting two senators and representatives based on population.
In the present, Rhode Island has two senators and two representatives, while California has two senators and 53 representatives. That’s all the influence each state is entitled to exert.
This same formula was used in the Constitution to determine the president of the United States. Popular vote by state determines who wins that state’s electoral votes, which is the total of the senators and representatives by each state.
Rhode Island has four and California has 55. Again, that’s all the influence your state is allowed to exert.
Otherwise we wouldn’t have to vote at all, just check the polls in California and appoint whomever leads as president.
The Electoral College is in the Constitution. It allows each state to be relevant, and it’s not going away. Get used to it, and it would be nice if you also understood it.
John Hogg, Bedford
I’m just wondering about the discussions over “bathroom laws.”
How will this law be enforced?
Will we be required to carry our birth certificate with us any time we need to use a public restroom?
Will there be “potty police” stationed outside every public bathroom to check that birth certificate and our genitalia?
Where will these offenses be adjudicated: city courts, county courts, etc.?
And finally: What is the punishment?
In Tuesday’s paper, I learned that Arlington is moving forward with its efforts to make Arlington a smoke-free city. (“Arlington councilwoman putting park smokers on notice”)
Others want to legalize and decriminalize marijuana in Texas.
Marijuana has been linked to cancer and has been shown to lower IQ scores and cause memory issues. Yet the pro-pot movement only likes to promote increased tax revenues, reduced strain on our legal system and medicinal benefits that have yet to be proven unless you believe Sanjay Gupta on CNN.
With healthcare costs soaring, I think a smoke-free city makes a lot of common sense.
Mike Morgan, Colleyville