By allowing ads to appear on this site, you support the local businesses who, in turn, support great journalism.
Tone down the rhetoric on ‘insurrection’
Public Forum.jpg

To the editor:

In response to the letter of Jan. 13, 2021, from Sharon McGinness, and similar thoughts echoed by others, I have two points.

First of all, any legislator voting to reject the electoral votes of any state is perfectly within his or her rights. It is not some kind of criminal act of insurrection, as she asserted, but is just another safeguard built into the checks and balances the founders put into the Constitution. One must ask, if it is so clearly wrong to vote no in this instance, then why is Congress called on to conduct a vote in the first place?

Secondly, in the midst of the overblown reaction to the Capitol riot, I have been motivated to look up the definition of “insurrection.” Webster defines it as “an uprising against governmental or political authority, or a rising up of individuals to prevent the execution of laws.” Voting to reject the electoral votes from certain states until Congress can conduct an investigation of the election does not fit that definition. However, the actions of several cities and states to prevent the enforcement of immigration laws by declaring that they are “sanctuary” cities or states arguably does fit it. Immigration laws are federal laws, and sanctuary places are acting to prevent the enforcement thereof. Why don’t we hear accusations of insurrection against officials in those jurisdictions?

Finally, I hope that in these turbulent times Ms. McGinniss, as a responsible citizen and an elected official might tone down her rhetoric a smidge, because accusing Roger Marshall of insurrection, and calling for his resignation or recall is unfounded, hysterical and inflammatory.

Steven C. Flanders