At the risk for being criticized for the correction of another's syntax, I couldn't help but note how the Jan. 25 letter from Stephen Aiken could use some additional support in getting the information across to the readers. No offense intended, Mr. Aiken.
In the first paragraph, instead of the Constitution, I suggest reconsidering "one" purpose when actually there are many. Also, please consider that the Constitution, as written, is really just fine in that it does clearly outline exactly what it intended. The problem here is in attempted interpretations, usually for personal gain.
It appears to me that Sen. Alan Hays has neither read the Constitution carefully along with the Federalist Papers, especially the chapters on Madison wherein he describes the possible pitfalls of risking a constitutional convention (Con-Con).
Space here won't allow an in-depth discussion but the meanings are clear, just as are the words of The Constitution. The problem with it are nearly always the same: some "brain" trying to read something into it that isn't there specifically to gain an end!
Never miss a local story.
About borrowing money, this is specifically intended, only Congress has the power. The problem in Congress members who either haven't read the document or don't understand what they read, a la Pelosi, et al!
Congress has the power to rein in the Obama-crats but, for reasons unknown but suspect, choose to expend tons of useless rhetoric instead.
My heartfelt plea to all good Americans is to be careful what you read and whence it comes. Get a copy of the founding documents and the Federalist Papers and read them over and over until you understand why the left is so hellbent to destroy them all.
My thanks to Mr. Aiken for his letter and to the Herald for publishing them. I hope we see many more.
Rolland S. Freeman