U.S. Constitution's words should not be politically warped

David R. Kramer's Feb. 28 letter is among the very best I have read in recent memory. He points out succinctly how our Constitution and a process by which it can be amended when needed has served to allow this country and its people to excel like no other country on earth.

I am glad that Mr. Kramer's letter appeared in Sunday's Herald where many people would see it.

Unfortunately, revisionists (including this sitting president) who resent the Constitution seek to warp the meaning of the words in the Constitution in a way that suits their political bent.

In my opinion, over the past 50 years we have seen nine people in black robes make major decisions in areas that should never have come before the Supreme Court. The results of some of their decisions have been harmful to this nation and its people.

The Constitution is neither liberal nor conservative; it is the certified blueprint by which this nation is built. Those who are appointed to the court have a sacred duty to apply the law as it is written regardless of "who" appointed them. Unfortunately, for the people and the nation, the reality is the Supreme Court is politicized and "that" is why appointments to the court need to be by constitutional constructionist -- if our Constitution is to mean anything.

I remember Chris Matthews stating how he got a thrill down his leg in anticipation of Barack Obama's election. As for me, I got a chill down my spine that has steadily gotten worse as I considered the events as they have taken place over the past seven years.

Patrick Neylan

Bradenton

This story was originally published March 6, 2016 at 12:00 AM with the headline "U.S. Constitution's words should not be politically warped ."