Letters to the Editor: War powers reveal the flaw in the originalism doctrine

To the editor: The originalism doctrine is a fabricated cover story for the accomplishment of long-standing hard-right policy objectives (“On birthright citizenship, the Supreme Court originalists split on history and Trump,” July 12). The flawed logic underlying the doctrine is glaringly evident in the sphere of war powers.

With the advent of nuclear weapons, a consensus developed for allowing the president to go to war almost immediately, with no time to seek congressional authorization, in the event of a Soviet attack. Since that time, more than one president has initiated surprise military strikes without prior congressional authorization in the name of national security. Most observers of whatever political stripe would acknowledge that in many other ways, power has continued to flow to the executive at the expense of the other two branches.

It is high time that the conservative Supreme Court justices removed their heads from the sand, took a clear-eyed look at our real-life modern government and reined in the grossly overreaching executive. This would be a true return to the extraordinary original design of our Constitution.

William L. Winslow, Santa Monica

..

To the editor: Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote, “The Constitution is an enduring document,” but its rules and meaning must adjust to “modern situations that were unknown or unanticipated by the Constitution’s Framers.”

In the age of single-shot muskets that took 15 seconds to reload, the framers could not have conceived of semiautomatic weapons that can fire up to eight rounds a second.

So, will Justice Kavanaugh apply the same legal theory of adjusting to modern situations the next time a case involving a state or local government trying to ban semiautomatic weapons appears before the Supreme Court? Don’t hold your breath, as I’m sure hypocrisy will prevail over consistency.

Robert Hamm, San Dimas