Letters to the editor Dec. 6

Fuller is slow to listen

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see the increased hostility in our community toward our LGBTQ neighbors. So I was heartened to read the Daily Inter Lake news story checking in with our queer neighbors after the horrifying Colorado Springs shooting.

I’m grateful that Glacier Queer Alliance is part of our community, bearing public witness that our neighbors matter — all of them. I was very moved to read director Bryan Bebb’s remarks about providing support to those feeling the traumatic hostility right now and moved by GQA’s efforts to provide extra layers of support at the holidays — often a difficult time for LGBTQ neighbors due to family rejection and estrangement. Bebb explained the lack of safety many are feeling and the dilemma of how to remain active in the community but also protect safety, indicating there are no easy answers. We need to hear these things.

My hope that lawmakers would be sobered by the violence in Colorado Springs and would read Bebb’s comments with a hearing heart were shattered by Rep. John Fuller’s rabbit trail of a letter to the editor on the Dec. 1 opinion page. He seems to think he has absolutely nothing to learn from another perspective. That’s a profoundly unhelpful way for a public leader to conduct himself when hearing concerns of constituents, particularly when constituents express (warranted) fear for their safety.

Fuller likes to quote the Bible. I’d like to remind him of a quotation found in James, where the apostle writes, “Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger.”

Fuller seems to be quick to speak but extremely slow to listen. He need not agree with his constituents on every matter, but he does need to actually listen to understand the hostility and harm his pet bills are stirring up.

— Rebecca Miller, Kalispell

Constitutional Convention

Responding to the letter “Constitutional Convention would be very risky” in the Nov 27 Daily Inter Lake, there the opponents of Convention of States go again, calling it a ConCon. For the record, a ConCon could be risky but that’s not what COS is.

COS will follows Article V, the state option, provided for in the Constitution Mr. Regan calls perhaps divinely inspired, but then later says the writers ignored the Articles of Confederation. No they didn’t. They tried to observe the AOC rules, but found that these rules didn’t allow a national government, which is what they all knew they needed. So they wrote a new constitution. The Constitution these opponents hold up to us is sufficient to address a runaway Washington.

The spirit of the Constitution will still be intact. Strengthened. The 27 Amendments we have so far all came from 2/3 of Congress and ratification by 3/4 of the states, as one of the methods in Article V, and COS will use the Staten option.

Congress is the problem, and Congress will be bypassed. Many states have proposed amendments, but they never reached the 2/3 threshold.

COS does not want a new form of government. We are following the Constitution. We want explicit limitations on the federal government in areas where Washington is already abusing the Constitution. It’s mind-boggling that so many who complain about Washington ignore the fact that just electing new legislators isn’t working.

There is no danger of a “new Constitution.” Did all 27 of the existing amendments give us 27 new constitutions? Did we have 27 ConCons? It seems only that these opponents are fine with Congress calling everything, and that’s the problem COS will address. The worst that can happen is that nothing will happen.

The COS stated platform is to limit the federal government in three areas; Federal term limits, federal jurisdiction, and fiscal restraints. That’s restraints, not recommendations. And three is not one area, as Mr. Regan says.

— Eric Knutson, Dayton