It is the nature of most individuals to discredit opponents when they are in fact guilty

To the Editor:

It is the nature of most individuals that when their guilt, either Republican or Democrat, is exposed they attempt to discredit their opponents rather than answer any charges.

At present the Republicans are doing their very best to make us believe that they have not violated the U.S. Constitution. If we put aside the issue of illegal wire-tapping, do we see our president honoring the oath of office that he made as he held his hand on a Bible? The oath that he swore to reads, "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

When taking that oath of office did the president have the intention to bring our troops home, since having troops engaged in combat in a foreign nation without a declaration of war by congress is a violation of the Constitution? Or, was his intent to continue to violate the Constitution since it has become common for presidents to commit this violation?

When taking the oath of office was it his intent to abolish the Department of Education, since that is not specified as a legal way to fund at the federal level? Did he intend to veto expenditures for foreign aid since that is a violation of the Constitution? Or, was it his intent to continue to violate the Constitution. Was it the intention of our president to protect our borders against invasion as specified in the U.S Constitution?

Did he intend to be faithful to his oath of office or was it only a formality to him that he had to go through that has become commonplace at presidential inaugurations? Is voting for this type of person really the lesser of two evils?

Do we want to be subject to the rule of law or to the rule of men? Is it true that power corrupts and that absolute power corrupts absolutely?

Russell Brown