Texas – Given that oaths of office are no longer taken seriously by many federal and state officials, it may be time to treat such oaths as binding as they are in court cases. When a person is preparing to give testimony in a court case, that person swears an oath that they will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. If it is proved that such a person lies and is not faithful to that oath, the penalty is incarceration.
We have now witnessed a U.S. president and U.S. senators and representatives violating their oaths of office to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States of America. Many if not all states also have oaths of office to protect both the federal Constitution and their state constitutions. Those sworn officials who refuse to abide by their oaths should also be held to the same standard.
Our federal Constitution is the only thing we can count on to save us from tyranny. If there are no severe penalties for violating those sacred oaths, I fear for the future.
James R. Wade, Northeast Dallas
Make Medicaid more accessible
Re: “Judge puts end of aid on hold — State trying to kick health provider out of Medicaid program,” Thursday Metro & Business story.
There were two sentences in this article that were headline-worthy.
“It is difficult to qualify for Medicaid in Texas, which has the highest uninsured rate nationwide. A single parent with two children cannot make more than $230 a month.” Read that a few times and digest what the cutoff point for aid is in the great state of Texas. Do we condone such a low bar for help?
Our Republican leaders, who purport to be devoted Christians, pass legislation that permits and actually promotes these economic boundaries. How do these people continue to get reelected by a majority of kind and generous people? The buck stops with us.
Vincentia Civello, Dallas
Teachers are essential workers
I am a doctor, not a teacher, but if it were not for teachers, I wouldn’t be a doctor. Education is the driving machine behind civilization. If they are not essential, then who is? Let’s get teachers vaccinated and get our children back in school! It is just common sense.
William B. Fears, MD, DeSoto
Fair districts needed
Re: “Peek behind redistricting battle lines — Texas politicians who focus on self-preservation will find themselves obsolete,” by Jason Villalba, Sunday Opinion.
Legislatures in many states have gerrymandered districts to a fair-thee-well. At one time, voters picked their representatives. These days, representatives pick their voters. There’s a cost for this.
If you’ve managed to gerrymander your district toward an increasingly conservative group of voters, but it’s necessary to do something needed, but unpopular, will you do what benefits the nation and threaten your reelection, or go for the status quo that’s ultimately harmful?
If election maps were drawn fairly and compactly, with a mix of races, incomes and issues, we’d have better representation, as well as logical and more coherent answers to pressing issues. Representatives wouldn’t have to be wary of displeasing a narrow group, but would have to look to the interests of all in their districts. We’d all benefit.
Kate French, Waxahachie
Keep politicians out of process
Mr. Villalba, thank you for sharing your insight on redistricting in 2010. It perfectly makes the point that I would like to emphasize: “My representative should not be choosing his voters; the voters should be choosing their representative.”
That means the legislator, whose job depends on the outcome, should not be drawing the lines. It is far past time for Texas to put a nonpartisan district drawing committee in place — perhaps five Republicans, five Democrats and five independents.
I don’t want to see a district that is completely rural but comes up into East Dallas like Congressional District 5. I don’t want the city of Austin broken into six districts including one that almost reaches Dallas and another that narrowly snakes to San Antonio (Congressional District 35).
Those districts do not serve their constituents at all because rural and urban voters have quite different priorities. The only considerations should be keeping communities together and limiting the breaking up of school districts. Data on voting propensities should not be included so that districts cannot be gerrymandered to be Republican or Democratic. This would do much to ensure that voters get representatives that work for them and not themselves.
Dorothy Mundy, University Park
Meeting in middle didn’t work
Re: “Meet in the middle on relief,” by Glenn Snyder, Sunday Letters.
What Synder wrote makes sense, except that I remember in the negotiations to pass the Affordable Care Act, Democrats did all they could to get Republican support: They made many changes to accommodate the “loyal opposition,” yet Republicans neither voted for it in significant numbers nor did they ever support it — and still don’t to this day. We are even more partisan now. And it is not about country, in my opinion; it is about power. Why would anyone expect things to be different?
Knocked it out of the park
Re: “10 to remember — America lost 10 Baseball Hall of Famers in 10 months, and I lost 10 friends,” by Dale Petroskey, Sunday Opinion.
One word: Wow. What a great behind-the-scenes look at many of my favorite all-time baseball players. Fantastic baseball players for sure, but even better men. Thank you, Dallas Morning News, for this personal first-hand account of what it truly means to be a Hall of Famer.
