This coming Thursday is a special day.  In addition to being the annual National Day of Reason-- always the first Thursday in May-- since that happens to fall this year on May the Fourth it's also Star Wars Day as well.  ("May the Fourth be with you.")  And it's the 40th anniversary of the franchise, to boot.  It's a propitious convergence.  In these times when America is undergoing a dangerous flirtation with Fascism, we need to realize that Fascism is "the Dark Side of the Force".  And we need the power of Reason to combat the Dark Side.  We certainly don't need to let things get any more unreasonable.

Two significant distinctions for this Thursday.  Is there anything else special about the day?  No.  Nothing at all.

Sincerely,

Stephen Van Eck

Rushville, PA

Many Pennsylvanians trust their beloved pets to the care of their local veterinarian because they know veterinarians provide compassionate care for companion animals. However, fewer Pennsylvanians are aware of the important role veterinarians play in protecting the food supply and supporting public health. Whether caring for a family pet or eradicating disease that would adversely impact the food supply, your Pennsylvania veterinarian was likely educated at the only veterinary school in the state – The University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine (Penn Vet).

Since its inception, Penn Vet has received funding from Pennsylvania, that is until the most recent state budget proposal. That funding has supported the education of students like me, who face significant financial barriers.

We must restore funding to Penn Vet immediately. Here’s why: The protection of our food supply is critical. Penn Vet’s swine disease surveillance programs cover 1.29 million hogs on 547 farms, reducing the spread of disease. Nearly 300 dairy herds in Pennsylvania utilize Penn’s Dairy Analyzer computer program, increasing the amount of milk produced to between 23,000 to 32,000 pounds of milk (significantly higher than the 20,000-pound average), which is critical in a world with more mouths to feed and fewer animals to produce that food. Finally, the $10,000 annual subsidy provided to Pennsylvania students like me helps to reduce the average of $193,570 in debt faced by veterinarians upon graduation.

These are just a few examples. Let’s take the proper steps to ensure we have a safe and healthy food supply for all Pennsylvanians and that we continue to have the veterinarians needed to protect that food supply. Our legislators must restore Penn Vet’s 2017-18 funding in the state budget.

Sincerely,

Gabrielle Faragasso

Montrose, PA 

The Supreme Court is looking like a retirement community. Several members are ready to hang up their robes and check out. Two are octogenarians, and a third is fast approaching his 80th year. Add two more justices who are in the twilight of their 6th decade, and that's more than half the court. Openings are in the offing.

President Trump's second SCOTUS appointment is on the horizon. It will be the most important decision he will ever make. It is certain to create a majority voting bloc that will steer the political course of the United States for the next 30 years.

Crucially important is how this five-member majority will read the Constitution.

There are four ways to interpret the Constitution. Each one lends itself to an entirely different understanding of the 229-year-old document:

(1) Conservative: disposed to perverse or restore traditional values and mores;

(2) Liberal: favorable to progress or reform in political, social, or religious : affairs;

(3) Pragmatic: independent of conservative or liberal bias; it takes a

what-works-best approach;

(4) A Living Document: a view that adapts the historic document to rapidly changing social customs and technological innovations.

The problem is that all four are wrong. Here's why.

Conservative is probably the most popular among blue-collar workers. Technological developments---robotics, computers, outsourcing, together with cheap labor from South American undercutting wages---make for a conservative workforce.

The elderly are also among the most conservative. They can remember a few decades back to an America that was a different place. A better place they say.

But what was conservative in the 18th century when the Founding Fathers drafted the Constitution and its reincarnation in the 21st century are like fraternal twins; they have the same parents but are uniquely different.

Conservatism is not, never was, tethered to an unmovable mooring bollard. The unsettling fact is that conservatism is a work in progress; it changes decade by decade.

What about liberalism?

Liberalism has its greatest audience among the young and better educated. It appeals to the radical nature of those in their early decades. They and their progressive professors are anxious to right the wrongs of yesteryear.

Lamentably, the left's bloodless coup is a never-ending uprising against established social practices, speech, and conduct. For the past 60 years, this nation has been in the throes of this ongoing revolt with no end in sight.

Like conservatism, liberalism causes social instability and foments turmoil.

Pragmatism seems the best choice. It is not rooted in doctrine, whether conservative or liberal; if it works, then do it. Ahh, but who decides what works best; indeed, does anyone have complete certainty of what is best? Its failings are in the seed of human fallibility.

Lastly, the Living Document interpretation. This viewpoint adapts the Constitution to the evolving society it governs. The shortfall here is that, like beauty, it is in the eye---or, in this case, the mind---of the beholder. This mode is the slipperiest; the Constitution can mean anything, to anyone, at any time.

So, is there no way to give the Constitution a shared societal understanding? Indeed there is, and it's one that is familiar to all of us.

Have you ever signed a contract for a mortgage, bank loan for a car, a prenuptial agreement, a will or a lease? How are these contracts interpreted? They are carefully drawn in clear, precise English. Their meanings are derived from the words and their ordinarily understood definitions.

One cannot go before a judge and say, Your Honor, this is what I think the contract actually means. If one could do that, it would lead to the nullification of all contracts. A contract that means anything to everyone means nothing to all. One is obliged to understand and accept contracts as what they are commonly understood to mean. In constitutional terms, it's called Originalism.

Originalism is the method of constitutional interpretation based on the intent of its authors.

It's nothing new or esoteric; it's how we understand all contracts. Why should the Constitution, America's social contract between the people and its government, be read differently?

President Trump, though a pragmatist at heart, can do no better than to nominate an originalist for his second High Court position, as he did with his first.

Sincerely,

Bob Scroggins

New Milford, PA