Follow the logic on amnesty vote
The president has stated more than a dozen times he cannot impose amnesty for undocumented aliens in the United States but insists Congress fund a proposal to do just that. If it is unconstitutional for the president to change the law, as he proposes, is it not unconstitutional to fund that change? If that logic about the illegality of funding holds, how can the president, Sens. Alexander and Corker, and Rep. Fleischmann vote to fully fund this amnesty and not violate their oath of office to “support and defend” the Constitution of the United States? Further, if our Tennessee representatives will not follow their oath of office, should they not be recalled and replaced by the citizens of Tennessee?
Dan McIntire, Ooltewah
You can always help the poor
Robin Smith editorialized (Feb. 16) that welfare consumes so much of the federal budget that it could prevent repair to the Chickamauga lock. She criticized those protesting the seven state legislators who stopped a vote to expand Medicaid, calling their staged funeral procession “laughable and insulting.” She cited a study that claimed disability insurance was being abused, never considering the hurdles to this insurance are high, and that many disabled prefer to work. Before criticizing, she should read biblical passages pertaining to money and possessions. They show that those who call advocates for the poor “insulting and laughable” besmirch God. In Mark 14:1-9, Jesus’ disciples criticized the expense of anointing Jesus, because the money could be used for the poor. He said, “She has prepared my body for burial. You can show compassion for the poor any time you wish.” We have constant opportunities to help the disadvantaged without federal subsidies. If Ms. Smith and every Christian applied their compassion any time they wished, we could abolish federal welfare. We have the opportunity to live the Gospel. That is neither laughable nor insulting.