Sheriff candidates should take fitness test
My suggestion may be somewhat unorthodox, but why not ask each candidate for the Walla Walla County Sheriff's Office to complete the fitness requirements of newly recruited candidates for the department?
Since this race is being so hotly contested, if I may suggest that the fitness test be conducted in public during the Walla Walla County Fair for all to observe impartially to determine the candidate most fit to be elected our next sheriff.
This may be the most objective way to determine who you would want to follow "if you had to go through a door and you did not know what was on the other side, would you want him to be with you?"
(Quote from Steve Smith, letter to the editor dated July 4).
Romine is best choice for sheriff
Some folks don't seem to understand the Walla Walla County sheriff's race.
To thrive and grow, Walla Walla needs new people and new business to come here. We are all enriched when bright and talented people move here to share their skills. We want them! And we want them to join in right away.
That has nothing to do with who has the right combination of experience and skills to be the next Walla Walla County sheriff. That person is clearly Jim Romine. and anyone who thinks Jim Romine is one of the "good ol' boys" doesn't know Jim Romine.
Jim treats everyone fairly, equally and with respect. No one else makes his decisions for him. He gets to know people, gets all the facts, and thinks for himself. He doesn't ask for favors, and he doesn't want any.
On his Facebook - "Romine for Sheriff" - page he says he will not solicit nor will he accept support from anyone he supervises, evaluates or outranks because he feels it would be unethical for him to do that. That's an honest man!
Jim has 34 years of experience with the Sheriff's Office, more than any other candidate. He is the only candidate who has worked in all departments, 22 years on the road and 12 years as commander of the jail.
He was a sergeant for 13 years before he became a captain, and he's been a captain for 12 years. That means he has more supervisory and administrative experience by a lot than either other candidate. He has more military experience (six years) than either opponent.
Jim's worked patrol, been a resident deputy, started the first K-9 unit solely on contributions, been a master K-9 trainer and managed the jail. He was mayor of Prescott for four years and is still on the Planning Commission.
He knows the criminal element in the county and he cares passionately about every citizen of Walla Walla County. Jim Romine is the best choice for sheriff. Please join me in supporting him.
Scott G. Erwin
U-B's take on Second Amendment is correct
Not all people truly understand the Second Amendment of the Constitution so I find it refreshing on the rare occasion when a newspaper gets it right.
The U-B editorial of June 29 got it exactly right. The specific portion to which I refer is, "The Founding Fathers wanted to make sure ordinary citizens could rise up against the government if necessary. The Founding Fathers were not referring to a state militia that looks like today's government-run National Guard." Spot on.
The Founders feared the power of a standing army (including a National Guard-type militia that is controlled by the government) and believed the only true and final protection against a government "gone rogue" (read unconstitutional) would be a well-armed populace even more powerful than that standing army.
The all-important Second Amendment - the only one of the 10 with the "shall not be infringed" caveat - was and is that final protection. The federalist view was that a standing army would not be a threat to liberty because the people were armed and easily an overmatch for any possible army the government could raise (and misuse).
They did not view any of the powers given to government in the Constitution as authorizing it to disarm the people just as they did not view those powers as authorizing the government to infringe any of the other rights protected in the Bill of Rights.
A reader claimed that the U-B's assertion is misleading and irresponsible, and that the debate about why the authors/ratifiers "created" the right is still open. Actually, it shouldn't be. The Founders are quite clear as to why they insisted on inclusion of the right to keep and bear arms. (A right, incidentally, they didn't create but an already existing, natural right merely protected by the Constitution. If government "creates" rights, it can take them away.)
To understand the Founders' intent, one needs only study their actual words in context. The Federalist and Antifederalist Papers are good but I recommend the comprehensive 838-page "The Origin of the Second Amendment: A Documentary History of the Bill of Rights, 1787-1792, edited by David E. Young. I do not believe anyone could read that book and honestly believe the Second Amendment is about defense of self and property, or protection from hostile insurgents or insurrections.
Incidentally, this should not be a partisan political issue, as some might have us believe.
U-B must check and double check before printing
Please use accurate figures in your headlines at all times!
In Wednesday's issue on page B6, Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan raised only $306 million, not $476 million that your headline stated.
As the story said, $170 million had been raised by her predecessor thus giving the law school $476 million. Check and double check before your print.
Floyd Bunt Jr.