Constitution

America, you are an idiot. You are a moocher, a zombie, soulless, mouth-breathing, ignorant, greedy, self-indulgent, envious, shallow and lazy. The foregoing is a summation of "analysis" from conservative pundits and media figures -- Cal Thomas, Ted Nugent, Bill O'Reilly, et cetera -- seeking to explain Mitt Romney's emphatic defeat. They seem to have settled on a strategy of blaming the voters for not being smart enough or good enough to vote as they should have. Because America wasn't smart enough or good enough, say these conservatives, it shredded the Constitution, bear-hugged chaos, French-kissed socialism, and died.

It's amazing that the Gov. Martin O'Malley would make such an asinine assessment of a referendum process that was approved by the people both at its inception and during the 2012 election cycle ("A referendum on referendums," Nov. 13). First, the online process created by Del. Neil Parrott, MDPetitions.com, is in no way different from that of the physical forms presented by citizens at community meetings, events and grocery markets across the state. The online petition process serves only as a conduit for those who believe the legislature has gone too far. It allows them to print a physical form that is then signed and returned either to the state Board of Elections or to the group promoting the ballot referendum.

Call it the Sheila Dixon amendment. Although it was actually written in response to another corrupt Maryland politician who didn't know when to give up her hold on elective office, Question 3 on next week's ballot speaks directly to the turmoil Baltimore's gift card-stealing former mayor created in the weeks after she was found guilty in 2009. After years of scandal and a lengthy trial on theft and other misconduct charges, Ms. Dixon was found guilty by a jury of her peers in early December of that year.

I wonder how many Americans have an understanding of what is probably the most profound consequence of the 2012 election. With several of the U.S. Supreme Court justices in their 70s, it is expected that anywhere from one to four justices will retire during the next four years, leaving vacancies to be nominated by the president who is in office at the time. Currently, the court is evenly divided between moderates and conservatives, which is a good thing so that no political ideology will consistently affect laws and life in the United States.

Another Maryland politician has broken the law and is, nonetheless, trying to hold on to elected office. Del. Tiffany Alston this week agreed to a plea deal that allowed her to avoid trial on charges that she misused money from her campaign funds to pay for her wedding and resulted in a one-year suspended sentence for an earlier conviction on charges of misconduct in office related to her theft of $800 from the General Assembly to pay expenses in...

It would seem that both your columnist, Dan Rodricks , and author Garret Epps make little distinction between conservatives in general and what they refer to as "the far right" ("Wresting Constitution from the far right," Sept. 25). Since Mr. Rodricks has declared himself an arbiter of what "a good and important read" Mr. Epps' book is, I feel justified to make a recommendation of my own: That they both attend a meeting of any of the local conservative constitutional study groups, such as "We The People" or "The 9-12 Group.

It's so typical of columnist Dan Rodricks to go looking for a "progressive" legal scholar who shares his view that anyone on the right is "wrong and dangerous" and then print it as gospel ("Wresting Constitution from the far right," Sept. 25). It would have been useful for Mr. Rodricks to give at least one example of how we misinterpret the Constitution. But as usual there was nothing remotely like that in his four columns of rant. He misses one point entirely: Of our many freedoms, the one not spelled out in the Bill of Rights is the freedom to hold one's own opinion.

I was about to send my check in for my subscription to The Sun when I read Dan Rodricks ' encomium to that resident of the fever swamps of the ideological left, Garrett Epps ("Wresting Constitution from the far right," Sept. 25). From whence the notion that the concept of restraining the power of the central government at the Constitutional Convention is a myth? Perhaps Mr. Rodricks and Mr. Epps would benefit from a rereading (if there ever was a first reading ) of The Federalist Papers instead of "Of Grammatology.

Soon after President Barack Obama's inauguration, "I want my country back!" became the shrill battle cry of the tea party. Garrett Epps, a legal scholar based at the University of Baltimore, has a battle cry of his own: "I want my Constitution back!" Epps believes the tea party and the politicians it supports are among the collaborators in extravagant myth-making about the law of the land, and the movement has gone from the fringe to the conservative mainstream to the Supreme Court.

We recently read an article regarding the letter Del. Emmett C. Burns Jr. wrote to Baltimore Ravens owner Steve Bisciotti on the subject of Brendon Ayanbadejo's support of same-sex marriage ("Burns backs off attempt to silence Raven," Sept. 10). Using his words, we are somewhat "appalled and aghast" that an elected official in Maryland would attempt to hinder the free speech of a fellow citizen. Delegate Burns and his constituents have every right to express their views, but so does Mr. Ayanbadejo.