Conservative Court

Re “Rehnquist Court ‘Back to the Future,’ ” Sept. 27: Does Chief Justice William Rehnquist honestly think the founding fathers could not conceive of a more populated, diverse and complicated America, existing well past the 18th century? The Constitution was a foundation on which to build and grow a country, not an eternally unwavering directive. Rehnquist’s inability to grasp that constitutional law must adapt to changing times earns him my vote as “Most Dangerous Man in America.”

MIKE LASKAVY

Valley Village

*

It’s a pity the Rehnquist-led conservative bloc of the Supreme Court is looking back only to 1788--when the Constitution was ratified--to justify its states’ rights agenda, rather than to 1776, when the Declaration of Independence laid out the grounds upon which the Constitution is based. In it they would discover the purpose of government--formed by men to protect basic human rights--and would nowhere find an exception allowing “sovereign states” to trample on these rights in perpetuity, no matter the will of the people.

The monumental myopia and foolishness of these five Republican appointees is why I will work for whomever the Democrats nominate for president in 2000 and against the Republican nominee, however worthy he or she may be.

PAUL GULINO

Irvine

*

David Savage’s article treats a limited federal government as a quaint notion, going so far as to describe states’ rights as a “once-discredited doctrine.” Oh? Perhaps The Times should issue its reporters a copy of the Constitution with the 10th Amendment underlined.

Federal overreaching has gotten so out of hand that today the feds determine how much water is in my toilet tank. Our only hope of reversing this trend and fending off the tidal wave of busybodies who want to run our lives from Washington is a Supreme Court with the guts to stand up for principle.

JIM BASS

Thousand Oaks