Opinion
The Abortion Decision
Few court cases have been as controversial in the United States as 1973’s Roe v. Wade decision. It has become one of the major touchstones in American politics ever since. As controversial as it is, the fact that a shift in power on the Supreme Court has overturned Roe v. Wade has led to a great deal of political and legal turmoil. A lot of the frustration concerns how a modern court can just overturn a previous court’s decision simply because of a shift in ideology. However, historically speaking, this is not new. There have been reversals in the Supreme Court before that were just as controversial and saw as much an attack against the high court as the recent Roe reversal.
First, the law. The decision did not make abortions illegal. It simply put the decision for legality back to the states where it had been before 1973. Elected legislators will now make the decisions, not the courts. The U. S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, claimed the original Roe v. Wade was not made on Constitutional grounds, as the Constitution does not mention abortion. Nor does any federal law or common law. The idea is that a federal law allowing abortion should be made by Congress, not the courts. Until then, the Supreme Court said it should be a state issue. According to the Tenth Amendment, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
As I said, this is not the first time the Supreme Court overturned a decision from a previous court and one that brought about a similar emotional response. The case was the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education that overturned the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson case that allowed for segregation. In that infamous 1896 case, the court ruled that segregation was legal if separate and equal accommodations were made. In other words, you could deny Black children admittance to White schools if an equal Black school was provided.
There are some similarities between the Brown decision and the current one. In both cases, a Republican president made a new judicial appointment after an extended time of Democratic leadership. With the Roe case, Trump’s appointment of Amy Barrett tipped the balance of the Supreme Court from left to right. The Brown decision was a bit different as the entire Supreme Court was appointed by Democrats after the five terms of Roosevelt and Truman when Dwight D. Eisenhower won the presidency. Yet even with a completely Democratic court, there was still a deep division. Unlike today, the parties were not completely ideological on one side. Roosevelt did not start off his presidency on the far left and many in the party, especially in the south where Democrats had been the strongest for the longest period, still held conservative views. As such, the Supreme Court was not so much divided between two parties as it was divided on the role of the high court. While the entire court were “New Dealers,” half of the court believed it was not the job of the court to make policy, only to interpret the law. The other half, however, were more activists who believed the courts should play a role in civil liberty.
The change happened when Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson died, and the newly elected Republican President Eisenhower appointed Earl Warren as Chief Justice. Vinson had supported the “separate but equal” clause in Plessy and ordered schools like the University of Oklahoma to allow Ada Lois Sipuel, a Black woman, entrance into law school because there was not an equal facility in the state for her. Yet it was Warren who turned the court to a majority of activist judges and went as far as ruling segregation illegal in Brown.
Where the two cases continue to have similarities is in the fall-out. Legally, Warren and the Supreme Court took a hit, being accused of trying to overtake the role of Congress and going against the will of the people’s elected representatives. Nineteen Senators and 81 Representatives wrote the “Southern Manifesto,” stating, “We regard the decision of the Supreme Court in the school cases as a clear abuse of judicial power. It climaxes a trend in the Federal judiciary undertaking to legislate, in derogation of the authority of Congress, and to encroach upon the reserved rights of the States and the people. The original Constitution does not mention education. Neither does the 14th amendment nor any other amendment. The debates preceding the submission of the 14th amendment clearly show that there was no intent that it should affect the systems of education maintained by the States. The very Congress which proposed the amendment subsequently provided for segregated schools in the District of Columbia.”
More interesting was the end of the Manifesto, which makes similar arguments as pro-abortion advocates today: “With the gravest concern for the explosive and dangerous condition created by this decision and inflamed by outside meddlers; We reaffirm our reliance on the Constitution as the fundamental law of the land. We decry the Supreme Court’s encroachments on rights reserved to the States and to the people, contrary to established law and to the Constitution. We commend the motives of those States which have declared the intention to resist forced integration by any lawful means. We pledge ourselves to use all lawful means to bring about a reversal of this decision which is contrary to the Constitution and to prevent the use of force in its implementation.” Like today, the arguments are about the courts taking away the rights of the people.
Please note that I am not arguing for or against abortion or calling pro-abortion advocates the same as 1950s racists. Yet, historically speaking, we have seen similar Supreme Court decisions that brought about just as much contention and fighting about the role of the courts, especially when changing a law that has been around for so long.
Dr. James Finck is an Associate Professor of History at the University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma in Chickasha. He is Chair of the Oklahoma Civil War Symposium. Follow Historically Speaking at www.Historicallyspeaking.blog.
Opinion
Candidate Forum and The Real Issues Plaguing Our Community Pt.2 – Affordable Housing
I have been a construction professional for over 30 years, serving in capacities such as sales, building, project management, development, operations, and directorships. I have a bit of professional capital that allows me to comfortably comment on the issue of affordable housing from many sides, including building, developing, and financing.
I am happy to see that affordable housing is part of this year’s election narrative. What discourages me is that this is simply an empty observation with many, if not most, of the candidates, repeating the mantra that “we need affordable housing” without offering meaningful solutions other than changing the zoning code and building smaller houses — the former will have minimal impact, and the latter almost zero.
There is one very simple solution to affordable housing in this region, which the entire slate of candidates has missed or failed to properly communicate. Our community leaders, both current and future, have not, and clearly don’t have a plan to begin constructing the foundation of a meaningful affordable housing program. Without establishing a formal program, the town government has basically surrendered itself to “hope being a strategy” that someone will come in and rescue our community with shiny new apartments at below-market rents.
Let me develop a simple construct for you. Larger communities have a housing agency managed either publicly through Housing Authorities or have established partnerships with non-profits whose primary mission is accumulation, conversion, building, and managing properties, and finally, there are public-private partnership transactions. Front Royal already has most of these tools in place. Leadership needs to redefine and reposition existing governmental and human capital assets so they can be leveraged to begin establishing a fully functioning agency. How is this done, one may ask?
- Re-evaluate the community proffer model for re-zoning requests. The few proffer models I have seen include impact fees for schools, fire-rescue, public safety, parks and rec, transportation, etc. Why hasn’t the proffered model been adjusted to account for the need for ADUs or MPDUs? (Affordable Dwelling Units and Moderately Priced Dwelling Units). National builders such as NVR and Van Metre are in our backyards; they will be importing labor from outside our region, and they will extract every dollar they can. This is their mission, and I respect that. However, our community leaders need to consider preventing our residents from being totally displaced, both physically and financially. Re-zoning requests can be tied to include affordable units.
- Re-define the role of the Front Royal Economic Development Authority. With little fanfare and much controversy, the FREDA is essentially defunct. The entity is all dressed up with no place to go. This is not the fault of the current dedicated members who want to advance local economic development. The council can reposition FREDA’s core mission and include housing as a primary objective. By state code, communities without established Housing Authorities can leverage their EDAs for residential housing purposes. You have the legal structure in place and dedicated members willing to lead it. Just leverage it.
- Front Royal Town Council should delegate one of their council members to be the Affordable Housing “Ambassador.” This individual should be motivated, willing to learn, and not be scared to take chances by asking tough questions and thinking outside the box. They should be lobbyists to Virginia Housing, Peoples Inc., and the other public and private agencies that have successful track records in housing. This person should become fluent in grants, housing tax credits, and other financial tools leveraged to bring new housing units to Front Royal.
In business, I have been told not to bring up a problem, re-state a problem, or dwell on a problem without offering solutions or ideas to mitigate the issue. Many ideas will fall flat, be ridiculed, or may never reach their intended objective. This is okay. It just takes one idea to make meaningful change. Don’t champion the problem, champion the solution!
Front Royal Town Council Candidates, what are your solutions and ideas for building the foundation of an affordable housing program?
Gregory A. Harold
Warren County
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the letters published on this page are solely those of the respective authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the Royal Examiner’s editorial team, its affiliates, or advertisers. The Royal Examiner does not endorse or take responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or validity of any statements made by the authors. The statements and claims presented in the letters have not been independently verified by the Royal Examiner. Readers are encouraged to exercise their own judgment and critical thinking skills when evaluating the content. Any reliance on the information provided in the letters is at the reader’s own risk.
While the Royal Examiner makes every effort to publish a diverse range of opinions, it does not guarantee the publication of all received letters. The Royal Examiner reserves the right to edit letters for clarity, length, and adherence to editorial guidelines. Moreover, the Royal Examiner does not assume any liability for any loss or damage incurred by readers due to the content of the letters or any subsequent actions taken based on these opinions.
In submitting a letter to the editor, authors grant the newspaper the right to publish, edit, reproduce, or distribute the content in print, online, or in any other form.
We value the engagement of our readers and encourage open and constructive discussions on various topics. However, the Royal Examiner retains the right to reject any letter that contains offensive language, personal attacks, or violates any legal regulations. Thank you for being a part of our vibrant community of readers and contributors, and we look forward to receiving your diverse perspectives on matters of interest and importance.
Opinion
Danger! Voting Matters!
An August 7, 2023 letter, “Analyzing Delores Oates’ Hypocrisy,” is worth revisiting before we vote. My perception is different, but your readers can decide from their own perspective.
After withholding budgeted library funding to “protect children”, accusing innocent librarians of unthinkable behavior, and an unsuccessful attempt by some members of the Board of Supervisors to just quietly assume control of a private library without revealing it to taxpayers — or it appears even to all Board members, on Sept. 6 Delores Oates tried to un-ring the bell: “What I’ve noticed is that everyone wants the same thing. Everybody appreciates and loves our library, and the other thing that I want you to know is that everybody wants to protect kids — everybody.” Oh, Wrong! Wrong! And, wrong, Delores!
Let us be absolutely clear because children are watching. We clearly do NOT all want the same thing! Appreciation is NOT expressed by accusations of pornography, grooming, and inappropriate behavior! That is NOT “love”! It is bullying and intimidation, backed by secrecy, dishonesty, and abuse of power, perhaps even misuse of $20,000 for notoriety. This was NOT about “protecting kids”. Delores advertised her disregard for children by proudly posing for photos beside a totally nonsensical “Guns Save Lives” sign posted on Facebook for kids to see. Guns are the leading cause of death in children in America! Military weaponry has NO place on the streets of America. Children should not be worried about being shot in their classrooms! And shame on the military veterans sitting silently watching this!
Delores Oates flipped a finger at the Hatch Act, promising in a meeting of the Board of Supervisors that, if elected Delegate, her first priority will be changing some irrelevant exception to obscenity in libraries in VA Code that few have ever seen or heard. Watch that crash head-on into Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives federal laws precedence over states, keeping us unified and orderly. What self-serving abuse of elected office for someone claiming such love for the Constitution.
If we want safety for our children, our first priority is to ensure a stable government free of corruption, intimidation, and secrecy. Books don’t leave kids orphaned, frightened, hungry, injured, abused, or dead. Irresponsible voters do.
C.A. Wulf
Warren County
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the letters published on this page are solely those of the respective authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the Royal Examiner’s editorial team, its affiliates, or advertisers. The Royal Examiner does not endorse or take responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or validity of any statements made by the authors. The statements and claims presented in the letters have not been independently verified by the Royal Examiner. Readers are encouraged to exercise their own judgment and critical thinking skills when evaluating the content. Any reliance on the information provided in the letters is at the reader’s own risk.
While the Royal Examiner makes every effort to publish a diverse range of opinions, it does not guarantee the publication of all received letters. The Royal Examiner reserves the right to edit letters for clarity, length, and adherence to editorial guidelines. Moreover, the Royal Examiner does not assume any liability for any loss or damage incurred by readers due to the content of the letters or any subsequent actions taken based on these opinions.
In submitting a letter to the editor, authors grant the newspaper the right to publish, edit, reproduce, or distribute the content in print, online, or in any other form.
We value the engagement of our readers and encourage open and constructive discussions on various topics. However, the Royal Examiner retains the right to reject any letter that contains offensive language, personal attacks, or violates any legal regulations. Thank you for being a part of our vibrant community of readers and contributors, and we look forward to receiving your diverse perspectives on matters of interest and importance.
Opinion
Sheriff Butler’s Legacy: From Disorder to Trustworthy Governance
Once again time to vote for Warren County Sheriff, and I feel disappointed in the disparaging remarks against our current Sheriff.
The environment of these heinous back alley deals we encountered prior to Sheriff Butler has been an ordeal of the past. The citizens were robbed of our humanity, costing the citizens millions because of greed, ego, and “good ole boy mentality.”
The past crimes have filled the pockets of the thugs that ruled our citizens. We were given the leftovers of the wolves and managed to stand because of our strong, steadfast faith that someone with the commitment to protect and serve our community and help us to grow and be productive.
We had to entrust our family and children to the atrocious mishandling of this community. Have we not learned lessons from the deception we encountered in the past? Perhaps our eyes have remained closed because of past misdeeds.
Many goals have been met, just as Sheriff Butler promised.
Evaluation of the entire office to ascertain strengths and weaknesses. Self-evaluation was conducted while he has been Sheriff. This evaluation has made a difference in enabling the citizens to have confidence in the Sheriff’s Department and change when problems are encountered.
The foundation was started and will continue to be built on while Sheriff Butler remains in office.
I believe he has been truthful, committed, and standing steady to ensure our community is safe and growth ensues. Sheriff Butler’s Open Door Policy is in full force, and if you do not step through, it is not because you have not been invited.
I fully support Sheriff Butler in this coming election, and may we all have open eyes and ears to vote for this man of integrity and values what is noble, trustworthy, and not in this for personal gain. Character and self-confidence make Sheriff Butler the man who will continue to enhance and protect our community.
Linda Winfree, RN
Front Royal
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the letters published on this page are solely those of the respective authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the Royal Examiner’s editorial team, its affiliates, or advertisers. The Royal Examiner does not endorse or take responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or validity of any statements made by the authors. The statements and claims presented in the letters have not been independently verified by the Royal Examiner. Readers are encouraged to exercise their own judgment and critical thinking skills when evaluating the content. Any reliance on the information provided in the letters is at the reader’s own risk.
While the Royal Examiner makes every effort to publish a diverse range of opinions, it does not guarantee the publication of all received letters. The Royal Examiner reserves the right to edit letters for clarity, length, and adherence to editorial guidelines. Moreover, the Royal Examiner does not assume any liability for any loss or damage incurred by readers due to the content of the letters or any subsequent actions taken based on these opinions.
In submitting a letter to the editor, authors grant the newspaper the right to publish, edit, reproduce, or distribute the content in print, online, or in any other form.
We value the engagement of our readers and encourage open and constructive discussions on various topics. However, the Royal Examiner retains the right to reject any letter that contains offensive language, personal attacks, or violates any legal regulations. Thank you for being a part of our vibrant community of readers and contributors, and we look forward to receiving your diverse perspectives on matters of interest and importance.
Opinion
Forum Reaction: Real Issues Plaguing our Community, Part 1
While I was unable to attend the Chamber of Commerce’s sponsored candidate forum due to travel issues, I was hoping to catch a glimmer of hope in the recorded session, watching the candidates read their prepared speeches without offering any potential solutions to the problems, both perceived and real. For this installment of the Real Issues Plaguing Our Community, I want to focus on Shenandoah District Candidate for Board of Supervisors John Stanmeyer.
Being relatively fresh off the Board of the “re-constituted” EDA, I am astonished that Stanmeyer, or any other candidate for that matter, is campaigning under the guise of “ensuring that EDA-like fraud never happens again.” Well, I hate to tell Candidate Stanmeyer that he missed that ship years ago, and statements like this are no better than the typical campaign rhetoric of “wanting to improve County-Town relations” that candidates use as a crutch when they have no other platform or offer of solutions to the immediate issues.
If Stanmeyer is serious about his candidacy, I would like to know his solution to how he is going to address the $20-million-dollar deficit that both the county and town governments are morally obligated to because of the co-overseen fraudulent activity. There is no shortage of understanding that the EDA’s liabilities far outweigh the value of any assets it possesses. But how are you going to bridge the political divide, navigate the legal intricacies, and bring these issues to closure? There is a high probability that this deficit will land on the backs of the taxpayers, both town and county. How is this going to be reconciled? This is a real issue plaguing our community.
As you are an economist by education, I would love to understand your calculus on the matter.
Gregory A. Harold
Warren County
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the letters published on this page are solely those of the respective authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the Royal Examiner’s editorial team, its affiliates, or advertisers. The Royal Examiner does not endorse or take responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or validity of any statements made by the authors. The statements and claims presented in the letters have not been independently verified by the Royal Examiner. Readers are encouraged to exercise their own judgment and critical thinking skills when evaluating the content. Any reliance on the information provided in the letters is at the reader’s own risk.
While the Royal Examiner makes every effort to publish a diverse range of opinions, it does not guarantee the publication of all received letters. The Royal Examiner reserves the right to edit letters for clarity, length, and adherence to editorial guidelines. Moreover, the Royal Examiner does not assume any liability for any loss or damage incurred by readers due to the content of the letters or any subsequent actions taken based on these opinions.
In submitting a letter to the editor, authors grant the newspaper the right to publish, edit, reproduce, or distribute the content in print, online, or in any other form.
We value the engagement of our readers and encourage open and constructive discussions on various topics. However, the Royal Examiner retains the right to reject any letter that contains offensive language, personal attacks, or violates any legal regulations. Thank you for being a part of our vibrant community of readers and contributors, and we look forward to receiving your diverse perspectives on matters of interest and importance.
Opinion
Beyond Business: Front Royal’s Invitation to Explore Warren County’s Inner Workings
I would like to alert Warren County/Front Royal business owners and government managers to an opportunity for those wishing to become more knowledgeable about and involved in our community. My comments are unsolicited.
Each year, the Front Royal/Warren County Chamber of Commerce hosts a Leadership Program. This eight-month program provides participants with up close and personal sessions with local government, business, education, and nonprofit leaders, providing an outstanding opportunity to become much more familiar with the workings and available resources in the County and Town. The once-monthly sessions, preceded by a leadership assessment and coaching day, offer those attending a structured and efficient immersion into essentially “all things” Warren County. Each individual session focuses on a theme, such as Law Enforcement/Emergency Services, Education, Local Government, Business, or Social Services. The sessions feature leaders who provide comprehensive overviews of their functions and allow participants to ask questions particular to their interests.
Although not free and not necessarily for all, I personally believe the return on investment for my participation as a private citizen was high. I can certainly see where other citizens, business owners, and government managers would realize similar returns from attending themselves or having employees attend. Participants also have an opportunity for networking and building relationships that will last into the future. Those interested can learn more about the program and obtain an application by visiting the Chamber’s website at https://www.frontroyalchamber.com/programs-events-1
David McDermott
Bentonville, VA
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the letters published on this page are solely those of the respective authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the Royal Examiner’s editorial team, its affiliates, or advertisers. The Royal Examiner does not endorse or take responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or validity of any statements made by the authors. The statements and claims presented in the letters have not been independently verified by the Royal Examiner. Readers are encouraged to exercise their own judgment and critical thinking skills when evaluating the content. Any reliance on the information provided in the letters is at the reader’s own risk.
While the Royal Examiner makes every effort to publish a diverse range of opinions, it does not guarantee the publication of all received letters. The Royal Examiner reserves the right to edit letters for clarity, length, and adherence to editorial guidelines. Moreover, the Royal Examiner does not assume any liability for any loss or damage incurred by readers due to the content of the letters or any subsequent actions taken based on these opinions.
In submitting a letter to the editor, authors grant the newspaper the right to publish, edit, reproduce, or distribute the content in print, online, or in any other form.
We value the engagement of our readers and encourage open and constructive discussions on various topics. However, the Royal Examiner retains the right to reject any letter that contains offensive language, personal attacks, or violates any legal regulations. Thank you for being a part of our vibrant community of readers and contributors, and we look forward to receiving your diverse perspectives on matters of interest and importance.
Opinion
Backing Crystal Cline: A Veteran Sheriff’s Endorsement for Warren County’s Future
I am writing to support Crystal Cline in her pursuit of the office of Sheriff of Warren County. Crystal has demonstrated all of the qualities needed to be a Sheriff, including respect for her peers, honesty, and an ability to analyze the needs of her community.
All of these are necessary traits, but I recently discovered, by mistake, a trait I had never experienced. Crystal is a very thoughtful person.
In the past week, Crystal and I have exchanged text messages as she has sought advice. During our exchange, she sent me a text that was intended for someone while she was following up on a difficult family issue. She demonstrated to me in a text that she exhibits a wonderful personal touch.
Sheriffs, I believe, need to exhibit compassion and empathy. We respond to assist people at the toughest of times. Even potential defendants need to be shown respect. Crystal is obviously a person who can do this. If I have learned anything during my 45-year law enforcement career, being approachable is so important. I know she will be, and I believe she will be a wonderful Sheriff.
Anthony Roper
Sheriff of Clarke County
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the letters published on this page are solely those of the respective authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the Royal Examiner’s editorial team, its affiliates, or advertisers. The Royal Examiner does not endorse or take responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or validity of any statements made by the authors. The statements and claims presented in the letters have not been independently verified by the Royal Examiner. Readers are encouraged to exercise their own judgment and critical thinking skills when evaluating the content. Any reliance on the information provided in the letters is at the reader’s own risk.
While the Royal Examiner makes every effort to publish a diverse range of opinions, it does not guarantee the publication of all received letters. The Royal Examiner reserves the right to edit letters for clarity, length, and adherence to editorial guidelines. Moreover, the Royal Examiner does not assume any liability for any loss or damage incurred by readers due to the content of the letters or any subsequent actions taken based on these opinions.
In submitting a letter to the editor, authors grant the newspaper the right to publish, edit, reproduce, or distribute the content in print, online, or in any other form.
We value the engagement of our readers and encourage open and constructive discussions on various topics. However, the Royal Examiner retains the right to reject any letter that contains offensive language, personal attacks, or violates any legal regulations. Thank you for being a part of our vibrant community of readers and contributors, and we look forward to receiving your diverse perspectives on matters of interest and importance.
