Letters to the Editor: 'The courts stand alone': Readers sound the alarm on our constitutional crisis
To the editor: Thank goodness for the American judicial system. It's gratifying to see that our judges still believe in the Constitution and the rule of law. ("Vance and Musk question the authority of the courts as Trump's agenda faces legal pushback," Feb. 9)
Then, reality sets in. The federal courts don't have their own enforcement power. Rulings, in effect, rely on people's obedience to them. The threat of being held in contempt of court might affect law-abiding citizens, but it appears not to affect others.
Unfortunately, the courts stand alone. Congress, the media and Big Business have already rushed to fall in line behind President Trump. "We the people" are being being pushed out, both conceptually and in real time.
Betty Rome, Culver City
..
To the editor: I did not attend Yale Law School, but I can't imagine that Vice President JD Vance's constitutional law class failed to include the study of Marbury vs. Madison.
Often considered the most important constitutional law case ever decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, it established in 1803 that the judiciary has the final say when it comes to what is the law. Probably the most important line says, in essence, that there can be no legal right if there is no legal remedy to enforce that right.
Anyone who believes that this transitory clown car of an administration should have the final say needs a refresher course in civics.
Jeffrey S. Weiss, Thousand Oaks
..
To the editor: Why is The Times treating what is happening in Washington as business as usual?
An executive coup is underway with an unelected private citizen being giving unfettered access to multiple federal agencies, and rarely are there articles about it on your front page. The Associated Press article you published about Vance and Elon Musk questioning the legitimacy of the courts to check the administration was published on Page A5 of the Feb. 10 print edition.
Our country is under threat, our information is being accessed, our institutions are being illegally shut down, and President Trump, Vance, Musk and Republican members of Congress are saying that judges have no right to stop them.
Why is this not getting greater attention? Your abdication of journalistic responsibility is heartbreaking.
Megan Torrey-Payne, Glendale
..
To the editor: Vance has stated (I am paraphrasing) that if the courts rule against executive authority, the president can ignore it. Courts have no enforcement authority.
Now we know why Trump picked Vance to be his vice president.
Thomas Oatway, Valencia
..
To the editor: Who gave the president the power to appoint a citizen who is immune to the power of the courts?
If the courts cannot control the actions of a citizen appointed by the president, who will?
If Trump cannot be impeached, how will he and his office be controlled?
If Trump cannot be controlled, what prevents him from establishing a monarchy or dictatorship?
If financial markets become nervous, will the U.S. dollar be replaced as the global reserve currency?
If billionaires are pulling the strings, who will protect the financial well-being of the middle and lower economic classes?
If you have children, what do they have to look forward to?
Richie Locasso, Hemet
This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
21 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Defence spending boost can only go so far to lessen U.S. reliance: experts
MONTREAL - In early 2002, Glenn Cowan touched down in Kandahar province as part of the first wave of regular Canadian Army troops deployed to Afghanistan, serving in a U.S.-led brigade combat team. After joining Canada's elite special operations unit Joint Task Force 2 in 2003, he spent the next 13 years collaborating with American soldiers on raids, rescues and reconnaissance missions. 'If you're going to get into a fight with someone, you want the Americans on your side,' said Cowan, founder of ONE9. His Ottawa-based venture capital firm focuses on national security investments. The same might be said of the gear Canadian troops use, and the industry behind it. An infusion of fresh defence funding is poised to flood parts of Canada's aerospace, manufacturing and information technology sectors in a bid to reduce reliance on the United States, but experts say this country will remain firmly fastened to its neighbour as a military-industrial partner by necessity. While not a military powerhouse, Canada has expertise in areas ranging from flight simulation and shipbuilding to armoured vehicles and artificial intelligence. The $9.3-billion in additional defence spending announced by Prime Minister Mark Carney on Monday is poised to boost those sectors, with the goal of greater procurement from domestic companies. 'We're too reliant on the United States,' Carney said. 'We will ensure that every dollar is invested wisely, including by prioritizing made-in-Canada manufacturing and supply chains. We should no longer send three-quarters of our defence capital spending to America.' But a massive cash injection means Canada will have to scale up fast, including via foreign suppliers, said Jim Kilpatrick, in charge of global supply chain and network operations at Deloitte. 'Defence supply chains can often go 10 or 11 tiers deep,' he said, stressing their complex international reach. 'Canada will not be self-sufficient in defence products required by our military.' The country's relatively small production capacity means it will continue to shell out money on American equipment, technology and aircraft, including 88 U.S.-built F-35 fighter jets at a cost of tens of billions of dollars, experts say. However, some of that spending will go to American military giants that have a big presence on Canadian soil, even if the profits end up in pockets south of the border. General Dynamics churns out light armoured vehicles bristelling with turreted mortars and assault guns in London, Ont., as well as tactical communications systems in Ottawa. Lockheed Martin works on 'advanced technology systems' such as naval command software in five provinces. Defence contractor Raytheon counts 8,500 employees and 2,500 suppliers in Canada. 'The wider Canadian economy features a lot of branch plants,' noted David Perry, CEO of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute. While high-tech weapons and machinery come to mind at the mention of defence procurement, much of the extra funding this year may well go to more mundane items. Housing and infrastructure upgrades for Canadian troops make up some of the biggest priorities for Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Jennie Carignan, she told Quebec radio host Patrick Lagacé on Thursday. Perry also highlighted the ripple effects of that spending for myriad business types beyond the purely military realm. 'Some of it is done through the big stuff — we think about fighter jets. But a lot of it pays for office furniture, software licenses, electricity contracts, snow removal, grass cutting.' Taking a step back, Perry framed defence investment in terms the prime minister, formerly the head of the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England, could appreciate. 'If you think of our defence relationships as an investment portfolio, the PM is saying we're way over-indexed in the Dow Jones and the S&P,' he said. 'Diversify.' This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 13, 2025.
Hamilton Spectator
21 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Canadian premiers turn to New England governors for support on Trump tariffs
FREDERICTON - A group of Canadian premiers appear to be setting high expectations as they pursue negotiations with American governors to mitigate the impacts of United States-imposed tariffs on their economies. Premiers from New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Labrador, Ontario, and Quebec's economic minister are scheduled to meet with New England governors on Monday in Boston. New Brunswick Premier Susan Holt said the premiers look to the New England governors for insights on how to deal with the White House and U.S. President Donald Trump. 'I mean, ideally, what we would get is every governor ... agreeing to articulate in loud and formal terms their objection to the tariffs to their administration,' Holt told reporters Thursday. 'If we can get everyone agreeing that the tariffs are negatively impacting Americans and passing that message on to the White House, that would be a win.' Holt also said she plans on raising 'critical' energy and infrastructure files. Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey said last month that the leaders hope to discuss how they can work together and maintain economic relationships in the face of Trump's tariffs. 'Canada is Massachusetts' No. 1 trading partner,' she said in a May 5 statement. 'For generations, we have enjoyed a strong partnership and a healthy exchange of energy, lumber, dairy, cars and car parts, seafood and more. Our businesses and our residents all benefit from this relationship. But President Trump's tariffs are undermining this partnership, making it harder for businesses to keep their doors open, and increasing the cost of everything that the New England and Canadian people rely on.' Holt said New Brunswick supplies a lot of energy products to New England. 'I think 90 per cent of the cars in Boston are driving with gas that comes from the Irving refinery and us. They are keen to make sure we will continue to be a reliable supplier of energy to them,' she said. 'We see the U.S. as a market to sell energy in a way that is profitable and beneficial to New Brunswick.' Healey said an analysis showed that tariffs on Canadian energy would raise gas and heating oil prices by over 30 cents a gallon and could cost nearly $1.4 billion a year for people in Massachusetts, and $3.4 billion for those in the New England area. Ontario is also looking to discuss energy and minerals with the U.S., said Grace Lee, spokeswoman for Premier Doug Ford. 'Ontario is proud to have one of the cleanest and most reliable energy grids, alongside mineral rich areas ready for development and a highly skilled workforce that the U.S. needs and relies on,' she said in a statement. 'Premier Ford will advocate for his vision of Fortress Am-Can, a renewed strategic alliance that makes Canada and the U.S. the richest, most prosperous, safest and most secure two countries on the planet.' Prince Edward Island Premier Rob Lantz's office did not respond to a request for comment. Léa Fortin, spokeswoman for Quebec's economic minister Christopher Skeete, said the meeting is a chance to reiterate ties between Quebec and the United States, as well as the Atlantic provinces. Sonja Pomeroy, spokeswoman for Premier John Hogan said Newfoundland and Labrador exported approximately $4.5 billion of goods to the United States in 2023, representing 37 per cent of the province's total exports. For example, she said in any given year, 60 to 80 per cent of Newfoundland and Labrador's seafood exports go to the United States. So the meeting is an opportunity to reinforce the social and economic value of Canada's long relationship with the United States, she explained. 'Barriers to trade are bad for both national economies,' Pomeroy said. This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 13, 2025. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Business Insider
23 minutes ago
- Business Insider
There's never a perfect time to have a baby — but 2025 is looking pretty tough
Carolyn Bolton and her husband have wanted kids since they met five years ago. The timing, however, has never been ideal. During the housing crisis in 2021, the couple struggled to afford a home near Washington, DC, where they now rent. At the time, Bolton also wanted to move up in her career, "waiting for that next level that would ease the financial burden a little bit," Bolton, 37, an advocacy manager at the National Council for Adoption, told Business Insider. Even though they felt ready for kids last year, they hit some roadblocks to parenthood. After a couple of miscarriages, they consulted a fertility doctor and may need to consider IVF, which ranges in cost from $15,000 to $30,000. They also have concerns around how AI may impact the job market, as Bolton's husband is a tech editor for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "That's definitely worrying us a little bit, financially," Bolton said. "But I'm also 37, so now's the time, especially if we want more than one child." They're not alone. At a time of economic uncertainty, prospective parents understandably feel stuck on whether — or when — they should start trying. It will undoubtedly be harder to financially prepare for a baby when essentials like strollers can cost $300 more. Tariffs are already making basic household items more expensive. Recessions, or worries of them, tend to lower birth rates. "Historically, fertility has moved with the economy," Melanie Guldi, an associate professor of economics at the University of Central Florida, told Business Insider. "When times are good, people have more babies; when times are bad, people have fewer babies." Beyond day-to-day costs and general stability, "parents are also really concerned about the costs of what it would take to give their would-be children a good life," Karen Benjamin Guzzo, a professor of sociology at the University of North Carolina and director of the Carolina Population Center, told BI. On top of groceries, they want to be able to financially swing birthday parties, extracurriculars, and quality day care services. "You want the American dream, and it seems like the American dream is different now than when we were kids," Bolton said. Ultimately, deciding on when to have kids is highly personal, and not everyone is comfortable delaying the process. Still, if you have the flexibility and want to be on more solid financial ground first, experts say it might behoove you to wait. It's harder to save for babies right now The costs of having a kid were already rising in pre-tariff times. Delivery, on average, is around $2,800 after insurance. Then, there are astronomical childcare costs. In states like California, Hawaii, and Massachusetts, parents spend over $30,000 on average annually to raise one child, with more than half going to day care services. Because day cares typically charge higher rates for infants than toddlers, having two children in day care at the same time can cost families $60,000 a year in areas like Washington, DC. Tariffs tack on extra financial strain. More than 70% of baby gear is made in China, the target of the largest tariffs. "Cribs, car seats, strollers, toys — everything is going to be more expensive if tariffs are applied," Guzzo said. (As of now, the tariffs are under a 90-day pause until mid-August). Zooming out, the bigger economic picture also doesn't spell stability. It's not a great time to buy a house or switch to a higher-paying job. It's also not ideal to retire right now — something to consider if you plan on relying on grandparental care. "There are a lot of things that are going to make raising families much harder and more expensive," Guzzo said. "I think that will weigh negatively on people's decisions to have kids." Future policies might help, but it's a gamble The good news for people hoping to conceive soon is that politicians, from the Trump administration to New York City's mayoral candidates, are promising to institute policies that would make parenthood more attainable in an effort to raise the US's record-low birth rate and keep their working parent voters. Bolton hoped Trump, who ran on a campaign promise to drastically reduce IVF costs, would have announced some new guidance by now. One Trump administration proposal shared with aides was to give families a $5,000 cash "baby bonus" for giving birth. Still, it will unlikely ease the financial burdens parents face, based on evidence from other countries that have tried similar incentives. Japan brought in four-day workweeks, but that didn't change the fertility trajectory. Sweden, with some of the best financial support for parents in the world, has a dwindling birth rate. What pushes people to have more babies — or delay them — is tricky to study. Guldi said we have a breadth of economic and demographic research into fertility patterns around the Great Depression and post-World War II, two hugely destabilizing periods in the 20th century. Even still, there's no one factor researchers can point to that would encourage another baby boom. Guldi said that if politicians want to encourage people to have more kids (and meaningfully help parents), they will have to adopt a multi-pronged approach, with more than one policy at play. For starters, Guzzo said, politicians need to focus on policies that would bring the US in line with most industrialized countries. The US doesn't offer national parental leave, and has the second-most expensive childcare system in the world. Policies targeting these two issues could make having kids more feasible and affordable. However, Guldi pointed out that even European nations like Finland and Spain with more robust parental support are dealing with record-low birth rates. "While these policies might nudge people to have a child, you're not going to have people that weren't going to have kids all of a sudden have two kids," she added. Weigh how long you can wait Timing when you have kids is as much a personal decision as having them in the first place. Guldi said it all boils down to how precarious your financial situation feels and how prepared you are for the future. "It will depend on the individual, how they evaluate that uncertainty," she said. For some, feeling secure in their industries and having family to help out might be enough to weather higher costs. Meanwhile, parents who already have a child might want to wait to have a second to save on day care costs. Beyond immediate finances, Guzzo said people who want to have a child with another person often need to feel secure in their partnerships before considering kids. Not only do dual-parent households usually have more money to spend, but divorced or single parents can accrue additional financial strain, especially in a potential recession. Having more control over when you have kids is also why parents are having them later or not at all, Guzzo said. "I don't think it's that people are really deciding not to have kids," she said. "I think people are deciding, over and over again, not right now." For people who feel they can't wait any longer to try for kids, their past experiences navigating a rocky economy can strangely reassure them. "I'm an elder millennial, I feel like we've lived through so many economic downturns," Bolton said. " There's never going to be a good time to have or not have a kid."
