Editorial hypocrisy
However, I wish the PG would expand this newfound fidelity instead of subjectively applying it when politically convenient. An editorial that comes to mind is "Democracy for Sale" (Jan. 24), which condemned the ruling that struck down provisions of the McCain-Feingold Act.
In the June 20 editorial, the PG said "the 19th-century framers of this amendment did not anticipate that legal immigration would become such a great problem in the 21st century. But it says what it says -- and very plainly at that."
Replace "legal immigration" with "campaign ads" and you have an argument that the PG opposed in regard to Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission. On this issue you referenced the "challenge for modern times" that required a contemporary interpretation of political speech rights.
You said that the Constitution "attaches no asterisk to 'all persons born' " in the 14th Amendment, and this is correct. But the last time I checked the Constitution, there was also no asterisk next to the First Amendment phrase "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech" that says "except within 60 days of an election."
What you call the "inconvenient truth" in the wording of the 14th Amendment proves to be equally inconvenient for you when applied to the First Amendment. The PG jibed, "the whiff of hypocrisy is more than a little strong." Perhaps the editorial board should invest in a breath mint, because I think I know where the smell is coming from.
KYLE D. YAKOPOVICH
Derry