I feel the need to respond to the March 26 opinion piece written by State Representative of the 37th District, Kristina Roegner, calling for a Convention of the States to change our U.S. Constitution ("What is a 'Convention of States'?" Page 8, Cuyahoga Falls News-Press). I find her arguments vague and somewhat intellectually dishonest.
In her piece she tries to convey the idea that life 100 years ago was a freedom fest. Let me share some facts about life back then. Two out of 10 adults could not read while only six percent graduated high school. World War I started and 90 percent of doctors had no college degree. Ninety-five percent of births occurred at home and only 14 percent of homes had bath tubs.
Only 8 percent of households had phones, the average wage was 22 cents per hour and the life expectancy was 48.3 years for men and 51.1 years for women. I would like to remind Rep. Roegner that women didn't even get the right to vote until 1920. I know that most of these living conditions evolved and got better with technology but without government creating roadways, communication and water systems, patent and consumer protections, the benefits for society would be nominal.
The words deregulation and liberty are overused and meaningless platitudes without citing specific examples to make the point. Does Rep. Roegner mean the freedom to drink clean water, breath fresh air and work in a safe environment?
We already have the power to add amendments to the constitution without a convention and the fact that none of these federalists have tried to do so makes me suspect of their motives. We could end up with the same problem that the electoral college exposed that only 39 states and not the majority of taxpaying citizens will get to dictate what we can and cannot do.
If the federalists have such good ideas then put them out there. Everybody will get behind a good idea.
Chuck Slonaker, Cuyahoga Falls