Letters to the Editor | Feb. 27, 2024

Some of the recent commentary in print and cable news has been that the $454 million penalty assessed to Donald Trump for the fraud he and his company committed is excessive and further reduces confidence in what is already perceived to be a partisan judicial system. They argue that the fine should fit this victimless crime and should be much lower. Perhaps these commentators are right.

Yet, think about the untold numbers of construction workers, plumbers, and electricians whom Trump has stiffed along the way. I think about those eager to improve their lot in life by enrolling in Trump University, only to be scammed out of tens of thousands of dollars. And I think about the people today who continue to send in their last $5 of the month, only to have it go to Trump’s legal defense. I could go on. So yes, maybe the $450 million is indeed out of line. Maybe Trump is being treated poorly and has gotten the short end of the stick. And maybe, karma just takes some time to even the score. Poor Donald. Life is so unfair.

Bob Vickery, Ambler

How can some not realize that denying Ukraine aid could lead to Vladimir Putin winning that war? One more stupid and un-American decision for House Republicans. Add it to them killing the border bill that had everything the GOP has asked for and that many in Congress and the U.S. supported. If only they realized this could embolden Putin to attack our other European allies and lead to a wider war. How can a true American watch the courage of Ukraine’s military, the destruction and death, and have no guilt? House Republicans have also tried to impeach President Joe Biden, regardless of a lack of evidence and lies in the case against Hunter Biden. These costly mistakes in time and taxpayers’ money continue to make House Republican moves look more foolish. How can Speaker Mike Johnson expect to keep his job with these questionable moves?

Robert Turnbull, Hatboro

Until Franklin D. Roosevelt, no president had served more than two elected terms in office. It was a tradition established by George Washington. After FDR’s presidency (he died 82 days into his fourth term), there were widespread calls to establish a constitutional amendment to set term limits for the president. When Congress appeared reluctant, the states started to act. As the states were nearing the two-thirds majority needed to force the issue in Congress, federal legislators decided to address the issue. This was the genesis of the 22nd Amendment, which was ratified 73 years ago on Feb. 27, 1951.

Today, we celebrate National Term Limits Day. We do this to raise awareness of the most popular and bipartisan issue: congressional term limits. A recent Pew Research poll showed that 87% of Americans, regardless of political affiliation, support congressional term limits. Yet, despite this overwhelming support, Congress refuses to act. Recently, House Joint Resolution 11 by Rep. Ralph Norman of South Carolina — which would have limited representatives to three terms and senators to two — was defeated by a committee vote of 19-17.

If Congress won’t pass term limits, what can be done? Just as with the debate over presidential terms, the states can take the initiative, calling for a convention to adopt a congressional term limits amendment. Six states — Florida, Alabama, Missouri, Oklahoma, Wisconsin, and West Virginia — have called for a limited convention to propose a congressional term limits amendment. Pennsylvania should join them. If term limits are good enough for the president, why not for Congress?

John Eichelberger and Andy Dinniman, former Pennsylvania state senators, Pennsylvania state cochairs for U.S. Term Limits

Join the conversation: Send letters to letters@inquirer.com. Limit length to 200 words and include home address and day and evening phone number. Letters run in The Inquirer six days a week on the editorial pages and online.