In my Your View published Aug. 26, I addressed Andrew Judkins’ of Aug. 22 — which mentioned me by name once — by stating: “I take issue with Mr. Judkins’ comment about what the Constitution is meant for in this situation.
“Its purpose in a representative republic/democracy is to protect the minority from tyranny by the majority through the balance of powers.”
In his Your View published Sunday, Dan Conner mentions my name five times in his attempt to insult me, or at least disagree with my statement. But through his use of the phrase “separation of powers” — which I think most would agree is essentially synonymous with the phrase “balance of powers” — Conner unwittingly seems to agree with me.


