DEAR EDITOR: While most interested observers see that the top two presidential candidates are almost indentical in their stands on major issues (federal funding of schools, foreign policy, the drug war, federal social welfare programs, etc.), one important difference was evidenced during the second “debate” of the season. When asked about their views on court appointees, the candidates espoused very different doctrines that potential judges would have to hold. Gov. George W. Bush said that any judges he appointed would have tobe “strict constructionists” of the Constitution, while Vice President Al Gore said he would choose judges that would view the Constitution as a “living document,” which meaning changes with the times. Well, what exactly did these men mean? How would these philosophies affect federal court rulings? Strict Constructionists believe that the Constitution must be followed as written and can only be changed by the amendment process. James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay hadthis understanding. Bush says he believes this but supports a bunch of federal programs that are not constitutional: social security, gun laws, educational spending, foreign aid, prescription drugs for the elderly. None of these things areactually forbidden to the central government by the 10th Amendment. Gores stance is very consistent. The programs he supports are in linewith the “living document” view. The idea is: “The law is what I say; itis.” The road to tyrannical rule starts with this idea. If our leaders caninterpret the law any way they see fit, what guarantee do we have that our God-given rights will be protected? When we ignore the law in order to help people, then we set the precedent that the law is subject to the whims of the people. Our rulers can then ignore the law to do us evil.How fair would it be to change the rules during a football game just to help the other team catch up? Any sensible person would agree that the rule book would have to be changed after the season ended. Another thing we need to understand is that social welfare programs are not only unconstitutional, they are also immoral. When the governmentgives money to elderly folks to purchase medicine, it commits an immoral act. Its just wrong to take other peoples money by force and give it topeople to whom it doesnt belong. If robbers are not allowed to stealmoney and give it to others or just keep it, then the government shouldnt use its power to seize money and redistribute it. We have a long way to gowith both of these candidates, and weve got to educate ourselves on the proper role of government. Just maybe with Bush well get better judges. But dont count on it. Ronald J. Theriot Jr. LaPlace