"Whom do we elect?".

The points raised by Gary Benoit in his perspicacious essay "Whom Do We Elect?" (July 12 issue) were well taken. It is only through the House of Representatives that we can get back to some semblance of constitutional government.

GEORGE B. SOINTU San Francisco, California 

"Even if an outsider solidly supportive of the U.S. Constitution could be elected, there is little he could accomplish without a likeminded Congress." Regarding this statement made in the article "Whom Do We Elect?" by Gary Benoit, I beg to differ.

A constitutionalist president can rescind all unconstitutional Executive Orders, not to mention unconstitutional Presidential Decision Directives, and certain other unconstitutional policies. A constitutionalist president can, in a principled and consistent manner, veto all bills, and all budgets (a.k.a. "shutting down the government") passed by Congress that exceed its delegated authority--like President Grover Cleveland did. Let both houses of Congress override his veto, and then let them be fully accountable for all of the consequences. A constitutionalist president can take no military action without a formal declaration of war. As commander-in-chief, he can bring the boys home.

MARK ODELL Sent via email

To suggest that it is virtually futile for a constitutionalist to run for president because a constitutionalist Congress could accomplish so much more, is like saying the John Birch Society (JBS) shouldn't bother publishing a magazine about freedom while the machinery of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is in place. After all, what good could one little magazine do?

When there is a presidential candidate who is in such large agreement with the JBS, and doesn't have his name mentioned even once in your 2004 presidential race cover article, one would wonder whether THE NEW AMERICAN'S mantra hasn't become fossilized. Omitting the candidacy of such a great American because he doesn't fit your formula is in contradiction to your magazine's dedication to highlighting individuals from history who dared to make a difference.

It is a foregone conclusion that one man can't change everything. Mr. Benoit is correct about how to achieve overall victory, but has missed a good opportunity to think outside the dogmatic box and to enlighten your readers that there actually is a choice in 2004. Since the article didn't attempt to answer the very question it poses, I will offer that there is one such brave man worthy of electing: Libertarian candidate for president, Michael Badnarik.

LEAH LEWIS Austin, Texas

The article by Gary Benoit, "Whom Do We Elect?" was very good and on target, in that we must elect people to Congress who really do believe in the Constitution. Mr. Benoit mentions the futility of third party presidential candidates, and he has a point. However, he may be unaware that the Libertarian Party also runs candidates for Congress and the U.S. Senate, as well as state and local races across America. I realize the John Birch Society does not endorse any candidates and never has (and I respect that), but I just think readers of THE NEW AMERICAN should be made aware that the Libertarian Party does not just focus on presidential candidates only.

MARK RICHARDS West Milford, New Jersey 

Like the Libertarian Party, members of the Constitution Party scolded us for not mentioning their candidates and party platform. Incidentally, in the cover story, we also did not mention any Republican or Democrat congressional candidates. We do not endorse parties or candidates. However, we firmly believe that the choices would he better, and that the best candidates would have a better chance of winning, if we were to focus more heavily on educating and activating fellow citizens in our own congressional districts.

The purpose of the article was not to review the presidential candidates or party platforms. The entire point of our article was this: not only is the House of Representatives the principled path for constitutionalists to follow in restoring our Republic, it is the only practical one. It is the one the Founding Fathers intended for us to use (see The Federalist, No. 63).

The comment about "one little magazine" does not take into account the fact that we are already publishing THE NEW AMERICAN and that the information we publish can be applied at the congressional district level to improve Congress.