PUBLIC FORUM : DEBATE ILLUSTRATES VALUE OF `FEDERALIST PAPERS'.

The Daily News recently ran a column concerning the new state requirement that California high schools must assign the ``Federalist Papers'' as required reading (`` `Federalist Papers' to show pupils errors of their ways'' by Gary Galles, Opinions, Jan. 17).

The author brought forth the perspective that students who read the ``Federalist Papers'' will quickly realize that the federal government has usurped ``authority'' in many areas for which it has no constitutional foundation. The author promulgates the theory that Alexander Hamilton and James Madison abhored a powerful central government.

Shortly after the column appeared, a letter was printed in the Public Forum (Jan. 23) in which the reader chastised the author of the column for failing to understand the true history of the ``Federalist Papers.'' The reader asserted that the Federalist Papers were actually written to persuade the public that a strong central government was absolutely necessary.

Interestingly, both men are correct. Hamilton was indeed a strong proponent of a ``powerful'' federal government, and the ``Federalist Papers'' were used, in part, for the purpose of convincing Americans of the day to accept something of which they were naturally fearful.

However, the ``Federalist Papers'' also were a blueprint for limiting the intrusiveness of a federal government into the rights of the states and their citizens. Additionally, it is important to remember that Hamilton's vision of a powerful federal government was that the federal government would posses authority and power to enforce its decisions when exercising its very limited constitutional responsibilities. That is a far cry from the federal beast that exists today.

It is also important to note that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the ``Federalist Papers'' may be used in court when presenting a constitutional argument.

No matter how one interprets the motives of Hamilton or Madison, having our students reading the ``Federalist Papers'' can only educate them as to a federal system that has run amok.

- David A. Champion

Saugus

If Jim Turner (Public Forum, Jan. 23) is going to say that Pepperdine Professor Gary Galles ``needs to return to his history books'' because he doesn't know that Alexander Hamilton and James Madison were writing ``not to inform but to propagandize'' - which I take to mean lie - in the ``Federalist Papers,'' he might be better advised to consult some history books himself.

In the Washington administration, when Hamilton began to claim powers for the federal government that exceeded those allowed by the Constitution, Madison broke with Hamilton, broke with the Federalists and helped get Thomas Jefferson to run for president in 1800. Madison thus was instrumental in destroying the Federalist Party in that same election, and eventually succeeded Jefferson as the fourth president of the United States.

I have never noticed that Jefferson, who lived until 1826, ever had any particular complaint about Madison's views or policies, though they disagreed about a few things. They certainly agreed about limited government.

So Hamilton may have been dishonest or disingenuous in the ``Federalist Papers,'' but Madison certainly was not.

Hamilton is only honored now because his dishonest turnabout against the promise of the Constitution is today conformable to the actual dishonest practices and constitutional interpretations of the federal government.

- Kelley L. Ross

Van Nuys

Picking council candidates

On Jan. 14, The Daily News published a list of filings by candidates running for mayor and the City Council.

Recently in the Daily News there have been many fine editorials pointing out both the dishonesty and the ineptitude of the City Council and of its efforts to thwart the will of the people by opposing charter reform, campaign finance reform, self-determination for Valley residents - the list goes on.

Part of being a concerned citizen involves going to the polls on election day and casting one's vote. Not blindly, but intelligently. If you are going to re-elect the same bunch of idiots, then you would do your fellow citizens and your community a greater service by staying home rather than casting an uninformed vote. So if you're not sure, stay home or ``when in doubt, cast incumbent out.''

- Ron Yorke

Reseda

Size discrimination

With so much discussion back and forth regarding affirmative action, I'm writing to say that I really appreciated Joe Kenner's letter (``Affirmative Action needed'', Public Forum Jan. 16) in which he made the statement: ``I would love to see the day when all people are judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin.''

Being that I'm short of stature and want to be accepted in today's society on what I can physically and mentally perform, I would like to make this addition to his statement: ``. . . or the physical size of their body.''

- James Cady

Rosemead

Remember the quake

In reply to William B. Marky's criticism of the topic of the day (``Quake anniversary,'' Public Forum, Jan. 25), I say we need to be reminded at frequent intervals of that morning of Jan. 17, 1994. Heaven help us if we forget what we experienced that dark morning. We need reminders to check our emergency gear, our food and other necessities.

Let us hope that Marky is right about that having been our ``big one,'' but let us nonetheless be reminded regularly and be prepared for another eventuality! Thanks to the Daily News for its efforts.

- Richard Warren

Van Nuys

Death sentences

So, the three gang members who slaughtered the Pasadena trick or treaters have been sentenced to death. What this really means is that they will join the more than 500 prisoners sitting on Death Row with all of their necessities being furnished at the taxpayers' expense without the possibility of their sentences ever being carried out. The homeless should have it so good.

- Jack Willard

Sunland

Paula Jones case

Re ``Clinton vs. Jones,'' Public Forum, Jan. 26:

Mel Bryson said it very well in describing the primary task of the Supreme Court as ``protecting the people from the government.'' The alternative would be to protect the government from the people, which can't make much sense to most people, in a democracy or not.

Anyway, our government seems perfectly capable of setting its own rules of engagement and mobilizing its chosen weapons of self-defense: obfuscation, foot-dragging, outright stonewalling, self-serving spin doctoring for the benefit of a sympathetic news media, along with a number of carefully crafted public statements that are later revealed to be ``misstatements.''

Here are points for Helen Finch (same subject, Public Forum, Jan. 26) to consider:

What does a political election of any kind, before or after the incident, have to do with the guilt or innocence of a person charged with sexual harassment? As a matter of fact, President Clinton was serving as governor at the time, having won a prior election in Arkansas.

The incident is not ``something that may have happened to this president,'' as she delicately put it. Rather, the charge is that he deliberately subjected an employee to ``something'' on his own volition. As feminists like to assure us, whether or not the employee welcomed it in some way or another has no bearing on the issue of legality when a high-ranking government official gets caught seeking sexual favors from a lower-ranking employee.

Finally, as one of my favorite op-ed writers, Joe Gelman, reminded us recently, courts still have the authority to dismiss trivial lawsuits against the president, or anyone else, where there is no significant evidence to be offered. They don't need help from the Supreme Court.

-Roy Rodieck

North Hills

President Clinton was elected by the people of the United States and re-elected by them.

We all knew about these charges that Paula Corbin Jones brought against Bill Clinton, but we put him back in office. Would a refined lady expose herself to these charges? She is asking $700,000. The president does not have that kind of money. He is a poor boy who has made good, and so many are jealous of him. If she insists on a trial, it must wait until he is civilian Clinton.

- Clara Dee Stahl

Montrose

The hidden agenda of ebonics

The first words that should be translated into ebonics are ``more money'' and ``scapegoat.''

The backers of the ebonics movement are motivated by these two principles. They see ebonics as a way of obtaining additional state and federal funding for new programs that will ensure their personal tenure. They also see ebonics as a way to shift blame away from their failed programs and inability to teach: Why can't Johnny read? It's not our fault - it's a language problem.

At Village Christian School in Sun Valley, children of all ethnic backgrounds start learning phonics in kindergarten. By the first grade, they are reading, writing and spelling, and are even rewarded with coupons for free food prizes when they read 15 books each month.

Village made the right choice years ago - to teach children proper English using the appropriate tools. This approach to education is demanding on the teachers, parents and students, but produces impressive results.

- B. Thorpe

Sun Valley