Readers Write (July 25): U.S. Constitution, Jews and reclaiming German citizenship, Social Security, streetlights

Bobby Hilliard's July 18 commentary "U.S. Constitution: Beware amendments. Embrace original intent" made a long list of assertions regarding the Constitution, the Congress and federal powers generally. While they all warrant a response, I wish to address three aspects of the amendment question.

First, Hilliard asserts that the First, Second, Third, Ninth and 10th Amendments were unnecessary because "[i]f they were not there, the meaning of the Constitution would be exactly the same." This is not obvious to me, and the Bill of Rights is evidence that it was not obvious to at least some of the founders. The word "right" does not appear in the original text except with reference to patent and copyright. Habeas corpus is explicitly guaranteed but is called a "privilege." Beyond that, citizens are entitled to "all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." In the original language, the federal government did not guarantee, independent of the will of the states, freedom of speech, the press, assembly or religion. Absent the Bill of Rights, these freedoms would have existed only insofar as the states chose to enumerate and retain them.

Second, Hilliard dismisses a number of amendments as having "increased the powers of the federal government." He includes the 13th, which abolished slavery, the 14th, which provided for due process and the equal protection of the laws, and the 15th and 19th, which removed race and sex as legal barriers to voting. Many would argue that these were highly desirable exercises of federal power.

Finally, the amendment process is itself provided for in the original text, which says that properly ratified amendments are parts of the Constitution "to all Intents and Purposes." The amendments to date have survived a vetting process designed by the framers to be difficult, political and possible. Nearly all have explicitly guaranteed fundamental rights, provided necessary procedural clarification, or brought desirable reforms. Hilliard offers the Federalist Papers – the product of a tiny handful of admittedly illustrious writers – as a surer guide than the text as amended. Given the trouble the founders took to draft and ratify an amendable Constitution, it seems unlikely that this was their "original intent."

The July 21 Variety article "Considering the unthinkable" reminded me of the difficult decision I faced some years ago regarding the offer from the German government to reclaim German citizenship. My parents are both German Jewish refugees. My maternal grandmother was taken away by the Nazis and was murdered by carbon monoxide asphyxiation, because she was a Jew who was deemed unfit to work at age 51. My fraternal grandparents had to give up everything and landed in Australia, where they died (before I had a chance to meet them). My father barely escaped to Cuba. My mother, still alive and living in Uptown at age 99, has never really adjusted to being betrayed by the culture and country she loved. She was (and maybe still is) German through and through. It was the Nazis who reminded her she was a Jew not entitled to partake of the culture she had grown up in.

We were a well-established family, enmeshed in the life of Weimar Germany, when everything (even our language, literature and music) was taken away from us. The article stated correctly that, as a people, the Jews are divided on the issue of whether or not they should seek dual citizenship. In the end, I and two of my children went through the process. It was an odd feeling traveling to Chicago as an American and returning back the same day as an American and a German.

As part of the citizenship process, every new German receives a book titled "Facts About Germany." An entire section is devoted to the Holocaust, and the country takes full responsibility for the genocide of the Jews.

Social Security was created for people such as me as a protection against poverty in old age — heretofore a successful system, but the contribution cap should be raised or eliminated to ensure its aggressive growth. Retirees and those of us on the approach ramp do not really need to be argued out of each nickel and dime by biased and one-sided experts. An expert can bump and grind out figures for cost-of-living adjustments all day long and be paid well for doing it. Those of us in the supermarket checkout line gazing at the receipt know better.

We know that increases in the cost of vital necessities such as food, warm clothing, shelter and home energy usage have continued to escalate at an alarming rate, while the spending power of a dollar is worth less.

We also know that leaders are failing to protect the aging from economic abuse; nor do they address our concerns by creating genuine dialogue and speaking respectfully to us. The Democratic leadership is particularly culpable of avoiding communication and demonstrates little or no apparent interest in addressing the negligible zero percent increases.

We will soon come to know that leadership overall has failed to protect the young from a future of excessive work years — a "work until you drop" scenario. Climate change; overuse of resources; quality of food and water; stressful, multipaced workloads, and overall future health will affect able-bodied longevity for future retirees.

We have a crises of reality, a widening and ugly communication gap. While a self-centered leadership lacks empathy, for the retiree it is a needless long stretch between checks. Let's raise our caps.