In the "Comment" section in the November 8th Highline Times, Ralph Nichols should have ended his remarks after congratulating Eric Mathison on an excellent explanation of why Initiative 933 should be defeated. Instead he went on to suggest that anyone who agreed with Eric must have a liberal belief that the Constitution is a living document and should conform to the times.

In fact, I believe Mr. Nichols is the revisionist in this case. Constitutional scholar Akhil Amar in his book, America's Constitution, states:

"Although some modern readers have tried to stress property protection rather than popular sovereignty as the Constitution's bedrock idea, the words "private property" did not appear in the Preamble, or anywhere in the document for that matter. The word "property" itself surfaced only once, and this in an Article IV clause referring to government property."

A reference to property is again made in the amendments to the Constitution, specifically in Article XIV, that prohibits States from taking property without due process of law. It does not provide for the State to pay an exorbitant price for property than might be more valuable if illegal development of the property were allowed.

It should also be remembered that, in our system of Government, the State does not take away rights, (except illegally as in the case of the current national administration), but rather We The People empower our government to execute the will of the People. When they do not, they will be voted out of office.

Tom Spohn

Burien