In late March and then again in early April, I wrote two letters to the local paper. The paper broke its own rule of only publishing a letter from the same author no more than once every two months by printing both letters.

Does the political cartoonist, if that is not an oxymoron, featured in the March 22, 2005 Journal Star really believe that being starved to death is "death with dignity"? Does the Journal Star editorial staff belief that? I pray that none of you ever experience death by starvation.

If a state legislature passed a law stating that a convicted murderer must be executed by starvation would the U.S. Supreme Court rule that law to be cruel and unusual punishment? Presently, mothers can murder their own unborn children and doctors can be ordered to starve a patient to death. What is wrong with this country?

(Mike Bailey is an editorial columnist.) Then in April, the second letter stated:

I was educated in Illinois schools. I was taught that there are three branches of government--the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. Now I learn that the judicial is not a branch of the government. The years that the Terri Schiavo case was in the courts were just years of a private, family matter. Only when Congress became involved did it become a public matter.

If Mike Bailey's own child was being starved to death by court order, would he refuse to turn to Congress because that would be inappropriate? Or, would he try to save his child's life? His "torn rotator cuff" sarcasm was as inane as any comment I have read in relation to the Schiavo case. It reflects on your newspaper.

Meanwhile the paper editorialized that Congress should not get involved in the controversy. It was claimed that the courts had made their decision and under the "rule of law" nothing more should be done. Two months later the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the federal government to enforce its marijuana laws which were in conflict with the "medical marijuana" laws of some states. The editorial position of the paper was that the courts should not have reached such a conclusion and Congress needed to step in and allow the use of marijuana for medical purposes. That editorial prompted another letter from me. This one was not published.

It had to happen. Two months after the court assisted starvation of Terry Schiavo, the "rule of Law" as envisioned by the Peoria Journal Star's editorial board isn't so supreme after all.

When the Florida Supreme Court ruled she must die, her parents appealed to Congress to allow the federal court system to get involved. The federal courts had said they lacked jurisdiction. Congress gave them that jurisdiction and the Journal Star and others screamed that some how Congress was violating the "rule of law".

The U.S. Supreme Court just ruled that a state-sanctioned medical marijuana law was unconstitutional. The plea is for Congress to step in and overrule that Court decision.

What happened to the "rule of law" concept of Congress not interfering? All of a sudden Congress has a responsibility to change the Court decision.

It's not the "rule of law" you are concerned about. It's getting your own positions legalized by what ever means necessary.