Maureen Dowd (Eagle editorial page, May 2) states, "...it is his [Obama’s] job to get them to behave. The job is to somehow get this dunderheaded Congress, which is mind-bendingly awful, to do the job he wants them to do." But the behavior of many of the Republicans in Congress has shown that they may not be competent to govern because of fixed delusional economic and political beliefs, and Obama getting chummy with those who are paranoid about him will likely make them more hostile, not less.
The only other way to get them to compromise reasonably is a massive public uprising. The polls are strongly anti-congressional Republican but the will is not there. Impeachment is possible, but there are no "high crimes and misdemeanors," unless killing reasonable government is considered treason.
In our court system, competence (e.g., competence to stand trial, competence to make a will, etc. ) is determined at a judicial hearing. Incompetence to govern should also be a matter for adjudication.
It is suggested that a Supreme Court hearing on the competence to govern of one or more Republican congressmen be considered. The public benefit would be that criteria for competence to govern could be defined once and for all and could be applied to future situations as well. The public has a right to not have to suffer the destructive effects of incompetent governing.
When asked what’s two plus two, one who is competent says "four." One who is competent but troubled says, "Four, but there’s something about it that bothers me," and one who is incompetent says "five" and finds nothing amiss with that. It’s the one or ones who say "five" in the area of governance that should be considered for removal from office due to incompetence to govern.
I will be writing the attorney general requesting if and how such a hearing could be accomplished. If you agree, please do so also.
AUGUSTUS F. KINZEL, M.D.