To the editor:

I was interested to read the recent letter from the McDaids regarding the potential evasion of the Portsmouth Town Charter.

In their letter, they noted, “We were told at the meeting that a section’s title is non-binding. That may be legally true, but when a reading must set aside both the title and the plain words beneath it, the title is not the problem.”

This highlights a broader hypocrisy among both politicians and the electorate regarding the interpretation of our governing documents. When convenient, there is a strict adherence to the plain text; when it is not, room for alternative interpretation is quickly found.

A clear example of this contradiction can be seen in how this Rhode Island constitutional article regarding the right to bear arms is treated:

“Section 22. Right to bear arms. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

It is difficult to square the prevailing interpretation of this article with both its explicit title and its plain words.

Scott Boyd

Portsmouth