Mark Freel, a lawyer for the Rhode Island affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union, is quoted as saying that “fundamental rights and liberties placed in our state constitution many years ago should not be removed” by subtle interpretation. Rather those rights should remain intact, to protect all Rhode Islanders, unless they are modified by the very specific formal procedures in place for constitutional amendments. See Journal article “ACLU backs ex-Sen. Irons in ethics case,” by Katie Mulvaney, April 22.

Mr. Freel helped the ACLU with an amicus brief in support of ex-state Sen. William Irons, who filed suit in Superior Court asserting that the “speech in debate” clause in the Rhode Island Constitution protects him from Ethics Commission prosecution even when the commission finds probable cause that Irons violated the state’s ethics laws.

It must be pointed out that in 1986 the voters of this state voted to approve a constitutional amendment that created the state Ethics Commission and gave it the power to remove from office any elected state official not otherwise subject to impeachment if the official violates the state ethics laws. The only state officials in Rhode Island not subject to impeachment are state legislators like Mr. Irons. Furthermore, this 1986 amendment was drafted by delegates to a constitutional convention who followed a very formal procedure for constitutional amendments, contrary to Mr. Freel’s claim.

Finally, in the Superior Court decision that dismissed the ethics charges against Mr. Irons, Judge Francis Darigan says the usual protocol in constitutional law when two provisions conflict is to give preference to the one most recently enacted. The speech-in-debate clause in the Rhode Island Constitution has been in effect since the day our constitution was first drafted, whereas the state’s code of ethics and the amendment creating the Ethics Commission are much more recent. So the 1986 amendment should take precedence over the speech-in-debate clause.

Yet Judge Darigan goes to great lengths in his Superior Court decision to try to convince us there is no conflict between Article 3 sections 7 and 8 (ethics amendment) and Article 6 section 5 (speech in debate). I defy any sane person to read these two provisions in our state constitution and contend as Judge Darigan did in his decision that they are “in harmony.”

I do agree with Mr. Freel that the provisions in our state constitution should protect the rights of all Rhode Islanders, especially when our rights are violated by unscrupulous legislators.

ROBERT A. BENSON Jr.

Saunderstown