In The Sun's editorial regarding the theft of the Towson University student newspapers, ("All the news that's fit to steal," March 8), you assert that the First Amendment rights of the students should not be ignored and that "theft is theft and the law is the law." I have no argument with that.

But in the accompanying editorial, ("A Flawed Compromise"), you advocate for "undocumented immigrants" receiving lower tuitions in Maryland public colleges. I believe federal law should prevail in this instance and that the U.S. Constitution you referred to should govern in addressing undocumented immigrants — political correctness notwithstanding, they are illegal — over state law.

So when do we have a strict interpretation of the Constitution and when do we not? It is not as question of being liberal (which I am) or a conservative. Immigrants (my grandparents included) came here and continue to come here for a better life, freedom to act legally and properly, and the protection of our laws. There is a statute in Washington of "Justice" blindfolded with a scale. Ask yourself, why is it blindfolded?

In one instance, you want a strict interpretation of the Constitution and in the other not. Our system of laws is not perfect, but until you and your editors can come up with a better system, let's keep it. As you observed, "the law is the law."

H