TBO.com - TBO is Tampa Bay Online

Letters To The Editor

ADVERTISEMENT

The Tampa Tribune

Published: June 26, 2008

Adjusting To Reality

Regarding "Obama Rejects Public Money" (Nation/World, June 20):

The issue of Obama forgoing federal money is all over the press. It is important to both the candidates who purportedly support publicly funded campaigns.

Obama has consistently supported it, but probably for the first time since LBJ the Democrats have the cash, and he'd be foolish to give away the advantage.

We don't want a fool as president, someone who doesn't look at reality and adjust to the unexpected.

JOHN FOLLMAN

Tampa

Show Him The Money

"Show me the money" is a phrase made famous in the 1996 movie "Jerry Maguire." Loosely interpreted, it means that money is all that matters. Apparently, Barack Obama subscribes to this thinking.

The self-anointed candidate of change and reform broke his pledge to use the public campaign financing system rather than depending upon contributors after he realized that he could raise much more than the $84.1 million of public funds.

The public campaign financing system was designed to rid presidential elections of influence-peddling by well-heeled contributors. But, once again, money triumphs over principle and Obama proves that he is just another hypocritical politician. John McCain, a legitimate agent of change and reform, will keep his pledge to use the public system.

ANDREW W. SCHULTZ

Tampa

Legislating From Bench

Henry Hower's June 22 letter "Court Reinforces Founder's Intent" is very troubling. He goes on to say, "The Supreme Court's responsibility is to remind us of our Founder's intent." I say that is not correct.

I have been taught and always believed the U.S. Supreme Court has the sole and singular responsibility to decide whether or not a law is constitutional. They most certainly did not have conferred upon them the authority to "legislate from the bench," i.e. create judicial fiat - something that Thomas Jefferson frequently and loudly announced as one of his greatest fears for the future.

I believe without a doubt the subject Supreme Court decision is precisely what Jefferson feared. The justices had not long before overturned a very similar law and instructed Congress and the president to craft a better law dealing with habeas corpus and enemy combatants, which is precisely what was done for the law overturned by a five to four vote. Jefferson and other Founders must have turned over in their graves.

DAVID HECKMAN

Valrico

Not Founders' Intent

The Supreme Court's liberal activist judges have not been very good at preserving the Founder's intent. Need I remind your readers of their decision a few years ago to allow the state to confiscate private property for non-public use? The justices decided that the state can confiscate the property to allow a private developer to build condos, etc., which would generate more tax dollars. They decided that was a "public good" and therefore allowable under the Constitution.

I doubt very seriously our Founding Fathers had that in mind when they wrote "...nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation" in Article Five of the Constitution. Please note the words "public use." How judges can read it any other way is beyond me.

My point is that judges on the Supreme Court cannot be trusted to act prudently in regard to our Founding Fathers' intent. That is just one example of many where they have changed the intent of our Founding Fathers and the documents they wrote.

STEPHEN C. ZAKRZEWSKI

Oldsmar

Giving Aliens Rights

Regarding "Court Reinforces Founders' Intent" (Letters, June 22):

The headline for this letter is no less than remarkable. If it's correct that the "Founders" intended to extend habeas corpus rights to foreign enemy combatants who are not anywhere within the sovereign territory of the United States, please provide a direct quote of any such language in the Constitution.

The fact is the Court overturned its own precedent, and both the executive and legislative branches of the government, by rejecting the legislation that they requested be written. Perhaps we should just turn over our government to nine unelected judges and be done with it.

The simple fallacy of the court's decision is evident by analogy: If the Court can assign constitutional rights to non-citizens on foreign soil, including foreign enemy combatants, can we expect that they will next give foreigners anywhere in the world the right to vote in our elections, for example Iranians and Syrians? Why not?

DAN CALABRIA

South Pasadena

What's Their Secret?

With all the other airlines charging for checked bags and Cokes, Southwest Airlines still allows two checked bags at no charge and free soft drinks. And if that isn't enough to keep you coming back to Southwest, consider this: I made reservations in March for a trip I am taking in July because fuel prices are continuing to rise. I wanted to lock in a "reasonable" fare in advance.

On Friday I was curious to see how much I was saving by making those reservations three months ago vs. what the same ticket would cost today considering what fuel prices have been doing lately. I completed the online query and I discovered that the price of my ticket had actually gone down $22. So I rebooked at no additional cost.

Southwest, what's your secret? Maybe you can share it with the rest of those mismanaged airlines who are looking for new ways to pry money out of us.

J. A. BANKS

Tampa

Share this:

Loading Comments...

Email Print

ADVERTISEMENT