Unfettered Letters

Obama and Supreme Court

As Ellen Goodman noted (10/5, Opinion, “Fate of Supreme Court also hangs in balance”), the direction of the Supreme Court will fall to the nominees of the next president, who is expected to nominate up to three Supreme Court justices. Those nominees will determine the constitutionality of Rove v. Wade for the next 30 to 50 years, a ruling already responsible for making legal the slaughter of tens of millions of unborn innocents.

Sen. McCain has vowed to nominate justices who will support the right to life. Sen. Obama, as an Illinois congressman, supported the ghastly partial birth abortion procedure and opposed Born Alive legislation that would have protected those who survived abortion. He would undoubtedly nominate justices who would support Roe v. Wade.

If you support Sen. Obama, be prepared to answer the cries of millions more unborn who never had a chance to live, to explain why you refused to support their right to life that you gave your own children, and what greater good you believed a President Obama would achieve in exchange for their lives.

Glenn Gordon
Liberty

Think of our judicial system

Sarah Palin is pro-life, even in cases of incest or rape. She’s a National Rifle Association member. She wants creationism taught in schools alongside evolution and has supported abstinence-only sex education. If she gets to be president, our judicial system could move so far right that Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas will seem like true-blue liberals.

I was a strong Hillary Clinton supporter, but I moved to Barack Obama when Clinton conceded because his political philosophy is very close to Clinton’s. But for those who vow to not vote at all or vote for McCain-Palin because Hillary lost or vote for John McCain just because he put a woman on the ticket, think of our judicial system. These appointments are lifetime, and the damage will extend far beyond a one- or two-term McCain-Palin presidency.

For justice’s sake, vote Obama-Biden.

Suzanne B. Conaway
Kansas City

Ancient pirates vs. modern terror

Ross Balano (7/26, Opinion, “U.S. wars with Barbary pirates offer lesson”) writes of the Barbary pirates and draws parallels to the current “War on Terror” and to Guantanamo Bay prisoners. There are important differences.

First, the Barbary Pirates were pirates, on pirate ships, attacking U.S. ships. At Guantanamo, we don’t know what many of these prisoners may or may have not done.

Second, the pirates were attacked in a military manner. They were not captured and tortured or interrogated for years.

Thirdly, Thomas Jefferson and Congress’ debates were held in a legal, constitutional manner. No violations of existing treaties, no signing statements, no deals with warlords.

I commend Mr. Balano for recognizing the similarities between the current situation and the pirate situation. But we have been dealing with similar problems for 200 years, and our lesson is to be very wary and concerned when told that this is a new world, with new problems, and that the old laws, principles and paradigms don’t apply. They do. They always have.

Ralph Feik
Raytown

Once again we are treated to the tortured logic of one Ross Balano in the Midwest Voices column. Somehow he makes a connection between the Barbary Coast pirates, al-Qaida, and the prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay.

It’s not until the end of the article that we finally get to the real issue at hand. Once again, it’s the liberals on the Supreme Court who voted in favor of habeas corpus, not the pirates, who are the real cause of Balano’s wrath.

Well, let’s see about those liberal justices. We know four of them are as far to the right as you can get and still remain on planet Earth. So only one of the remaining justices would have to vote against habeas corpus to make Balano happy.

It seems that Justice Souter was appointed by George H.W. Bush. I know he’s not a liberal. Then there’s Justice Kennedy, who was appointed by Ronald Reagan. Heavens, I really don’t think you could describe Reagan as a liberal.

What on Earth is wrong with this picture? Are you sure it was the liberals who caused your angst, Mr. Balano?

Jim Lullie
Holt, Mo.

Your right to carry a gun

Bruce Lindgren (6/29, Letters, “Handgun hypocrisy”) says that if Supreme Court justices want to allow handguns in the District of Columbia, then they should be allowed everywhere in the district, including federal buildings.

This is the height of ignorance in this country concerning handguns. The crime rate in Washington, D.C., has, for quite a while, been one of the highest in the nation. Yet Washington had had the most restrictive of handgun laws in this nation.

Does this tell you anything? Let me enlighten you. Criminals can and will always be able to get weapons.

The rights of the average law-abiding citizen to protect himself are in the U.S. Constitution. It’s called the Second Amendment.

This does not mean anyone can carry a gun into any public building that they want to — only that they have the right to protect themselves or their property.

Gary Parlier
Independence

Handgun hypocrisy

The U.S. Supreme Court has found that the District of Columbia acted unconstitutionally 32 years ago by enacting a ban on all handguns within the district. It was, they said, far too sweeping.

Yet, they issued this opinion from a building in which no private citizen may carry a handgun for any purpose. There are metal detectors at the doors and armed guards preventing each one of us from exercising the “right” the majority of justices claim we possess in every other part of the district. This is the height of hypocrisy.

In effect, they are saying, “You can all fight it out with guns out there. We’ll stay behind these stone walls where your guns are prohibited. If you try to bring one in, we’ll kill you.”

If the justices want to allow handguns in the District of Columbia, then let’s allow them everywhere in the district, including the Supreme Court building, the Capitol building, on White House tours, the whole nine yards.

If the rest of us have to be subjected to criminals with guns, so should Supreme Court justices, presidents and members of Congress.

Bruce Lindgren
Independence

Supreme Court on detainees

The U.S. Supreme Court held that the rule of law and our Constitution apply to those wretches at Guantanamo Bay who have been locked away for many years without counsel, due process, or even knowing the "evidence" by which they are being held.

Said evidence, of course, is much too secret for them or the public to know.

I don’t doubt that there are prisoners at Guantanamo who fought against the United States, and probably even some who participated in bombings and kidnappings.

Of course, during World War II, people who did such actions in occupied Europe were lauded as heroes by the Allies. It all depends on whose ox is getting gored.

The razor-thin basis by which this ruling was made is a frightening reminder of the kind of people Bush has put on the Supreme Court.

Richard L. Warrick
Lawrence, Kan.

Supreme Court decision

Americans should give one another a big hug in celebration of the Supreme Court’s decision that the great writ of habeas corpus applies to detainees in Guantanamo.

For years we have seen the Bush administration attack our Constitution. As Alexander Hamilton said in the Federalist Papers: “The practice of arbitrary imprisonments, in all ages, is the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny.”

Never has it been more true.

In rebuking both White House and Congress, Justice Kennedy eloquently stated: “The Framers’ inherent distrust of government power was the driving force behind the constitutional plan that allocated powers among three independent branches ... Security subsists, too, in fidelity to freedom’s first principles. Chief among these are freedom from arbitrary and unlawful restraint and the personal liberty that is secured by adherence to separation of powers ... The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times. Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system, they are reconciled within the framework of law. The Framers decided that habeas corpus, a right of first importance, must be a part of that framework, part of that law.”

Robert Lewis
Independence

Well, the Supreme Court’s recent partisan decision in favor of Gitmo detainees’ right to habeas corpus raises questions that I’m certain will spark creative legal squabbles in future.

These will clog our courts until exhaustively resolved at taxpayers’ expense.

Does this decision mean foreign nationals we are fighting enjoy the full Constitutional rights of law-abiding, taxpaying U.S. citizens?

Should Viet Cong POW’s have enjoyed these? North Koreans? Confederates? What’s the statute of limitations? Can foreign nationals now sue a U.S. president for compensation and argue their case before the Supreme Court?

Sam Gill
Kansas City

Photo IDs for voters

I don’t believer the photo ID law supporters are trying to pass in Kansas, Missouri and elsewhere (4/29, A-1, “Way clear to require photo ID for voting”) will do any good.

I say this because Americans don’t vote as much as they should currently. If we decide to take away more voters who, unfortunately, cannot either afford or obtain a photo ID, we are just turning away more voters.

I don’t know if requiring a photo ID is going to stop, or even lessen, voting fraud. I do believe that some sort of identification should be shown where the voting takes place, but not necessarily a photo ID.

I only think that this will lessen voter numbers, cause more chaos and make the poor and minorities feel as though the states are personally attacking them with this request.

Katie McSorley
Kansas City

Justice Roberts’ speech

Last week I drove across town to hear a speech by Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. at the Lied Center in Lawrence. He proceeded to read an excruciating essay, obviously written by a very bored law clerk, on the Louisiana Purchase.

I had high hopes that Justice Roberts would address a timely issue of great interest to us all, such as the War of 1812. I wish I had my gallon of gas back.

Richard L. Warrick
Lawrence

Eminent domain

In a recent op-ed piece, Nicholas Loyal took the Missouri Supreme Court to task for its decision in City of Arnold v. Tourkakis, (“Court’s ruling threatens Missouri property rights,” 4/8). It is a fine piece of political rhetoric, it completely misses the mark as a critique of a judicial opinion.

He objects to the court’s failure to strike a blow for property rights in a TIF project. But that case presented no opportunity for the court to do so. The redevelopment statutes were adopted by the general assembly, and the court was merely construing their application to a third-class city.

The issue was a narrow one: Did the State Constitution authorize the General Assembly to grant eminent domain powers to third class cities, such as Arnold, and had it done so?

These questions were not completely free from doubt, but the court’s decision was certainly a reasonable and plausible construction of the constitution and relevant statutes, and it was entirely consistent with prior cases. To criticize it for failing to decide issues that were not before it, on theories that were not argued to it, is simply silly.

Dale Whitman
Professor of Law Emeritus
University of Missouri
Columbia