Letters 10-24-2016

It’s Obama’s 1984 Several editions ago I concluded a short letter to the editor with an ominous rhetorical flourish: “Welcome to George Orwell’s 1984 and the grand opening of the Federal Department of Truth!” At the time I am sure most of the readers laughed off my comments as right-wing hyperbole. Shame on you for doubting me...

Gun Bans Don’t Work It is said that mass violence only happens in the USA. A lone gunman in a rubber boat, drifted ashore at a popular resort in Tunisia and randomly shot and killed 38 mostly British and Irish tourists. Tunisian gun laws, which are among the most restrictive in the world, didn’t stop this mass slaughter. And in January 2015, two armed men killed 11 and wounded 11 others in an attack on the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. French gun laws didn’t stop these assassins...

Scripps’ Good Deed No good deed shall go unpunished! When Dan Scripps was the 101st District State Representative, he introduced legislation to prevent corporations from contaminating (e.g. fracking) or depleting (e.g. Nestle) Michigan’s water table for corporate profit. There are no property lines in the water table, and many of us depend on private wells for abundant, safe, clean water. In the subsequent election, Dan’s opponents ran a negative campaign almost solely on the misrepresentation that Dan’s good deed was a government takeover of your private water well...

Political Definitions As the time to vote draws near it’s a good time to check into what you stand for. According to Dictionary.com the meanings for liberal and conservative are as follows:

Liberal: Favorable to progress or reform as in political or religious affairs.

Conservative: Disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditions and limit change...

Voting Takes A Month? Hurricane Matthew hit the Florida coast Oct. 6, over three weeks before Election Day. Bob Ross (Oct. 17th issue) posits that perhaps evacuation orders from Governor Scott may have had political motivations to diminish turnout and seems to praise Hillary Clinton’s call for Gov. Scott to extend Florida’s voter registration deadline due to evacuations...

Clinton Foundation Facts Does the Clinton Foundation really spend a mere 10 percent (per Mike Pence) or 20 percent (per Reince Priebus) of its money on charity? Not true. Charity Watch gives it an A rating (the same as it gives the NRA Foundation) and says it spends 88 percent on charitable causes, and 12 percent on overhead. Here is the source of the misunderstanding: The Foundation does give only a small percentage of its money to charitable organizations, but it spends far more money directly running a number of programs...

America Needs Change Trump supports our constitution, will appoint judges that will keep our freedoms safe. He supports the partial-birth ban; Hillary voted against it. Regardless of how you feel about Trump, critical issues are at stake. Trump will increase national security, monitor refugee admissions, endorse our vital military forces while fighting ISIS. Vice-presidential candidate Mike Pence will be an intelligent asset for the country. Hillary wants open borders, increased government regulation, and more demilitarization at a time when we need strong military defenses...

My Process For No I will be voting “no” on Prop 3 because I am supportive of the process that is in place to review and approve developments. I was on the Traverse City Planning Commission in the 1990s and gained an appreciation for all of the work that goes into a review. The staff reviews the project and makes a recommendation. The developer then makes a presentation, and fellow commissioners and the public can ask questions and make comments. By the end of the process, I knew how to vote for a project, up or down. This process then repeats itself at the City Commission...

Regarding Your Postcard If you received a “Vote No” postcard from StandUp TC, don’t believe their lies. Prop 3 is not illegal. It won’t cost city taxpayers thousands of dollars in legal bills or special elections. Prop 3 is about protecting our downtown -- not Munson, NMC or the Commons -- from a future of ugly skyscrapers that will diminish the very character of our downtown...

Vote Yes It has been suggested that a recall or re-election of current city staff and Traverse City Commission would work better than Prop 3. I disagree. A recall campaign is the most divisive, costly type of election possible. Prop 3, when passed, will allow all city residents an opportunity to vote on any proposed development over 60 feet tall at no cost to the taxpayer...

Yes Vote Explained A “yes” vote on Prop 3 will give Traverse City the right to vote on developments over 60 feet high. It doesn’t require votes on every future building, as incorrectly stated by a previous letter writer. If referendums are held during general elections, taxpayers pay nothing...

Beware Trump When the country you love have have served for 33 years is threatened, you have an obligation and a duty to speak out. Now is the time for all Americans to speak out against a possible Donald Trump presidency. During the past year Trump has been exposed as a pathological liar, a demagogue and a person who is totally unfit to assume the presidency of our already great country...

Picture Worth 1,000 Words Nobody disagrees with the need for affordable housing or that a certain level of density is dollar smart for TC. The issue is the proposed solution. If you haven’t already seen the architect’s rendition for the site, please Google “Pine Street Development Traverse City”...

Living Wage, Not Tall Buildings Our community deserves better than the StandUp TC “vote no” arguments. They are not truthful. Their yard signs say: “More Housing. Less Red Tape. Vote like you want your kids to live here.” The truth: More housing, but for whom? At what price..

Home · Articles · News · Other Opinions · Originally...
. . . .

Originally unconstitutional

Stephen Tuttle - April 19th, 2010
Originally Unconstitutional
We are about to be inundated with “expert” opinions about the U.S.
Constitution. With the announced retirement of Supreme Court Justice John
Paul Stevens and the inevitable fight over whoever President Obama
nominates to replace him, terms like “activist judge” and “strict
constructionist” will be in the news.
Cable talk shows will be awash with folks who pretend to not only know
who the president will appoint but how that nominee will judge a wide
variety of social and legal issues. They are playing a game of
political posturing and they will, for the most part, be full of crap.
The people who claim to have some inherent knowledge of what is and
what is not constitutional have always been something of a mystery.
Real constitutional experts know it’s a fool’s game to try and handicap
what our courts will strike down or uphold as constitutional.
That’s really the point. The constitution itself spells out who gets
to decide – federal appellate courts and the U.S. Supreme Court. The
random opinions of the rest of us don’t really matter. That doesn’t
stop us from endlessly debating specific issues; but in the end those
debates are moot. We never know for sure how any new justice will rule
on anything.
Earl Warren was the Republican governor of California, appointed by
Dwight Eisenhower as a centrist. Justice Stevens was also a
Republican, appointed by Gerald Ford. Neither turned out to be what
they were assumed to be.
None of this will stop us from speculating, of course. Republicans
will decry the appointment of what they will call an activist judge,
someone they claim will make new laws from the bench absent any
Constitutional foundation. They will demand the appointment of a
constructionist who will follow the “original intent” of the framers of
the Constitution.
Whether or not the decision of some federal judge plows new ground and
creates new law is open to interpretation and robust debate. That’s
only fair. But the notion that we can find some obscure quote from one
of the Constitution’s authors in some dusty file, take it out of
context and declare it to be proof of original intent is peculiar at
best. It’s considerably easier to simply read the Constitution.
Intent is pretty much spelled out, in black and white, for all of us to
see. We need not guess.
Given the specifics of the Constitution first ratified and yet to be
amended, we can presume the so-called constructionists don’t really
want to revert to the framer’s original intent.
Slavery, for example, was perfectly legal. For the purposes of
taxation and the apportionment of Representatives, a slave was counted
as three-fifths of a person. This was clearly their original intent
since they spelled it out right there in Article 1, Section 2. Slavery
was not abolished until the 13th Amendment was ratified in 1865, long
after the original authors and their intent were dead. Freed slaves
and African-Americans who were never enslaved weren’t allowed to vote
until the 15th Amendment was ratified in 1870.
Women were not allowed to vote in the original document, so we have to
assume our Founders did not want them to. The long fight for womens’
suffrage did not bear fruit until the 19th amendment was ratified in
The original intent of the Constitution was that we shouldn’t vote for
our U.S. Senators, either. Senators were appointed by state
legislatures until the 17th Amendment was ratified in 1913.
Nor did the original document include any of the Bill of Rights – no
freedom of speech or the press or religion or the right to peacefully
assemble or to be free from self-incrimination or free from unreasonable
searches and seizures or any of the rest of what we now take for
granted. Our first Congress, in their wisdom and foresight, offered the
Bill of Rights, which went into force in 1791. But none of it was part
of the original Constitution.
Part of the genius of this document, unlike anything that had ever been
created by any country previously, was the understanding that it could
not be etched in stone and stay forever unchanged. They understood our
country would grow and change and the Constitution by which we are
governed would have to do likewise. Part of the brilliance of the
framers was the understanding this was a living document not welded to
their original intent. They also made sure changing it could not
happen frivolously so creating amendments is difficult, to avoid the
whims of political movements du jour. That explains why we’ve only
seen fit to make changes 27 times in 223 years.
The United States Constitution was unique when first drafted and has
been, over the course of more than two centuries, molded into a
document that is still the standard for free people everywhere. That
there are those who misrepresent it for their own political gain, who
claim knowledge they cannot possess and who impugn the character of
members of our judiciary with whom they don’t agree, dishonor our
Constitution with a cynicism it does not deserve. And, surely, that
was not the original intent of the authors.

Stephen Tuttle is a political consultant who formerly wrote for the
Arizona Republic.

  • Currently 3.5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5