Morality/electoral college/Constitution

Moral Foundation:

It is stated that morality should be included in the creation of civil law, that we, as a nation, need a moral foundation in order to have stability and respect for others.I agree, along as the moral principles have a secular foundation that all aspects of society, the religious and the non-religious, can agree on.Public policy shouldn't have an arbitrary, purely religious reason to it but one that deals with moral principles that do not require an appeal to God/religion.We can all agree that a person shouldn't be murdered, raped, attacked etc. because such things violate the very humanity that each possess, that each person is born with. If this humanity is a product of God or evolutionary processes, it doesn't matter; the fact is that this humanity is inherent in all, a part of our very human nature.
I urge is that those who take a position on an issue - be it abortion, the death penalty, homosexuality - be able to logically state the reasons why they support that position, without an appeal to a deity.Appeals to God often make for lazy thinking. All should be able to state the reasons for their position. If a position can't be defended without a justification, then the moral position seems to lack any true/rationale basis.As a non-religious, I am not opposed to laws/rules that ensure a respect for others, as the Golden Rule states, a rule which is prevalent in many cultures have created on their own. To not create a public policy based on a secular justification puts men/women under the basis of a religious code, that they do not believe in. This would be as bad, as forcing Christians to live under Islamic law, without a justification given why Islamic law is correct than just other than saying Allah says so.Secularism is not in opposition to religion; it is the acknowledgement that not all agree on religion or a religion so we must agree on a common denominator basis for public policy that is based on reducing harm in society and furthering human happiness.


No need for Electoral College

It is often stated that without the Electoral College, all national elections would be decided by population centers New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles and a few others. Those three cities, according to 2000 census figures, have a combined population of roughly 14.5 million, or a little more than 5 percent of the 280 or so million people in the U.S.The 16 largest cities have a combined population of only about 10 percent of the U.S. population. That doesn't even include the obvious point: that not everyone in a big city will vote for the same candidate, anyway. Obviously, a few large cities can't win an election by themselves.Some state that small states would have no say under direct popular vote. Most swing states are medium to large states. Smaller states, such as Alaska, Hawaii, Wyoming, Vermont and Montana, in 2000 and 2004 all got ignored by the presidential candidates because they weren't up for grabs. Indeed, if we didn't have an Electoral College, it would be impossible for candidates to pay any less attention to these states.
Big swing states like Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio received massive amounts of attention in both 2000 and 2004 from the presidential candidates. Indeed, in our present system of "winner takes all" delegates of a state serves as a disincentive to the minority party voter in a state. It serves to make the vote of a Republican voter in Hawaii or a Democrat voter in Wyoming meaningless. It directly depresses the vote.In Afghanistan, there is instant runoff balloting for the presidency. We can do as well as a nation that just a few years ago was under the Taliban. Our founders made the Constitution for us, not the other way around. It should represent the present needs of Americans.I'm an American first and foremost; my state loyalty comes a distant second, as I assume the same for most Americans. The Electoral College was made in an era where state loyalty was first and foremost. It is time to end the Electoral College or reform


Letter on violation of the US Constitution by Bush

I am amazed that Jack Matthews, whose Letter to the Editor appeared in the Chronicle’s Dec. 21 edition, views the many violations of Constitutional liberties by presidents previous to George Bush as not that important or excusing any misconduct by President Bush.The Alien and Sedition Act was clearly unconstitutional. It imprisoned critics of the Adams administration. There is absolutely no defense of this law, which was immediately repealed when Thomas Jefferson took office. It was unconstitutional for Presidents Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman and others to engage in unconstitutional violations of basic civil liberties.A history of presidents abusing their authority does not excuse those abuses nor does it excuse any violation of civil liberties that President Bush might have engaged in. Frankly, the president isn’t above the Constitution, and he isn’t above checks and balances on him, be it the judicial branch or the legislative branch. Indeed, the Bush administration’s own justice department stated in a memo that the Bush administration is not obligated to follow any Congressional statute if it interferes with the way the President sees to his policies in the war on terror. While it is extremely important that the President has the tools to fight terrorists, he isn’t a one-man government. Clearly, he and his administration are obligated to abide by federal law, if passed in the past or recently, and judicial approval as mandated by the Fourth Amendment’s protections. And in regards to the guest column by Geoffery Higginbotham, which appeared in the Chronicle’s Dec. 28 edition, I agree with some of his comments, but I have to point out one thing. Congressman’s Murtha resolution on Iraq wasn’t voted upon; it was a Republican resolution. The Republicans knew that few Democrats supported the language of the Republican resolution. Murtha’s resolution wrote for these steps to be taken: “Section 1, The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date. Section 2, A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines shall be deployed in the region. Section 3, The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.”Here is the Republican resolution that was falsely stated as what Murtha and other Democrats wanted, in its entirety: “Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately. Resolved, that it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.”Clearly, these resolutions didn’t match. If one wants to disagree with Murtha and anti-war Democrats, fine, but let’s be honest.