Winston-Salem Journal LTE FR 07/06/12

Simply wrong

I don't care what the Constitution says.

Well — actually, I do. I think it's very important. But perhaps in the same way that some say, "God's law is more important than man's law," I care more about Americans living without adequate health care than about the letter of the law or what some call "freedom." If that makes me a "socialist," so be it.

It doesn't matter whether it's a right or a privilege, define it however you like, but in a country as rich as America, it's simply wrong for us to have the backward, cold-hearted, profit-driven system we'd been living under (and the Republicans advocate) before Obamacare. There's no excuse for it. There's nothing more obviously moral than relieving needless suffering and nothing more obviously immoral than allowing it to continue when we could stop it.

President Obama did what no president in modern times has been able to do — he brought improvements to our health-care system. He provided health care to millions of Americans who previously had none. Doesn't that mean anything?

It's not a perfect system, but it's a start, and it's about time we started, we're behind the rest of the civilized world. That's never where America should be.

So even before the Supreme Court refuted it, "it's not constitutional" never carried any weight with me. The Constitution should not be used as an excuse for allowing Americans to suffer.

---

MARK B. HOWARD

Winston-Salem

New legal questions

While lauding the leadership of Chief Justice John Roberts, the Journal concludes its June 29 editorial ("Health care law preserved") on a "hope and change" note: "We hope that with the legal questions answered, Congress will now get down to the serious business of making this law work." Be careful what you wish for.

Sadly, while Obamacare's commerce clause issue may be settled, new legal questions were created by Robert's unsupported conclusion that Obamacare's taxing of Americans converts its unconstitutional mandate into a constitutional tax simply by his unilaterally deeming the law's stated "penalty" as, instead, a "tax."

Obamacare's statutory language clearly levies a penalty for noncompliance with its insurance mandate. Furthermore, President Obama and the enacting congressional leaders have all stated publicly that it is a penalty. Heretofore, the Supreme Court has never treated a penalty for noncompliance of law as a tax.

In substance, Roberts rewrote validly legislated statutory language, an action the Supreme Court has historically found it has no power to do.

More troubling: Roberts created a huge new federal power — taxing whatever Americans' behavior it doesn't like in order to enforce compliance with legislation that may otherwise be unconstitutional.

In his masterpiece, "The Prince," Machiavelli advised ruthless political leaders that "the end justifies the means." Ignore human, ethical and legal concerns in pursuit of political goals.

Are we now on a slippery Orwellian slope where words no longer have their intended meaning?

An answer rests with voters on Nov. 6, 2012. May we decide wisely.

---

PETER W. MINGES

Clemmons

Failure of the system

I was appalled and outraged by Scott Sexton's column on the pathetic sentencing decision that was handled down by Judge Todd Burke in the case against Angelanetta Gladden ("Woman gets little penalty for starving dog to death," June 28). Integral to the Forsyth Humane Society's mission, we strive to educate the community about humane treatment of animals and how to be responsible pet owners. FHS teaches all ages, all incomes and multiple ethnic groups about the simplest needs of animals.

Children as young as 3 know dogs need food, water and shelter. This was compassionately displayed by Gladden's neighborhood children, who she witnessed trying to feed her starving dog, Diamond, candy and chips. They recognized Diamond was in distress.

The neglect and abuse that Gladden inflicted on Diamond is disturbing to any human, whether they have pets or not. What is most appalling in this case is the failure of the judicial system to recognize and punish Gladden for her intentional infliction of pain and suffering on a pet that she chose to keep in her care. Yes, I am sure she called Animal Control after the smell of what was left of Diamond became unbearable. She did not want to deal with Diamond, dead or alive.

I hope this case serves as a wake-up call for Judge Burke. What kind of message does this send to our community? Maybe he should take his own advice — spend some time learning about pet's basic needs at the Humane Society.

---

SUSAN R. DORAN

Community Outreach and Education Coordinator

Forsyth Humane Society

Winston-Salem