Not the job of court to make new laws
In days of yore, it was the custom of newspapers not to call editorial opinion news. This paper seems unaware of this.
On March 28, writer Howard Mintz says regarding the Supreme Court "the justices appear reluctant to make much law." It is not the function of the court to make law; they are there to see if laws created by the Congress are legal according to the Constitution or to previous court decisions.
As Justice Felix Frankfurter might have said, "your judicial arm isn't supposed to know what your political arm is up to."
If we don't like the Constitution, there are two ways of changing it. Expecting the court to change its opinions to follow the latest political trend was never intended.
And I am a registered Republican, somewhat reactionary; even so, I find the comic strip "Mallard Fillmore" just plain cheap and vulgar.
Gordon V. Oehser
Cost of agreement is not the issue
I am appalled by the recent Tammerlin Drummond column about the federal court Negotiated Settlement Agreement, known as the NSA, that the Oakland Police Department helped to write and signed, but has failed to comply with in more than 10 years.
Has the paper adopted a corporate editorial policy of blame the victim? That surely is what it sounds like in Drummond's column -- fussing about the cost and the need to exit the agreement.
Really? How about complying with it -- the quickest exit I can imagine. This column is a perfect example of the systemic problems we have in Oakland: failure to recognize a need for reform, and failure to make that reform, even when OPD and City Council helped write the reform and signed it (probably counting on no one following up on the NSA?).
Shame on Drummond for such an ignorant posture. Shame on the Tribune for failing to exercise decent, minimal editorial oversight on content.
And mostly? Shame on OPD and the City Council for failure to make the reforms needed and agreed upon by you. Our city only improves when integrity and effort are exercised. Suggesting that the cost or the agreement itself is the problem is, well, ignorant.
Currency policies causing buying
Recently, one reader expressed alarm because of foreigners buying property in America.
The cause of foreign investor spending in America is the interventionist policies of the present administration and the Federal Reserve.
The administration spends 40 percent more money than it has, causing the Fed to print excessive dollars. This debases the value of the dollar, causing everyone to lose 5 to 7 percent a year.
This is the start of foreigners buying things of value and ditching the dollar, causing hyperinflation to hit America. This always happens to countries with a fiat currency (money not backed by gold).
As you can see, our government purposely decided to make this trade-off (to have a party, and let the next president suffer). Have fun while you cheer our president.
Troubling increase of gun ownership
Typical of many topics causing disagreement in America today, the Second Amendment has become a subject where there seems to be no possible agreement between conservatives and liberals on what's intended by the language.
My concern is that we're seeing an escalation of weapons in the hands of private citizens which increases with each new sensationalized incident.
When will we reach the tipping point that causes us to reduce weapons rather than continuing this trend of too many guns?
While I'm confident guns aren't the main cause of people becoming more violent, having easy access to weapons certainly helps facilitate the daily killings across America.
We must address the psychology of why we need fewer, not more, guns. The rash of gun purchases after any talk of restricting our ability to keep and own guns is undoubtedly partly caused by security fears.
Our leaders must speak out on why we don't need to arm ourselves. Failing that, we can expect the demagogues to continue inciting fear, followed by more gun purchases, and ultimately more guns in the hands of those who would do violence.
Fredrick R. Ford