News from the Tennessee Valley Opinion
THURSDAY, APRIL 12, 2007
LETTERS | OPINION | HOME | ARCHIVES | COLUMNISTS

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

State Senate rule changes make sham of democracy

To The Daily: Whatever happened to fairness and to doing the right thing?

The behavior by the 18-member majority in Alabamaís Senate is almost unbelievable. The rules changes, which were made to dominate the opposition, make a sham of our democratic process. It should be disgusting to every voter, whether Democrat or Republican.

Weíve come to expect this type of conduct from a Senate dominated by Sen. Lowell Barron and his cronies, so these latest maneuvers are not totally surprising. What is surprising, however, is that so many of the majority are willing to go along with this obviously irresponsible behavior.

It would be quite interesting to know how each of the majority of 18 would honestly, repeat, honestly, answer the following questions:

Do you, in your heart of hearts, feel itís fair to the voters to change the rules of the Senate to limit debate to 30 minutes on issues of great importance to our state?

Is it fair to the voters to change from 21 to 18 the number of votes required to cut off debate on any issue?

Is it fair to the voters to refuse to take up major issues which are important to eliminate the appearance of improprieties?

Itís discouraging to watch how our elected officials are seemingly ignoring their personal integrity while performing the tasks of the people. Whatever happened to fairness and honesty in government?

Our greatest Democratic president, Harry Truman, gave us all a wonderful example when he said, ďWhen in doubt, do whatís right.Ē

Dan H. Broughton
Opelika

In view of evidence, jury verdict was appropriate

To The Daily: This is in response to Sandra Tindollís April 6 letter.

I understand her outrage. What Samuel Sanders did was cruel and reprehensible and by quoting the law on cruelty to a dog in the first degree, she appears to be 100 percent correct. Iím sure many agree with her.

However, there is a law on cruelty to a dog in the second degree. I have read both laws and they are very similar. I know a person who served on that jury. The jury was instructed to leave personal feelings out of their decision and go strictly by the evidence. The jury acted appropriately because the state failed to prove first degree cruelty to a dog.

Innocent until proven guilty: Thatís just one of the things that makes this country great.

Connie Mack Thomason
Somerville

Leave feedback.

Email This Page


  www.decaturdaily.com