Letters to the Editor

Don't amend constitution to protect hunting

In November when I go to vote, there will be a question on the ballot that reads: "Should the Minnesota Constitution be amended to affirm that hunting and fishing and the taking of game are a valued part of our heritage that shall ever be preserved for the people and shall be managed by law and regulation for the public good?" As a taxpayer, citizen and non-hunter, I will vote NO!

Although this question looks harmless, it is nothing more than a deceitful political statement in support of hunting and trapping. The reason it appears on the ballot is because our Legislature gave in to the wishes of an extreme segment of the hunting lobby.

The provisions of our constitution should be reserved for basic needs of citizens and should not be used to protect those who practice the killing of animals. There is no compelling reason to change our constitution.

Judi Murphy,St. Paul,member, Legislative Effort for Animal Protection

Let's get back to the real business of government

Our fine, upstanding citizens of the media and the Republican Party have finally managed the ultimate in humiliation for President Clinton, his family and the entire United States. This fiasco is just a ploy to discredit a Democratic president and to dodge the real responsibility of working on legislation to upgrade our education, do something about our deplorable HMO situation and get to the truth about employment for the average American.

Recently I read that corporations are seeking to increase immigration quotas to fill jobs in the computer and engineering fields. Are our own graduates really less intelligent, or are corporations able to get these immigrants for lower wages? If our education is that far behind other countries', we are in deep trouble.

One could write a book about the problems with our health management organizations. The only true beneficiaries are overpaid upper management. The outlandish cost of prescriptions and the way HMOs force the use of generic substitutions without regard to patient needs is another whole story. Must one be wealthy to obtain adequate health care?

How many people in government and the media realize that the majority of available jobs are part-time only, consisting of 16 to 28 hours a week? The obvious result is inadequate standards of living for millions of people and outrageous profits for employers and business owners.

Average citizens deserve to have their stories told, too!

Rosemary Binczik,Minneapolis

We did need to know about president's actions

"We didn't need to know?" I did. I needed to know for myself to see the president's face and hear his answers, to share his public humiliation, pain, anger and embarrassment because he is a child of my generation -- and I am so ashamed.

In January, President Clinton shook his finger at me as a citizen of this country and denied this whole affair to my face. In August, he confessed his sin to me, and in the same breath I heard him say he would fight all the charges against him. In September, I was given an opportunity to hear his words and judge not his soul, but his truthfulness and character.

I needed to know, but I hated to hear of his actions, lies, foolish words of explanation, excuses and eagerness to take credit for the successes and give blame to everyone else for the failures of his administration. I needed to listen because I had laughed when I should have cried. Bill Clinton may or may not remain in the office of president, but he will always remain a child of my generation.

Mary C. Spitzack,Owatonna

Americans don't understand impeachment

The U.S. Constitution details how agents of government are invested and the bestowal of powers, as well as the divestiture from office with forfeiture of powers. The "un-electing" of officers is an area the Founding Fathers had little, if any, experience with, and is poorly described in the Constitution. It is also the provision most misunderstood: impeachment.

When running for office, you have to campaign and tell future constituents what and how you propose to legislate or govern. You also have to organize, start a campaign and spread the word why an office holder should be removed. Impeachment in our Constitution is a process. It is a form of recall-election.

Article I, section 3, paragraph 8 of the Constitution corroborates my contention that impeachment is not a trial of "guilty" or "not guilty." It is a removal from office, and it could be without prejudice in many cases.

I recommend that we should frequent the practice of impeachment, not so much for the removal of federal officers, but to open up arcane proceedings to the Congress for the public to hear and see. We could make our government more "user-friendly" and more "citizen-friendly," in the process. And the more we proliferate impeachments, the more responsive our government would become to us, the people, for whose sake government was instituted in the first place.

Francis van Dan,Fridley,alumnus