I am confused by Examiner columnist Gene Healy’s Nov. 24 argument that forcing individuals to buy health care is unconstitutional (“Obamacare is unconstitutional, but that should be easy to skirt”). The specific legal precedents Healy cites actually established that “the business of insurance” is subject to federal regulation under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Healy may not agree with the Supreme Court, but ironically he makes a clear case that the proposed health care legislation is probably constitutional. The real purpose of his article is a cheap shot at President Barack Obama and the proposed health care legislation.
Ralph E. Stone, San Francisco
Truth about Honduras
I am very appreciative of The Examiner for “straightening me out” on the truth concerning recent past events in the country of Honduras, a very important military ally of ours. In your Sunday editorial (“Honduran democracy survives Obama’s bungling”), you explained that former President Manuel Zelaya wanted to rely on “mob rule,” otherwise known as a nonbinding referendum, on the question of whether or not the people would allow him to run for a second four-year term
Instead of allowing this vote to take place, military leader Roberto Micheletti, in order to save democracy for Honduras, staged a midnight coup and kidnapped the elected president and whisked him away to another country.
We in the United States allow our president to run for two four-year terms, but as the article makes clear, the Honduran people will now know that the “precedent of limited executive power will be embedded permanently in the mind of the new Honduran president.”
Don Havis, San Mateo
Misguided pet policy
As San Francisco supervisors hash out the latest idea mandating that landlords allow pets, all you need to do is keep current on the “no-smoking” contracts some landlords are issuing in order to recognize that the same asthmatics who get sick from smoke are often the same people who get sick from animal dander. So “you may not smoke, but you may have pets” doesn’t make any sense at all.
T. Kos, San Francisco
Cross claim has no merit
I strongly disagree with Newt Gingrich’s Friday column that claimed taking a Christian cross out of a national park is an attack on religion.
The cross clearly represents a single religion, and leaves out the non-Christian war dead. Some have suggested that a cross would be acceptable if it were accompanied by symbols of Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Rastafarianism and the many other faith systems in the U.S. Obviously this is impractical, if not impossible, and even then it would offend the nonreligious.
This confirms the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, who wanted to keep religion completely separate from government.
Sid Kass, San Francisco