Opinion: Our Bill of Rights is deserving of its own celebration

During these troubled times, when our freedom and way of life are being challenged by foreign and domestic enemies, it seems very appropriate to call attention to an essential ingredient of our American freedoms.

The United States of America might never have existed without one thing: the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights limits the power of the government and protects the rights of the people. It was so important that several of the original 13 states were concerned about ratifying the Constitution without it.

Nearly everything that makes an American proud to be one comes from the Bill of Rights: There are freedoms to speak, print, read, assemble, pray, petition the government, keep and bear arms. Protection from unreasonable arrests and searches, excessive bail, double jeopardy, coerced confessions, cruel and unusual punishment. Rights to due process, jury trials, counsel and to present defense witnesses. These are the freedoms and rights that define America.

Surprisingly, Americans do not celebrate the foundation of our political freedom, the Bill of Rights -- but we should. After all, the Bill of Rights is part of our Constitution, it is what our military people pledge to serve and die for. It is uniquely American. People on the political left, center and right can all rally around the Bill of Rights because it expresses our shared basic values.

On Dec. 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights was ratified and has since protected American citizens for 210 years. We should celebrate Dec. 15 every year. By officially designating Dec. 15 as Bill of Rights Day, we would be reminding our fellow citizens and younger generations of our heritage. Bill of Rights Day would declare America's commitment to civil and human rights to the world and remind politicians, bureaucrats, prosecutors and judges that their authority and power are limited.

Dec. 15, Bill of Rights Day, reminds us of the liberty we have and what it costs to keep it. By celebrating Bill of Rights Day every year, perhaps we shall never forget.
-- Mark A. Baron, New Port Richey

A time to reflect on our rights

Since Sept. 11 we have been subjected to an almost-daily campaign aimed at making us feel less anxious over the loss of certain of our civil rights. We have been told that we must give up certain rights "for our own safety," possibly even those "unalienable" rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

With today being Bill of Rights Day, it might be a good time to reflect on what's in the Bill of Rights and what it means. (It's a remarkably short document: It can be read completely in about two minutes.)

First, the Bill of Rights gives us no rights, not a single one. All the rights mentioned there are presumed to be ours by virtue of being born. The entire Bill of Rights, from the opening "Congress shall make no law . . ." to the closing ". . . reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," is a list of things the government may not do. Unfortunately, Congress has done a remarkably poor job of minding its own business.

Second, but most important, is that we may keep only those rights we are willing to (a) defend and (b) extend to everyone. Unfortunately, we've done a remarkably poor job of defending and extending.

When we as a nation decide that some particular right is not worth defending, we lose it; we lose it even if we decide it's not worth defending for someone, say, suspected of terrorism. Everyone loses it, not just those we consider unworthy of our protection. Once lost it takes a revolution to restore rights, whether the 1776-type with bullets and bayonets or the Prague-type with ballots and broadsides.

We long ago lost the rights covered by the Ninth, and Tenth Amendments (during the Civil War), the Fourth (during the war on drugs), and recently have lost those of the Fifth, Sixth and Seventh (during the war on terrorism). The Second has been hanging by a thread since 1934. People are now openly suggesting that the Eighth is keeping the police from doing their job.

You may want to clip this letter and keep it for posterity. Who knows? In another year or two, the Bill of Rights may no longer exist at all except as a quaint relic of times long past.
-- Frank Clarke, Oldsmar

A chance to show respect for law

The United States has a unique opportunity now to prove to the Muslim world and to our own citizens that our soil and laws are sacred. We have indicted a terrorist tied to the World Trade Center attack and arrested Jewish terrorists in Los Angeles apparently bent on bombing a mosque and congressman's office.

How our press and law enforcement proceed on these two cases may demonstrate much about us as a country and people.
-- Ed Quinones, Clearwater

If the description fits

I am confused. If a criminal suspect's description is broadcast over the police radios, the police usually search for and question persons who "fit the description." If a person reports a lost child, persons are asked to seek a child (not an adult!) fitting the description of the child in question.

I would like someone to explain to me the difference, if any, between these scenarios and what is called "profiling," when the suspect happens to fit the description of an Arab terrorist.
-- James M. Vanderplas, Indian Rocks Beach

A rabble-rousing column

Howard Troxler must enjoy keeping readers unhappy with the St. Petersburg Times. His Dec. 7 column Examining our rights, considering what's right is nothing more than rabble-rousing.

I am one who believes that President Bush is an excellent and strong leader of the free world. His Cabinet and advisers are people who demonstrate a will to keep America safe.

The military tribunal set up by Attorney General John Ashcroft is directed at noncitizens who would like to destroy our American way of life. We should not have to go the way of political correctness to punish those who would use our system to defend their actions against America.

As for those who are being racially profiled, again, these are not citizens but guests in our country. The people being profiled are of the same culture as those who brought us harm on Sept. 11. Our intelligence agencies advise us that there are those in America -- as guests, or illegal guests -- who will still do us harm when they have the opportunity.

We must find them, and the only way to do that is to ask those profiled to come forward and answer questions so that they may continue a wonderful life in America and not be under suspicion. Those few still in America who would do us harm must be found, and our leaders in government have the strong will and ability to find them.
-- Gerald H. Charvat, St. Pete Beach

Release wasn't an option for Sam

Re: Not such a pretty picture, commentary, Dec. 10.

It is unfair to compare Sam to other captive animals. He had on-going medical conditions as a result of his beaching years ago and could not be released into the wild. The people who were against his captivity I'm sure wouldn't have preferred he suffer a horrible slow death on that beach so many years ago. Nor would they have wanted him patched back together and sent back out, afflictions and all, only to end up being beached again or dinner for a predator because of his weakened condition. To say he would have been happier in the wild is cruel, as it wasn't an option. For his entire stay at the aquarium he was adored and doted on by staff and volunteers alike and the fact that he lived so long, I believe, proves he was happy.

In regard to his painting: When you are dealing with a highly intelligent animal you have to find ways to keep his mind active and alert. He painted only when and if he felt like it. Like so many other captive animals that paint -- elephants, river otters, chimps and house cats -- he seemed to really enjoy himself and would squeak with delight. Like people who paint for relaxation or therapy, he seemed to put a great deal of thought and color into his works. Sam's few, lovely originals sold for $50 each. To think he was cranking out painting after painting to support the aquarium is ludicrous!

Instead of spending time and energy complaining, perhaps these people should have volunteered their time or donated money to help support all the injured animals at the Clearwater Marine Aquarium.
-- Christine Jamesson, aquarium volunteer, Clearwater

Critic's comments out of place

Re: Sun sets on the era of Sunset Sam, Dec. 5.

We are very disappointed with this story. Speaking as people who have put their own time and sweat into volunteering, we can say that Mary Mosley, and you, should be ashamed of yourselves. My issue is not that you made Sunset Sam a page-one item, but that in the article you even mentioned Mary Mosley, armchair environmentalist, who has nothing to do with the aquarium.

Quite frankly, she, and her garden club have no place to talk, much less criticize the facilities that kept Sunset Sam alive and involved at the Clearwater Marine Aquarium for 17 years. The fact that she even said, "disgusting little tank . . ." is offensive. His tank was neither disgusting, nor was it small, as anyone who has been to the aquarium recently can attest to. If she thought the tank was small to begin with, she should have put her garden club together to raise money for enlarging Sam's tank instead of playing finger-pointing games in the press. Sam's best interests have always been a priority for CMA.

The fact that you even considered printing the opinion of someone who isn't informed about the aquarium is irresponsible, inflammatory and appalling. It was neither the time nor place for her comments, especially since the article was meant to note with much grief the passing of Sunset Sam.
-- Michael DeMarais and Kelly Hale, Clearwater

A conflict on animal concerns

Re: Not such a pretty picture, Dec. 10.

So I guess the St. Petersburg Times doesn't care about the obvious conflict in publishing this article while at the same time promoting the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus every time it comes to town. The circus' mistreatment and exploitation of its captive wild animals is well documented.

As long as you continue to accept advertising money from Ringling Bros., you have no room to criticize the Clearwater Marine Aquarium. You all should be ashamed of yourselves.
-- Peter Hines, Tampa

Beatle memories

My compliments to Colette Bancroft on her article, One Last Song for George, in the Dec. 10 paper. Although I'm older (I screamed at the TV when Elvis first appeared on Tommy Dorsey's summer show), I can certainly relate.

I, too, adored the Beatles. I'm one day younger than Paul McCartney (always pretended we were twins separated at birth), so he holds a special place in my heart. But George's passing hurts that heart just as deeply. Thanks for helping us all enjoy the memories.
-- Elaine Coffin, So. Pasadena

Share your opinions

Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731.

They can be sent by e-mail to letters@sptimes.com or by fax to (727) 893-8675.

They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number. Please include a handwritten signature when possible.

Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length. We regret that not all letters can be published.

Back to Opinion

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright

From the Times
Opinion page