Letters.

IOTA

I am fascinated by the comments, politically correct though they may be, of Darryl Bloodworth, Randall Berg, and Kent Spuhler in the November 1 News about the IOTA decision by the Fifth Circuit. For lawyers, the first thing we swear to do is support the Constitution of the United States. Certainly, anyone can disagree with a constitutional decision, but to resort to pleading for the "poor" as a reason to criticize such a decision is incorrect. It is quite clear the taking oil interest that belongs to another is both a legal and a moral wrong. The argument that the end justifies the means is wrong.

Lawyers should be the last to say that private property should be taken from one person and given to another by fiat because someone thinks the result is good.

Many do not agree that the result is good. We do not believe that the money is being spent well. Much of it is going to pay salaries for persons whose ideology is not the same as ours.

Because someone is poor does not mean that he is deserving of charity if, indeed, compelled giving can be considered "charity." In any event, some are poor because they have had misfortune. Others are poor because they have squandered their assets and opportunities. Liberals believe it is improper to discriminate between the two categories. That principle has led us to the point where The Florida Bar is often unable to distinguish between the just and the unjust. The result treats everyone as being unjust.

Henry P. Trawick

Sarasota

Investments

I am delighted to learn...