Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (July 22, 2004)
s ' Great J to mediJ 3nd one J 3x resuitgl »rsonat:;: M-F. Fy ; e Sown it l Psyct 90 majors;] iylene ■S. Gray ay$. FleJ iy! Cusii +. CondiJ :er Block.;- ipecializin;| Opinion The Battalion Page 5 • Thursday, July 22, 2004 Drinking without driving Pennsylvania man shouldn't have had licence removed for drinking regularly early!! Ij.com for adoi testing, its. TtieQ M, first sfj k, $250. S’ hile drinking and driving at the same time is in- [visable and illegal, does overnment entity also Jve the right to restrict |yone who drinks regu- ly from driving? Under [rrent Pennsylvania law, answer unfortunately ms to be yes. While being treated for irregular heartbeat, Keith Emerich of Lebanon, nn., told doctors that he usually drinks at least a oan rr six pack of beer a day, according to The Associ- akl Press. TOWJEmerich’s doctor, who, ironically, remains ulnamed for reasons of confidentiality, ap- HHBrently reported him to the Pennsylvania ■ftpartment of Transportation in the interest of (implying with a state law passed in the 1960s )■fbiiis.it;‘that requires doctors to report any physical or ^^lental deficiency that could impair a person's alility to drive. In April, Emerich received a notice from ■nnDOT that, effective May 6, his driver drmM; license would be suspended due to substance veownbrll 79-779 Jluse - 1 Apparently. PennDOT inferred that drinking ;. $325a six beers in one day engenders drunken driving revoked Emerich's driver’s license pre- — emptively, based solely on an unsubstantiated 12. Bsumption of his guilt, an action that is unfair « al well as unconstitutional. 25/ m ft ®lThe Fifth Amendment states that “No person kail be ... deprived of life, liberty or property, 1406 Stnwithout the due process of law,” and the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a “speedy ^^■dpublic trial” in all criminal prosecutions. ;let, these are exactly the things Emerich has $i50r;leen denied. In one fell swoop, PennDOT acted 9 9M §judge, trial and jury, and convicted Emer- ——4ichof a crime he has yet to commit or, more accurately, a crime he has not actually been convicted of in the past 23 years, nd $200*fi According to the AP, Emerich was convicted f driving drunk when he was 21. Since then, wever, Emerich has maintained a clean driv- .k^Vgrecord and gainful employment. 2004-20:: “He’s been able to go to work, and he’s got a heck of a nice work record. He’s been able to function in all other avenues of life,” said Emerich’s lawyer Horace Ehrgood, according to the AP. And Emerich is the first to admit that his past drinking practices were unhealthy. “It wasn’t good for me - I’m not going to lie,” Emerich told the AP. “What I do in the privacy of my own home is none of PennDOT’s business.” A July 15 editorial written by the Lebanon Daily News, Emerich’s hometown newspaper, succinctly summarized the situation: “If Mr. Emerich was drinking more than a six-pack of beer a day, he may well have had a drinking problem. But a drinking problem is not the same as a drinking-and-driving problem. Mr. Emerich said he only drank at home and never drove afterward.” Pennsylvania’s law was intended to help keep an open line of communication between its department of transportation and its doctors, thus best enabling the state to keep aging and ailing drivers from getting behind the wheel. In many cases, this law is not only warranted but almost certainly life-saving. After all, it is not always easy or even possible for a doctor to prevent a recent stroke victim or a person with declining eyesight from driving when driving is an integral part of both functioning logisti- cally on a day-to-day basis and one’s feeling of autonomy as an independent human being. However, Emerich has not been restricted from driving due to a medical condition that detracts from his driving proficiency, but due to an alleged substance abuse problem. Therein lies the problem, because the only medical condition directly correlated with alcohol con sumption that renders a person unfit to drive is drunkenness. If the state of Pennsylvania wants to accuse Emerich of driving drunk then it must go through the prescribed channels — where the alleged perpetrator is caught committing the crime, tried and convicted of it — and not act solely on a presumption of his guilt. “Sensibly enforced, it’s a good law. It is not a tool for social engineering, which is what it appears to us the mystery physician was doing when he or she turned Mr. Emerich in to PennDOT,” the Lebanon Daily News’ editorial said. Cases such as Em erich’s epitomize the problems that can arise when a law fails to provide suf ficient account ability to ensure its accurate enforce ment and is worded loosely enough not to preclude the possibil ity for it to be miscon strued. PennDOT spokeswoman Joan Nissley told the AP that while the state’s trans portation agency revokes 5,000 to 6,000 licenses a year, it does not keep statistical records on its reasons for the revocations. So essentially, PennDOT can suspend the licenses of anyone it wants to, forcing the individuals to appeal the suspension if they ever hope to drive again. This backward, guilty-until- proven-innocent logic is unbecoming of a U.S. state agency. Emerich has appealed his license’s suspen sion, and his hearing has been slated for July 29. The Pennsylvania Department of Transpor tation should restore Emerich his license, and with it restore the integrity of the constitution ally guaranteed presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Lindsye Forson is a senior journalism major. Graphic by Rylie Deyoe iley. bdrmi1.5N led, fully H , 485-02® Brand w i smokta 4bdmu2tf 3. +1/4# MAIL CALL Same-sex marriages should be allowed The Patriot Act is too invasive, unpatriotic In response Nicholas Davis’ July 20 column: ln res P° nse t0 Crai g Bowen ’ s Ju| V 21 column: Cheney shouldn’t change stance on Federal Marriage Amendment iuse, W 690-8940 )th house' +1# >ded. P® te nee# slill 481- roomrn# ivillea,^ ; ob at 9$ ,d l-rooff $425# 193-3248. 1/1 ba 9# 405-3®' house r luded,« >o.com >2 shut# . +1/3# $325# j onDof odr/3bat' liable S' e dW# $365# Mr. Davis, regarding same-sex marriage, you are absolutely right. The majority of Americans do oppose it, as do I. However, in any government, especially the govern ment of a democracy, it is imperative to recognize the minority for legitimacy. This concept is directly related to the civil rights movement and has been a funda mental part of our government since the revolution. Many believe same-sex mar riage is a direct violation on civil rights. If this group does not warrant like con sideration, it is simply discrimination. America needs leaders who accommo date every individual without discrimination. If you do not agree with that statement, you are merely a prejudiced interest. Besides that, banning same-sex mar riage will create a great uproar. I consider it similar to trying to control a rebellious teenager, causing only more rebellion. Eventually the teenager will have to ac knowledge what is right and wrong, pos sibly the hard way. In either case the goal is achieved. Banning same-sex marriage will not only forcefully implement what naturally exist, it will discriminate and it is not needed. John McLaughlin Class of 2005 Maybe Mr. Bowen should have read the Pa triot Act before writing an article as to what it says or does not say. To claim that investigative authorities need a search warrant to conduct in vestigations is simply a lie. For instance, under the Patriot Act, authorities can monitor books that ANY person reads at the library or buys for a bookstore without looking at whether or not that person is a terrorist and without a search warrant. Rep. Bernie Williams tried to amend the Patriot Act so that only suspected terrorists, not just any average Joe, could be searched. Congress voted this amendment to a tie, leav ing it dead. This is one of several instances of where the Patriot Act goes too far past the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Certainly there needs to be increased vigi lance and tightened security for our country. No rational person would debate this point. However, if our president claims the “United States was attacked because terrorists hate our freedom,” the last thing that needs to be done is pass the Patriot Act, which limits those freedoms. Limiting freedoms is unpa triotic, and gives victory to the terrorists. Brent Lowry Class of 2006 The Battalion encourages letters to the editor. Letters should he 200 words or less and include the author’s name, class and phone number. The opinion editor reserves the right to edit letters for length, style and ac curacy. Letters may be submitted in person at 014 Reed McDonald with a valid student ID. Letters also may be mailed to: 015 Reed McDonald, 1111 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843-1111. Fax: (979) 845-2647 Email: maikall@thebattalion.net I n an elec tion year, the public turns to its current leaders and their chal lengers to ask how important issues might be decided during the next four years. One such issue involves the conflicting ideas over the govern ment’s sanction of gay marriage. Over the past year, people have watched on the news as same- sex couples line up outside city buildings to receive marriage licenses, and witnessed the sub sequent backlash from politicians as they argue whether or not this should be allowed. During Vice President Dick Cheney’s campaign with Presi dent Bush in 2000, Cheney engaged in a debate with Joe Lieberman and was asked about the issue of gay marriage. “That matter is regulated by the states,” he responded. “I think different states are likely to come to different conclusions, and that’s appropriate. I don’t think there should necessarily be a federal policy.” This undoubtedly pleased his lesbian daughter, Mary, who held a public role in her father’s campaign and helped the GOP recruit gay voters during the 2002 elections. Instead of sticking to his convictions, Cheney has decided to yield to a position of solidar ity with Bush’s push to create a Constitutional amendment against gay marriage. In doing so, he seems to have violated his own beliefs in order to align with his party’s stance and supported leg islation which is a slap in his own daughter’s face. “The president is going to have to make a decision in terms of what administration policy is on this particular provision, and I will support whatever decision he makes,” Cheney said. A change to the Constitution is a major statement. It’s the high est law in our country, and one would expect a man of strong moral conviction to be clear on how he feels about changing that text. However, he has publicly supported the Federal Marriage Amendment in glaring contra diction to what he told America when he was being considered for his job. While lying on your resume would certainly bring severe conse quences to normal people, it’s sadly the status quo when it comes to politicians. Supporting the president is im portant to Cheney, but yielding to his convictions simply to give that support seems to be treason against his values, if indeed he be lieved what he told Americans during the 2000 debate. “He that always gives way to others will end in having no principles of his own,” Aesop once said, and while that was thousands of years ago, that sentiment is just as important today. If Cheney really had a change of heart, it’s important that he explain it to the public, espe cially since his original statement likely had something to do with the way the public voted. He should state his reasons for his beliefs, and strengthen his own position. Sadly, the stance of “whatever my boss thinks,” sug gests a weak conviction that he cannot likely justify. This story is one of many that occur too often in politics. It’s become a joke that politicians lie to get elected, and believe th'at compromising their beliefs just to be pragmatic in their job is more important than being men and women of principle. While the nature of our government allows a diversity of opinions to be expressed, leaders must be of strong moral character and have clear ideas of right and wrong, for their own lives, families and their country. Happily, Lynne Cheney has a strong enough character to speak out for what she believes, even if it contradicts her hus band. “First of all, to be clear that people should be free to enter into their relationships that they choose,” she told CNN’s “Late Edition” on July 11. “And, secondly, to recognize what’s historically been the situation, that when it comes to confer ring legal status on relationships, that is a matter left to the states,” she said. This is the kind of courage we need to see from our lead ers — the courage to say what you believe, ignoring those who disagree, even if they are your boss or your husband. In a time when leaders think that “legitimacy” means get ting the world’s approval to act and candidates can flip-flop on positions without being taunted off the stage, it’s refreshing to see a woman like Lynne Cheney unafraid to dare the opposition in defense of what she holds to be true. Perhaps in the future Mrs. Cheney’s sense of moral convic tion will rub off on her husband. He seems to be in need of some. Mike Walters is a senior psychology major. MIKE WALTERS Supporting the president is impor tant to Cheney, but yielding to his convictions simply to give that sup port seems to be treason against his values...