Dear Editor,
(In response to Harry Branca, Jr.’s letter, ‘Ax is the one who owes Groveland Twp. an apology,? The Citizen, Sept. 6, page 7)
So you agree with me about the voters: this is good. Being we are a republic and our country is based on the rule of law, then practice what you preach. The law has weighed, measured and delivered a decision on this issue. The law says the results of the votes stand.
Yes, the fiber of what makes the man is relevant! Honor, integrity and honesty are hard-wired in us, it is not a light switch you turn on and off.
I don’t spin, sir. You ask, ‘Isn’t it Ax’s responsibility?? Yes, it is his responsibility, as it is the responsibility of those officials (our representatives) to monitor the campaign. You may want to challenge those officials as well; they are the ones you voted for to protect your best interests. Ax has admitted that he was directed to look into the Hatch Act and that he should have researched it further.
He made a mistake for not researching further, but as you say, ‘We all make mistakes? and the character of an individual is how one deals with error when confronted with facts. So let’s see, how did Ax deal with them? He approached the officials, the federal government (his employer) by law delivered the verdict and Ax then acted to fulfill the rule of law. He was told he had to resign his current position, which in turn meant he would have no salary for months to support his family, so he could serve the community. He did that.
This is why, in my opinion, the Hatch Act is out-of-date and comparing it to the entire U.S Constitution is again political crap on your part. It begs the question,: do you think the 1939 Hatch Act was written this way so only wealthy individuals working for the feds could run for local offices, since us common folk need a salary at all times to care for our families? We can save that for another debate.
Wow, the frog comment hit a chord and one that made your logic go sideways. I did not say he spoke for you. You were speaking for him, which is what you wrote.
Ax has taken responsibility for his actions and the law has already ruled on the final outcome, and you need to accept that. Since you do not accept the decision, then it is your debate against the results, it is not a debate for Ax.
So, here I am again to continue the debate against the results if you so choose, but you will need to come out from behind the keyboard. Don’t be chicken. It is good and healthy for our citizens to hear and learn, we learn along the way as well. In your closing you say, ‘We can only assume.? I am afraid when challenging the integrity of a man, there is no room for assumption.
David Saroli