As informed citizens, we must always be wary of half-truths and false statements made by small interest groups.

Proposition 98 does not remove rent control as Richard Hofmann states in his letter (Examiner, April 30). In fact, it preserves it for all existing renters. Present California law allows a rent increase to market rate upon the vacating of a unit, so his argument that rents would increase to market when a unit is vacated is already allowed without Proposition 98.

Proposition 99, on the other hand, protects only the single-residence home, giving no protection whatsoever to apartment buildings or renters. It makes no mention at all about preserving rent control or preventing market increase when a unit is vacated.

It is important for all of us to read the actual propositions rather than listen to activists such as Hofmann. Or me, for that matter!

John Fischer

San Francisco

Sleeping in church

So Barack Obama is shocked — shocked! — to discover, after 20 years of apparently listening to his sermons, that his spiritual mentor and hero the Rev. Wright is a raving racist who hates America.

Obama’s latest speech, in which he was forced to throw his former pastor under the bus, was a poll-driven, cynical ploy that is being treated by the adoring media as a profile in courage.

We are left to conclude that either Obama has been sleeping in church every week, or he was attracted to the church because of its virulent message of black liberation theology, which puts him completely outside of mainstream America.

Minnie Hanover

San Francisco

Ambrose and the Constitution

Mr. Ambrose (The Examiner, “Constitution not as living a document as some would think,” April 30) apparently thinks that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is a holy prophet, since Ambrose attaches sacred status to his words — even though Scalia is only one of only two men (Clarence Thomas is the other) in the entire universe who believe in the doctrine of “originalism.”

Not a single other jurist, on the Supreme Court or lower courts, past and present, believes in this idiotic concept. All prior justices have interpreted the Constitution as a living document.

If the past and majority of present Supreme Court justices had believed in “originalism,” blacks would not be counted as whole people (as the Constitution expressly states) and there would be no right to privacy (there is no specific mention of such a right in the Constitution), nor could the present court consider laws about electronics that did not exist 200 years ago.

It is Scalia who is out of step, and apparently Mr. Ambrose, who reveres him and blindly accepts his every word. And to compound his error, Mr. Ambrose has somehow attempted to bring Barack Obama into the Justice Scalia “60 Minutes” interview, and to criticize Obama about his unknown, unstated views on the Constitution, which Ambrose nevertheless labels “balderdash.”

David Weitzman

Berkeley

I read with interest Jay Ambrose’s column on how the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted. Ambrose is apparently in sync with the strict-construction philosophy of Justice Antonin Scalia and other conservatives. Unfortunately, Ambrose, presidential candidate John McCain and other conservatives do not tell us which past Supreme Court rulings they would reverse as contrary to the strict-construction philosophy.

Would it be the rulings finding a right to privacy, which invalidated laws banning contraception and gay sex? (See Eisenstadt v. Baird, 1972; Lawrence v. Texas, 2003).

Would it be the ruling holding that parents have the right to send their children to private school, rather than having forced attendance at public school? (See Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 1925.)

Would it be the ruling that, in the absence of a judicial search warrant, persons have the right to have private telephone conversations without the government listening in? (See Katz v. U.S., 1967.)

None of the foregoing rights can be found by a strict reading of the Constitution. Yet throughout the years, the Supreme Court has held that each of them is a protected right.

I will wait with bated breath to learn which of those rights Ambrose would take from “we the people.”

John M. Kelly

San Francisco

City budget surplus gone

As I read the ongoing drama about San Francisco’s budget problems, I can’t help but think back about a year or so when The City was boasting of its huge budget surplus.

At that time, the supervisors at silly hall were falling all over themselves attempting to spend it all on their pet projects — especially Chris Daly, who wanted to drop some $25 million on “affordable housing,” whatever that means.

These bozos couldn’t run a lemonade stand, much less the finances of a major city like San Francisco.

Rick Junsch

San Francisco

The Examiner gives preference to letters containing fewer than 150 words. Please include name, phone number and city of residence.

To add your voice-

By e-mail: letters@examiner.com

By mail:

Editorial Page Editor

The Examiner, 450 Mission St.

San Francisco, CA 94105

By fax: (415) 359-2766