Editor: Gov. William Donald Schaefer recently said there would be no state funds available for new school construction.
A few years ago the governor strongly supported construction of a new stadium. The governor wants to be known as the ''sports governor'', not the ''education governor.''
There is money for a new sports stadium for a few millionaire ballplayers, but no money left for new schools.
I have an idea that might get the governor to change his mind. We could name all of the new schools after him.
Editor: The new ball park will be given a name sooner or later. Who gives the name matters little. The new park is to be the home of the Orioles. Should not the name reflect this fact?
''Oriole Park'' seems to make more sense than naming a ball park after a train yard. Are we promoting baseball, or trains?
James R. Burns.
Gun Shop Murder
Editor: Michael Olesker's Sept. 17 column all but says the owner of the Northeast Gun Shop, Charles ''Eddie'' Scheuerman, deserved to die. I have read many disgusting anti-gun essays over the years, but this is clearly the most appalling.
Eddie Scheuerman is, indeed, someone who Marylanders should remember. Thanks to his willingness to stand up to the Maryland State Police, Maryland's waiting period is now just seven days -- as the law requires. Before Mr. Scheuerman's brave action, the real waiting period was often much longer -- despite the clear intent of the Maryland legislature.
Mr. Scheuerman died because some criminals decided not to go through a waiting period to get guns. Instead, they brutally killed him and robbed his store. No gun-control law would have saved his life, let alone the stronger gun laws Mr. Olesker demands in his column. I would remind Mr. Olesker that murder and robbery are also illegal in Maryland.
Mr. Olesker might have bothered to spare a tear or two for an honest businessman killed by thugs. Instead, his readers learn that Mr. Scheuerman was asking for trouble by selling a legal product. I look forward to reading future Olesker columns in which the wardrobe and background of rape victims are dragged out as an excuse for rapists and dead crack dealers are callously used as an argument for most drug laws.
The writer is executive director of a lobbying group called Gun Owners of America.
Nomination of Clarence Thomas
Editor: I have been impressed with your coverage of Judge Clarence Thomas' confirmation hearings to the Supreme Court of the United States.
The Sun has been fair and objective in its balanced portrayal of Judge Clarence Thomas. Your readership has been informed in many ways, not only about the man, but about the confirmation process to the U.S. Supreme Court as well.
My respect for The Sun has been elevated to a new height because of your journalistic integrity and professionalism in this important matter.
Editor: Though they should know better, many people discussing the nomination of Judge Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court are confusing the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution when facing the problem of Judge Thomas' rTC beliefs in the pertinence of "natural law" to his expected new position. The latest of these that I have seen was Cal Thomas in his Sept. 14 Opinion * Commentary piece.
The Declaration of Independence was a rallying point for people engaged in armed revolution against the existing authority. Since those people won, they were right; what they won was the right to form a new nation based on the principles set forth in that declaration.
It became the job of those citizens and remains the job of their descendants, partly directly and partly through their elected representatives, to convert the arguments in that document into a working government. One result of that conversion is the Constitution, a living document kept alive through the amendment process. That is a rewriting process that is not the prerogative of the Supreme Court.
There are very few sets of words which mean the same thing to every one. It is the job of the Supreme Court to interpret that document as it exists at any one time. While the citizens and their elected representatives must consider natural law in writing laws and amending the Constitution, the members of the Supreme Court are outside that process. A Supreme Court justice who bases his opinions on "natural law" is a form of loose canon. A person who wishes his views of "natural law" to have an impact should run for some elective office, including the presidency. If he gets on the Supreme Court, he should suppress his inclination to be guided by "natural Law," a very difficult thing to do.
George H. Winslow.
Editor: So much has been written about the need to provide more dollars for the poor and education that I think we need to remind ourselves of a few sad facts.