Cant_have_it_both_ways 3 months, 2 weeks ago

I am very sorry for you, and each and every one of us who value freedom. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I feel very sorry too, especially for us who value freedom from the stranglehold of the public sector unions.

• Sign in to suggest removal

boltzmann 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Depends on how you define "freedom"

• Sign in to suggest removal

Alyosha 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Kindly provide evidence — more than "I think it's true" — that public sector unions have a "stranglehold" on anything.

If you can't, why would make that claim?

Sound public policy, fostering and maintaining the public good, is not well-served by believing things which have no basis in fact.

• Sign in to suggest removal

sciencegeek 3 months, 2 weeks ago

If they have such a "stranglehold", why aren't public employees getting anything for it? Why are teachers having to spend more out of their pockets to pay for essentials like dry-erase markers? Why have most state employees not had a raise in over 6 years? Why has KPERS not given a COLA in over 12 years?

These are not private unions, like the AFL-CIO, Teamsters, etc. Since public employees can't strike, many of the "unions" have little clout already. And maybe you should check facts before you post.

• Sign in to suggest removal

jafs 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Your comment reveals the bias of conservatives.

The legislature is tasked with providing "suitable" funding for education by the state constitution. They conducted several studies to determine what would constitute "suitable" funding, and then failed to fund the educational system at that level.

The KS SC did exactly what it's supposed to do under our system, and told the legislature they weren't fulfilling their constitutional obligations.

• Sign in to suggest removal

Moderate 3 months, 2 weeks ago

I know that JAFS and I totally reject it. Here is why. The constitution charges the national legislature to provide for the common defense. Each year the MILDEPS do studies -similar to the ones done here for education- and establish the level of funding to meet the requirements levied by the Congress. That much is never appropriated. Under your notion I can file a lawsuit claiming I am not being adequately protected because the study levels are not met.

What you wish for education can be extended to almost anything - not all things desired by the progressives. If courts can determine levels of funding then watch your wallet.

By the by, I can not think of anything that the government does at any level that is funded to the extent that studies indicate it should be funded. Suitable comes back to politically manageable - whichever party runs that part of the government determines the balance between needs and taxes.. Courts have no business in adjudication of resources - that function belongs to the legislature.

• Sign in to suggest removal

caughtinthemiddle 3 months, 2 weeks ago

By the way, your argument fails in the second paragraph, when you say courts define levels of educational funding. This is where the whole "conservative" argument falls apart, because the Court did not set the level of funding suitable to educate Kansas kids; that was done by the legislature's own research council, recommended to the legislature, and voted into existence as a specific dollar amount per pupil.

What the problem with Kansas is, is that those who are the leaders of the state deny their own responsibility in upholding their own legislation, then attempt to pull a George Orwellian stunt by telling the voters that the funding they themselves approved is too high and that we should be happy that they are taking care of us by giving large amounts of that money to businesses and companies who really deserve it.

This is the type of thing for which Brownback was famous in Washington, and why he never achieved any significant level leadership there.

Why do the voters of Kansas believe in a man who lies, prevaricates, and cheats the very voters who supported him in the first place?

• Sign in to suggest removal

Moderate 3 months, 2 weeks ago

The courts chose the study as the level of funding therefore the courts set the funding. There are many srudies done by our LRS that are not acted upon by the legislature - they are bound by nothing to do so.

• Sign in to suggest removal

jafs 3 months, 2 weeks ago

What's the wording of the common defense section?

If our state constitution simply said to provide for education without the "suitable" modifier, it would be a very different situation, and they could provide whatever level they liked.

Since that's there, some determination has to be made about what qualifies as suitable. And, they made their own such determination.

Your view, like that of many conservatives, seeks to replace our 3 branch system of checks and balances, with the judicial branch performing the important function of making sure legislatures don't violate the constitution, with one in which the only thing that matters is the "will of the people" as expressed in elections.

• Sign in to suggest removal

jafs 3 months, 2 weeks ago

A quick search shows that the federal constitution says that "Congress shall have the power....to provide for the common defense".

That's different from the affirmative obligation in the KS state constitution that the state "shall provide suitable funding for education".

And, of course, there's no level specified in the federal constitution.

So, you're comparing apples and oranges, it seems to me.

• Sign in to suggest removal

Moderate 3 months, 2 weeks ago

I don't think so. Providing for the common defense to rational people means just that - sufficient funding to meet the defense nees of the nation - which of course is a debatable amount. Suitable is a term without specific meaning in that what is suitable to you is not to me. It too is debatable. No difference.

• Sign in to suggest removal

jafs 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Ignoring the difference between granting Congress the power to do something and imposing an affirmative obligation on them to do so.

And, the fact that the legislature arrived at a "suitable" level of funding by commissioning studies to determine that amount.

• Sign in to suggest removal

Moderate 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Love how our language hangs us up. Our constitution (national) is primairly about granting power (authrotity to the Congress and reserving that not granted to the rest of us. Once granted there is IMHO a presumnption of exercising that authority in the public interest.

As I said, what is suitable to you is not suitable to me. That said I expect the legislature (like the Congress) to exercise the authority granted in the common interest. Of course defining that interest is a political process at both levels. Apparently the SC and you read far more into that word than I do hence we disagree and will continue to disagree untill hell freezes over.

Keep the courts out of the business of levying taxes.

• Sign in to suggest removal

jafs 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Granting power is not the same thing as mandating a certain use of it.

The state constitution mandates "suitable funding" is provided for education - that's a much stronger and more affirmative obligation than just granting them the right to do it.

In fact, if our state constitution had simply granted them the authority to do it, without mandating it, there wouldn't be a constitutional issue here at all. Or if the word suitable had been omitted, and the legislature merely required to "fund education".

Why do you continue to ignore the fact that the legislature commissioned several studies to determine what level of funding would be "suitable"? That made it rather easy for the SC to decide they weren't fulfilling that obligation, since their own studies arrived at numbers they weren't providing.

The SC isn't in the business of levying taxes, and hasn't been by this decision - they're simply fulfilling their correct role, and ensuring that the legislature doesn't violate the state constitution.

What if the legislature said that $1/yr. per student was suitable funding for education? Of course, there's interpretation and subjectivity involved, but some sort of determination has to be made, and our courts are part of that process, by design.

I want systems to work as designed, so I'm glad that our courts are exercising their proper oversight of the legislature.

Your version is simply an inaccurate portrayal of events, that the courts determined the level of suitable funding, or levied taxes, etc. when they did nothing of the sort.

Frankly, I think that the legislature should perhaps be held in contempt of court, if that's an option, for failing to heed the SC's ruling, until they do so. If they want to change the constitution, fine, but until it's been changed, they're obligated to abide by the ruling.

And, they're re-litigating the same issue over and over again - it's already been decided at the KS SC level, so it's rather a waste of time/energy/resources to keep fighting the lost battle.

• Sign in to suggest removal

Moderate 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Whoa!

Way to long to waste many cycles upon.

1. Suitable is not definitive!!!! Studies are not definitive. Resource allocation is not a definitive process
2. The Kansas legislature is co-equal with the courts. Exactly who is intruding upon whose prerogatives?
3. The legislature represents the people of Kansas. The courts actually do not - they adjudicate the law(s). Using the term suitable coupled with a study to establish that more funding is needed for education is ludicrous.
4. If the courts can do it based on the term suitable they can do it on just about any pretense.
5. I love how progressives defend court action when it supports their positions but attack the courts with great gusto when their decisions do not. Makes any progressive argument suspect for lack of consistency.
6. If the legislature is in contempt of court who will enforce that ruling - the executive?? Are we going to send bailiffs to confront state police in the legislative chambers? “The shoot out on the Senate floor”??
7. In the end the legislature can just ignore the courts or change the process. Are you really trying to stick us with a greater responsibility for funding schools by aggravating the legislature? From what I have seen in other states that usually leads to lesser funding.

It scares me to think that the result of this stupidity may well be a constitutional amendment to clarify “suitable” and or a change in the way judges are selected - a change that may not be for the better. Worse we may move to a more diffused process for funding schools - one that puts our school districts at a disadvantage.

• Sign in to suggest removal

jafs 3 months, 2 weeks ago

The determination has to be made somehow - the legislature's own studies to determine it were used by the SC.

If it's totally subjective, then $1/yr per student should suffice, right?

Co-equal doesn't mean what you think it means, if it's accurate - different branches have different functions. The courts shouldn't make laws, but they're tasked with interpreting and applying them, and at the SC level, with ensuring constitutionality of them.

Studies commissioned by the legislature itself for the purpose of determining suitable levels of funding are excellent ways to determine that level, I'd say - what's your alternative?

If the legislature simply ignores the SC, then we have a crisis - our system isn't functioning the way it should. When it comes to issues of constitutionality, the SC (at both state and federal levels) is the final arbiter of that. Unless the legislatures pass constitutional amendments to overturn those decisions. But it's a bizarre idea that they can just ignore SC rulings.

I don't have a "position" on school funding - I don't know how much is necessary. My position on this is that the courts are exercising their correct function, and I oppose efforts by conservatives to block that process.

So, wait, I get it now - you're afraid they'll do worse things, so you don't want to upset them? Sounds like they're bullies, and we're victims of them. I thought the legislature was representing the will of the people?

If that's what the legislature does, then it would be the will of the people, right? So what's the problem with that?

I prefer the system to work as it should, with the checks and balances that were intended.

The stupidity is all on the legislature here, in their failure to abide by their own determinations of suitable funding, and by ignoring the previous SC ruling, and re-litigating solved issues.

• Sign in to suggest removal

Moderate 3 months, 2 weeks ago

JAFS, JAFS, JAFS

1. Since we disagree on the power of the courts to levy taxes it is immaterial from where the court determines the tax it levies.
2. Now IMHO studies are contributors to the decision process not the decision. Like all studies there are assumptions embedded and those assumptions can be challenged and the legislature is where that happens (in this case).
   
3. Education funding does not occur in isolation. The legislature must consider the level of funding for it in consideration of all other requirements for resources that the state must address.
4. By your reckoning the court having spoken the number they choose is locked in no matter what happens. Unfortunately a major recession happened. According to you the only alternative is to raise taxes so that education funding is preserved no matter the scope of the recession or its impact on the tax payers of Kansas
5. This is not an argument about money but process
6. Yes, unfortunately when two co-equal entities start a fight things can get out of hand. If the legislature considers tax policy its responsibility then I have no problem with them amending the constitution to make that clear. (The people get a say). I am less sanguine with them ignoring the court but that does remain an option.
7. I once again make my basic point. I will not accept a process where a group of unelected elites set my tax rates regardless of the process they use or the meaning of the word “suitable”. In my world only people directly responsible to the voters get to do that. We got rid of the King. Must we now get rid of the court?
8. Now I am well aware that a number of courts have weighed in on disparities among school districts within a jurisdiction. Demanding reallocation of resources to insure a relatively equal opportunity is IMHO within the prerogative of the courts. Note: those courts did not directly set funding levels.

• Sign in to suggest removal

jafs 3 months, 2 weeks ago

You're wrong - I never said the courts had the power to levy taxes.

They do, on the other hand, have the power to tell the legislature that they're violating the state constitution, and to order them to follow it.

What's your suggestion for determining a "suitable" level of funding, since you dismiss the results of the studies conducted by the legislature? I say that a suitable level is $1/student per year - what's your argument against that if it's all subjective and depends on circumstances?

Yes, once the legislature has determined a certain level of funding is "suitable", that's the suitable level.

It's not an option, it's an act which shows complete disregard for our system, and how it works.

You continue to misrepresent the situation - after a while that gets tiresome. Firstly, judges aren't supposed to be elected. Secondly, they didn't set your tax rates. I'm not going to keep wasting time explaining that to you.

Why on earth would it be ok for courts to "reallocate" funds given your general take on the subject? Allocation of funds, like appropriation of them, is up to the legislature, right?

Let's take a quick other example - at the federal level, we have a constitution, a judicial branch and a legislature. In the federal constitution, it says that people are protected from "unreasonable" searches and seizures. In my world, the judicial branch, and particularly the SC, is the arbiter of whether particular searches are reasonable or unreasonable, not the legislature. Your suggestion would be akin to suggesting that the legislature can decide without court involvement what constitutes an "unreasonable" search. It essentially "castrates" the courts, and removes one of their important contributions to our system.

I think that's a very bad idea, both locally and nationally. There's a process in place for amending constitutions, and if legislators in KS want to change the state constitution, let them go through that process. If they can get the word "suitable" removed, then they will no longer need to have any courts involved in education funding, unless of course they stop funding it entirely.

Until then, the courts, especially the KS SC, have a vital role to play in this issue.

• Sign in to suggest removal

jafs 3 months, 2 weeks ago

I need to amend my answer.

Even if the legislature decides a certain level of funding is suitable, the courts, and SC still have a role to play. In this case, it was easy since they had done the studies, and determined the amount, for the SC to simply agree with them about it.

However, they have a right to be involved in the interpretation of suitable, just as the federal SC has the right to be involved in interpreting "unreasonable".

• Sign in to suggest removal

Moderate 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Now you are getting grumpy

1. To set an amount to be allocated to education is to indirectly set tax rates. Yes, I have the option to cut other things but demanding that is not a role for the court. I can just not abide with the notion that six unelected elites can force me to short the handicapped to pay for schools.
2. I made the example to point out the difference between determining that something is unconstitutional and directing a specific remedial action. In the cases cited children within the jurisdiction of the court were receiving disparate educations – clearly a case for the courts.
3. To me that is vastly different from finding that the allocation of resources in Kansas does not meet a court ordered standard. Replete, I do not want courts determining my tax rates or the allocation of resources. And the legislature is not alone in determining that – the executive has a say but nobody can direct the other branches to a particular amount – compromise is the order of the day.
4. JAFS, this country has been allocating resources for its entire existence. The process is not pretty but it is pretty well understood. The court has not to my knowledge become involved except in situation as I discussed above. In my world there are things – many things - where there is no “right” or “suitable” answer – only the compromises that a democratic process achieves. There is no big daddy to solve our disagreements.
5. Mr. Lincoln ignored a finding of the Supreme Court and absolutely nothing happened – except the expenditure of 600,000 lives determined that the court was wrong. He is reported to have opined “Mr. Taney (Chief Justice) has issued his order, now let him enforce it” This is not a new issue.

Now I understand the frustration when there is no clean way to determine a “right” or “suitable” answer. Some people want to use studies done by elites as the basis for avoiding the messy democratic process. They are entitled to their opinion. Personally, I have found that many so called expert studies are badly flawed and have had considerable experience watching and participating in the allocation process where everybody and their pet dog has an expert study.

Since I perceive that we disagree on a number of points in this discussion and since we are not really adding anything new to the discussion – perhaps it is time to save the LJW some cycles.

• Sign in to suggest removal

jafs 3 months, 1 week ago

I agree.

Especially since you continue to misrepresent the situation, and fail to answer my simple questions.

Generally I must commend you, though, on a calm and reasonable discussion, with the right wing talk radio hysteria at a minimum, although the "unelected elites" thing goes in that direction.

When it comes to constitutional issues, I think compromise isn't the correct approach, but rather fealty to the constitution.

It is odd to me that many conservatives, who claim to be great fans and defenders of the constitution instead seek to subvert it.

This will be my last post here - talk to you another time.

• Sign in to suggest removal

Moderate 3 months, 1 week ago

Think of it as a massive catch 22. All the branches of government are co-equal. So how can the courts be more equal and be able to demand a specific solution from the legislature. As I noted with Mr. Lincoln above, finding something unconstitutional and directing a specific remedial action does not trump the other branches.

Now you complain when i paint you a prticular color (liberal, communist, progressive, socialist, etc.) But you think it just fine to appoint me a conservative or right wing. Another catch 22?

the first problem we have with the constitution is intrepreting it. We all do not agree. Whether the issue is the word "suitable" or 1st Amendment rights a la "Citizens United". Hence the first catch 22 above. Yes, the Supreme Court is given the role of intrepretation but not the role of defining specific remedial action - that belongs to the legislature. But we don't even agree on that.

That is probably why we split 51 to 49 on the last election for President.

On to the next topic

• Sign in to suggest removal

caughtinthemiddle 3 months, 2 weeks ago

OK, rtwngr, time to put up or shut up: What sspecific examples of "waste" can you cite in Lawrence public education that is funded by the State of Kansas?

• Sign in to suggest removal

Alyosha 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Your argument would be more convincing if you refrained from hyperbole in your presentation of your opponents' stance. No one serious maintains "Spend more money! Higher taxes is the answer. We must throw more money at the problem!" You should try to more accurately summarize their stance, in a manner that assumes they are just as interested in sound policy as you yourself are.

Second, it is not wholly accurate to claim that "Jimmy Carter started the Department of Education." Your stance is weakened by your inability to accurately describe the history of the Dept. of Education. Here's a more factually based history:

"A previous Department of Education was created in 1867 but was soon demoted to an Office in 1868.[3][4] As an agency not represented in the president's cabinet, it quickly became a relatively minor bureau in the Department of the Interior. In 1939, the bureau was transferred to the Federal Security Agency, where it was renamed the Office of Education. In 1953, the Federal Security Agency was upgraded to cabinet-level status as the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

"In 1979, President Carter advocated for creating a cabinet-level Department of Education."

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_S...

• Sign in to suggest removal

verity 3 months, 2 weeks ago

While I agree with most of the letter, Katara is absolutely right. "Growing evidence" indicates exactly the opposite.

• Sign in to suggest removal