Advertisement

Archive for Wednesday, July 3, 2013

Letter: Limiting rights

July 3, 2013

Advertisement

To the editor:

Recent Supreme Court rulings advanced the rights of people in nontraditional marital contracts. Be prepared to budget more taxpayer money to defend current Kansas law. The 1879 billboard in Dodge City warned, “The carrying of firearms strictly enforced.” Would our attorney general call out Marshal Dillon to a gunfight to the death over this issue?

Roe defeated Wade in a constitutional melee that continues today. The same people against abridging our Fifth Amendment rights are the ones attempting to limit liberties and rights defined by the Supreme Court. I’m just hoping that the governor doesn’t circle the wagons and reconvene the Lecompton Constitutional Convention.

Comments

toe 1 year ago

The Supreme Court gives and the Supreme Court takes away. What is the purpose of the other two impotent branches? I want freedom from government? I hope the Supremes grant me that.

1

jhawkinsf 1 year ago

You are not entitled to freedom from government in the U.S. However, you do have the freedom to seek some place outside the U.S. that will grant you the freedom you seek. Happy hunting.

1

jafs 1 year ago

There's always Egypt - they apparently don't respect their government much there these days.

With all of our problems, we still have a pretty stable government and society, compared to many other countries, which is nice.

0

jhawkinsf 1 year ago

Maybe "toe" can call Edward Snowden for advice as he too is seeking a place free from U.S. government.

0

seebarginn 1 year ago

toe's post makes no sense whatsoever, but it's still more fun for me to express my freedom on July 4 by responding than it is for me to buy and shoot off Chinese made fireworks. Also easier on local dogs and doesn't leave all the crap on the streets and sidewalks that fireworks/freedom lovers don't love to clean up.

Anyhow, based on what toe usually writes here, it's strange to hear him say that the federal government is impotent, because he's usually describing it as a tyranny, at least the executive branch. Oh well, he'll be back on track tomorrow, I suppose.

1

Liberty275 1 year ago

"You are not entitled to freedom from government in the U.S"

That isn't true.

0

Brock Masters 1 year ago

Don, you do know Marshall Dillon is a fictional character, don't you?

0

seebarginn 1 year ago

If only the same were true of most Kansas state government officials.

0

seebarginn 1 year ago

Very good letter. Most Kansas voters and most Kansas politicians have their priorities, however. They've decided that it's better to use taxpayer money to challenge the Supreme Court on this case than it is to, for example, make health care incrementally easier for poor people and their children. Most Kansans who vote seem to be content with a system through which they pay for emergency room care costs, rather than expanding Medicaid. I guess that's what the regime calls an incentive for folks to lift themselves out of indolence and immorality.

One way or another, the bills will come due. Just like the money that's saved today by gutting education will be cancelled out some day in the not so distant future. But it could be worse, of course. We could be living under Sharia law. Thank goodness the Governor and company took action against that threat to freedom. Happy 4th, everyone!

1

George Lippencott 1 year ago

I think I would be most supportive if I could see the savings from avoiding emergency room care

My problem is that year after year I am told that an investment in this or that will reduce costs somewhere else. Unfortunately I never see the reductions only the increases.

0

George Lippencott 1 year ago

At least with the new system our judges will not be selected by a bunch of unelected lawyers. Why are they presumed to be any better at it than elected officials who are in many cases lawyers themselves and who are directly accountable to the people.

0

Kate Rogge 1 year ago

Yeah, who needs Kansas state judges vetted and recommended by accredited professional lawyers? What a waste of time, and so disrespectful of our elected officials! In fact, let's have our elected officials select all of our State-employed physicians, surgeons, accountants, scientists, engineers, and so forth. Who needs to be a licensed professional to evaluate the qualifications of a fellow professional?

We don't need no education. We don't need no thought control. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhgE5b...

0

George Lippencott 1 year ago

Sarcasm belittles you.

I would support the current system if we eliminate the bias in it. Too many of the candidates forwarded to the Governor are from one political party and support a broadly interpreted constitution. I would suggest that most Kansans do not support same. Perhaps we could reverse the process and have the committee vet choices by the governor that he forwards to them?!

0

Kate Rogge 1 year ago

I'll bet you get a lot of sarcasm, Moderate. Lets say the Republican Governor receives candidates from the Republican party who support a broadly interpreted constitution (lets start with adequate school funding, voting rights, women's rights to access medically safe abortion). Suggesting that the Governor produce a list of candidates that the Republican legislature vet makes no real difference to the outcome as long as neither the Governor nor the State legislators are competent, on the whole, to made an educated evaluation of judicial candidates' qualifications.

0

George Lippencott 1 year ago

So am I to understand that the only qualified individuals for a judgeship must support adequate school funding, voting rights, and women's rights to access medically safe abortions Sounds to me as politically biased as what the Governator is doing.

I thought that we wanted judges that understand the law, are above reproach morally and who are capable of addressing complex issues (among others). I was unaware of any litmus test.

But then could that be the problem. The current system produces judges with a particular political bent and the Republicans want judges with a different bent.

0

Kate Rogge 1 year ago

My point is that a Governor and state legislators that interpret the state constitution as allowing actions that are subsequently judged to be unconstitutional (e.g., school funding, voting ID, and restriction of women's access to abortion) are, in my opinion, demonstrably poor choices to select qualified and impartial judges whose job it is to rule upon state laws' compliance with our state constitution. Bias may be evident both ways, Moderate. Is bias in your direction less onerous than bias in mine? Shouldn't our state judges be competent and neutral? If Governor Brownback is committed to impartial and qualified judges, how is it that he has yet to evidence any support of impartial and qualified candidates in ANY arena since he took office?

0

George Lippencott 1 year ago

The voters if the evaluated is drawing a government salary!!

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.