caughtinthemiddle (Greg Cooper)

Follow

Comment history

Letter: Church, state

Richard, if you'll do some research, you'll find that the Court, at that time, had had no cases that led to the establishment of the "personhood" of slaves, so, yes, they did only what could be done and denied citizenship to slaves. As soon as the issue of "personhood" was raised with the Court, slaves became citizens.

The Court can not make sweeping changes in the law or the Constitution absent a case filed that prays for a change. The court takes care to rule very narrowly to avoid changing things that have not been asked. Thus, the Court moves slowly and specifically, avoiding wholesale changes in the Constitution, and keeping the spirit of the document alive while molding its rulings to be within the Constitution and protecting the sanctity of the original ideals.

Hope this helps.

August 28, 2015 at 10:13 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Church, state

OK, Greg, I have read it, have studied it, and I understand your point. What is being left out of most of this discussion (not including the childish pissing match between a couple of posters) is that the Constitution is a living, breathing entity, one that was written to be attuned to the unique needs of the world's newest "democracy", and that addressed what, at the time, were the tyrannies from which the new world pilgrims emigrated.

The founders of the nation were intelligent enough to know that human society is a changing, evolving thing, and that no set of specific laws or customs would make the future sacrosanct without review and definition. It is their foresight that allowed the document to be constantly reviewed and codified in order that it might address the basics of the original democratic experiment while allowing for the betterment of all who live under its umbrella.

In this case, religion, addressed specifically in the original document and addressed by many scholars, politicians, and courts, is encouraged, but is not to be sponsored in any way by any governmental entity, in order that no "state religion" be established. The judiciary has endlessly upheld that "freedom of and from religion" doctrine, and, it seems to me, that there is really no argument here.

This woman needs merely show a causable relationship between religious practice and her keeping her job and the deal is done. Absent that, she loses, the Constitution wins, and we go on.

August 28, 2015 at 9:37 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

KU, student, teacher with Koch ties reach settlement in case over $1,800 records request

The issues are many, and too numerous to go into on this forum. But I do have one that impacts the state immediately, and that is the reputation of the University of Kansas as a sponsoring institution of these papers listed in the above citation from Mike Green.

If, indeed, these papers and position statements are to be linked to the University, it seems to me that there should be answering papers, from the same department, at least purporting to show academic give and take. After having read just two of them, I have come to the conclusion that the opinions stated are, at best, just opinions, without opposing points and without academic care being taken to make them exercises in anything but putting forth a p[articular agenda.

This scares me, in that the University, citing academic freedom as its guiding light, promulgates the opposite by allowing this kind of propaganda to be published as academic exercise.

August 28, 2015 at 9:08 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Advocacy group's CEO sees new issues with Kansas welfare law

Surprise, surprise, surprise. Kansas passed a law that conflicts with Federal law. Surprise.

NOT.

August 27, 2015 at 5:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: ALEC agenda

Thanks, and you, too. Feel free to call me out at those times I sound as old and curmudgeonly as I really am.

As for the school thing, this is, to me, a slippery slope that, at least in Kansas with its proven record of financial skullduggery, seems as if it would open a whole new can of worms. I don't trust any program, recently, that comes out of Topeka, and this is too important to ignore. And, too, the Koch consortium has a past, printed record of trying to privatize education. I'm not amused, nor, I think, will be the normal Kansas voter, R or D.

August 27, 2015 at 1:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Clinton, Kobach spar in social media flap over voting rights

Justin, this may just be the least intelligent thing you've posted yet. Do you really.....oh, never mind.

August 26, 2015 at 9:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kansas judge allows suit over citizenship rule to continue

And thus ends Mr. Schwab's "favored son" statue within the party. Wonder who will be in the House Elections Committee chair next year.

August 26, 2015 at 9:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: ALEC agenda

This can go on and on, but suffice it to be that I did not mean any disrespect to you. I did ask you to share your thoughts with me, and you did. It becomes quite easy, on this forum, to become jaded, from both sides, and that is something I have to guard against, and didn't do such a good job this time.

You are correct that it becomes tiresome, for those who do not want to read the same thing over and over (and I have mentioned this to Richard in the past) but I agree, his dedication is to be admired. The caveat is that one must use some sense of moderation in all opinions, and I appreciate your thoughts on the subject.

As to their stand on education, I believe that the education of all is paramount, but that giving charge of that education to government vouchers is a really bad idea. Regardless of what stand one takes in this matter, it seems quite clear to me that the Koch philosophy runs to "charter schools", or private institutions receiving public money, and I see that as a clear danger. I have a great deal of dread of my having to pay taxes to support private schools, while still sending my children to public schools, for which I also pay taxes. This double dipping is scary to me, especially when the private education of students still is in the control of a few without state guidance in curriculum. Call me paranoid, but...

Any way, hope you have a great day, and I look forward to talking with you in the future.

August 26, 2015 at 4:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Church, state

Let me understand, Richard. If the Constitution prohibits free exercise of religion but prohibits the establishment of a governmental religion, does that not mean that religious practice is perfectly fine but governmental mandated religion is not? I don't understand your point. Perhaps you have equated the ABSENCE of "religious" law as atheist law, and with that I strongly disagree. It seems to me that law governs everyone, regardless of their practice of personal religion or lack thereof. And, too, the US Supreme Court has ruled definitively, in dozens of cases, against the many US governmental agencies pushing ANY religion on the people or governmental sponsorship of such religious practice. A simple Google search will give you more citations than you probably want to read.

August 26, 2015 at 2:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: ALEC agenda

Your comment, and then Richard's comment. I'm not saying Richard is correct in everything, but he cites specifics that make me believe that the Kochs are not the best thing for the nation. This is how I make decisions and form opinions.

And, too, one piece of disinformation, if it is such, in an entire list really does not automatically call into question all others, unless one is presupposed against a particular ideology, in my mind. Richard's list is supported, in the main, by fact and projection of those facts, not emotion. I am ready, at any time, to cede facts opposed to my opinion, but not the other way around. In logic, if A and B, then A is not necessarily equal to B.

"Richard's letter to the editor is full of misinformation one of them being that the Koch's are against white and blue collar workers. This company is a privately held company that people clearly want to work for so, Just this one supposition is clearly false which leads one to think that many of the other items in the list are also false."

Richard Heckler 10 hours, 43 minutes ago

Corporate Power and Workers’ Rights

ALEC works fervently to promote laws that would shield corporations from legal action and allow them to limit the rights of workers.

The group’s model legislation would roll back laws regarding corporate accountability, workers compensation and on the job protections, collective bargaining and organizing rights, prevailing wage and the minimum wage.

ALEC is a main proponent of bills that undermine organized labor by stripping public employees of collective bargaining rights and “right to work” laws.

They also push “regulatory flexibility” laws that lead to massive deregulation.

It is no surprise that the director of ALEC’s Commerce, Insurance and Economic Development Task Force previously worked as a Koch Associate at the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation.

http://www.pfaw.org/rww-in-focus/alec...

The GOP Right To Work legislation = reduction of wages for blue and white collar workers.

Crushing unions represents a massive reduction of working class workers wages which impacts non union workers as well."

August 26, 2015 at 2:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal )