Comment history

Letter: Rights have limits

"Tougher penalties" on what (the faction controlling the Kansas legislature wants to say) is no crime, but an unlimitable individual "right" ? That sounds unconstitutional...though I doubt that, or circular reasoning, would stop the Kansas legislature.

February 1, 2015 at 7:14 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Rights have limits

"Stop living in the past."

Isn't that the point: the current SCOTUS is supposed to interpret the Constitution by what it says, and by previous precedent...stuff in the past ?

"As for the falsely, I understood it the first time."

And selectively misquoted the word out ?

"The second amendment is currently restricted to a greater degree than the first amendment. "

Could that be because the 2nd Amendment has a restriction built into it ("a well-regulated Militia"): the only one of the Bill of Rights that does ?

February 1, 2015 at 7:04 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Rights have limits

"No law can stop someone who cannot legally possess a gun from carrying it."

We often hear that reasoning as "proving" gun-laws are useless: criminals will still have guns. By that logic, laws against murder, speeding or rape are useless: criminals continue to do those things, despite laws against them.

By that reasoning, laws against ANYthing people do are invalid, and illegitimately restrict people's "rights." That vision of a "libertarian" society sounds a lot like South Sudan.

January 31, 2015 at 8:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Rights have limits

"The militia clause has been debated and decided by the SCOTUS. The 2nd amendment is an individual right."

One Supreme Court said so. The 1939 SCOTUS said the right must have "...a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia." (U.S. v. Miller) The1939 Court seems to have stayed closer to the 2nd Amendment's actual words.

"It is perfectly legal to yell fire in a theater when there is a fire."

Which is why I quoted Justice Holmes' exact words: "...FALSELY shouting fire in a crowded theater."

January 31, 2015 at 8:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Body of man found near Kansas River Aug. 31 identified as 57-year-old Lawrence resident

So very sad to lose Mark. God, Father, may he rest in You.

September 10, 2014 at 6:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Somalia field trip?

Small government, low taxes, and unlimited gun-rights. Somalia sounds like "conservatives" promised land. Maybe our governor and legislators will want to stay.

October 30, 2013 at 1:13 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Two separate classes of voters possible under Secretary of State Kobach's proposal

Perhaps Mr. Koch...I mean Kobach...could give his two tiers of voters memorable names that will stick in our minds. No hurry: just whenever he has time to write legislation for the state of which he's an elected official.

He might designate his preferred class of voters, for example, the "Real Americans." And I'd suggest he designate his second-tier voters as "Non-Integrated Geopolitical Group: Electoral Reserve Status."

It will be handier for Mr. Kobach, of course, to refer to these second-tier voters by their acronym.

October 14, 2013 at 8:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Harmful faction

Realizing "states' rights" is part of the (falsely so-called) "conservative" agenda, a basic moral criteria applies. Divisiveness, inherent in the "states' rights" doctrine espoused by "neo-cons," is another political principle harmful to our country. It didn't work under the Articles of Confederation (which Mr. Groenhagen cites), and it was disastrous for those who followed it to secession in 1860-61.

The simple moral recognition is that unity is good for a nation, and divisiveness is harmful. As someone glossed "E Pluribus Unum," the founders' intent was that America's core operative principle should be that "we're all in this together." Even those unable to distinguish between good and bad principles should nonetheless take a lesson from what our history has shown results from "states' rights' " divisiveness.

Nor do neo-cons' ideas of individual "rights" (as propounded by Mr. Groenhagen, Paul Ryan, and others) evidence honest or thorough thought. Their idea of "rights" is in essence entitlement: human beings are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

That may or may not be so in human beings' secular relationship with their human government. But the assertion that the God of Judeo-Christian tradition (presumably the One referenced in the Declaration of Independence, and by neo-cons) ENTITLES individuals politically is manifestly contrary to Judeo-Christian scriptures. "Rights" as entitlements appears in those scriptures only as "the rights of the poor:" that those in need and hunger are entitled to the care of a righteous society. This scriptural idea of "rights" is, of course, anathema to neo-cons.

October 14, 2013 at 1:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Sen. Roberts calls on HHS Secretary Sebelius to resign

This is the same Senator who used his political clout to get the federal animal- and agro-disease lab moved from an island off New York to the middle of America's agricultural heartland...in his state.

Glitches in the Care Act's operation are nothing compared to that time-bomb's potential harm.

October 12, 2013 at 8:35 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Brownback administration pushes to repeal restrictions on corporate agriculture; opponents say family farms will suffer

Best comment I've seen on corporate personhood is the bumper-sticker: "I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one."

March 10, 2013 at 5:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal )