LJWorld.com weblogs The pedestrian has the right of way

Traditional Kansas values


Let's return to the traditional, historical set of beliefs and practices and values that have, in modern times, been replaced by beliefs and practices and values wholly alien to the Kansas of its founding era.

Some examples of the values Kansans intended to have motivate and structure the state:

  1. Non-citizens, including non-US citizens, could vote in Kansas elections.
  2. The government was specifically tasked with assisting they who suffered misfortune and had claims of sympathy and aid of society
  3. The government was specifically tasked with the responsibility of promoting literature, the arts, and sciences
  4. The government was specifically tasked with encouraging intellectual and scientific improvement.

All in all, it's easy to see that the values and beliefs that motivate the current political power structure in Kansas (I won't say "political majority," because at best the current crop of politicians represent a plurality of citizens) are nearly opposite of those that motivated they who created the state and its Constitution.

(Don't believe me? Read the original Kansas Constitution for yourself: http://www.kansasmemory.org/item/90272/text )

The current political powers-that-be, and the voters who support them, sure have a lot of explaining to do, in terms of how we got so far, far away from the the humane and liberal values that motivated and structured the founding of this state.

We need to return to traditional and historical Kansas values, and reject the modern amoral values that currently influence and control the state.


mom_of_three 5 years, 9 months ago

"non-citizens could vote".
Um, except women, African Americans, native americans and any male under 21.

PaulJr 5 years, 9 months ago

This country was founded on certain Revolutionary principles about human dignity and freedom, and the form of government that protects The People. The Kansas Constitution was modeled on those Revolutionary principles. Those who overthrow the Kansas Constitution, the US Constitution, and every other state constitution, are not Americans. They are Counter-Revolutionaries who want to undo the Revolution of 1775-1789. They want to re-establish Monarchy. They are Counter-Americans -- they are Anti-Americans. They are traitors. They will use every possible treason to destroy Revolutionary America and re-install Monarchy. They will enslave the many to transfer all power and wealth to a few nobles. 237 years of this proud Nation's history will be changed back to the form of government our Founders and the colonists defeated in a savage war, back to Monarchy.

Ron Holzwarth 5 years, 9 months ago

PaulJr, what stands out to me in your posting is your continual references to a "revolution". Technically speaking, it was not a revolution at all, however the distinction between the War of Succession, as it is referred to in the United Kingdom, and an actual "revolution" is lost upon most. I read a lot from many different viewpoints, and it is astounding how many people never really question the "politically correct" explanation of the War of Succession in 1776.

Definition of Revolution (Noun):

1) A forcible overthrow of a government or social order for a new system.

2) (in Marxism) The class struggle that is expected to lead to political change and the triumph of communism.

The War of Succession in 1776 did not result in a different type of government, and the principles in Amendments 1 - 10 were not entirely new concepts at the time.

Instead of calling it the House of Commons, we call it the House of Representatives.

Instead of calling it the House of Lords, we call it the Senate.

Instead of calling it the Prime Minister, we call it the President.

Those were at the time, and still are today, elected positions. The Constitution of the United States of America did not really present very much that was totally different than the Representative Republic that the United Kingdom had evolved into by 1776.

But, the United Kingdom has never had a Constitution, instead tradition was followed as the government evolved after the Magna Carta, also called The Great Charter of the Liberties of England, was signed in the year 1215.

By 1776, the power of the King was largely becoming symbolic, and it certainly is today.

After the War of Succession, we still had a Representative Republic, just as we had before.

I think, although I don't have a good authority to reference this to, that the reason that votes were not tallied in the Colonies was because of the difficulties presented by the modes of travel and communication at the time. It simply was not practical for the candidates for the elected positions to present their viewpoints and then tally the votes from so far away. The elections would take literally years to be properly conducted.

So if you lived in the Colonies, you didn't have any representation in the House of Lords or the House of Commons, and you didn't get to vote for the Prime Minister. I'm sure you've heard the slogan "No taxation without representation."

It was very unfortunate that it ended up so bloody. Australia, Canada, the Falkland Islands, and New Zealand never had that problem. They are still technically colonies.

Ron Holzwarth 5 years, 9 months ago

Oh crum. Too late to edit now! The members of the House of Lords are appointed, not elected.

JackKats 5 years, 9 months ago

Maybe you should have read on.

SEC. 4. The Legislature shall pass such laws as may be necessary for ascertaining, by proper proofs, the citizens who shall be entitled to the right of suffrage hereby established

Alyosha 5 years, 9 months ago

Your comment seems to assume I did not read on. That's an unfounded assumption. Generally, one is on shaky rhetorical ground making claims about which one can know nothing at all. Doesn't lend a sense of credibility to your writing.

That said, your comment, absent the unwarranted assumption, makes no particular claim. You cite the evidence of section 4 to what end? Evidence doesn't speak for itself: it is used in support of a claim.

What, then, is your claim, for which you supply an unmoored citation of supposed evidence?

jhawkinsf 5 years, 9 months ago

The constant you seek is the state's right to establish eligibility requirements, consistent with both the Federal and State Constitutions. What is not static, nor was it ever intended to be, was the eligibility requirements themselves. Otherwise, as has been pointed out, blacks, women, etc. would not only not be allowed to vote but would never be allowed to vote. That would be absurd.

There is a process for non citizens to become citizens and then enjoy the right to vote. Rather than engaging in this pointless discussion, encourage those you believe would be assets to this country to become citizens through the legal process.

verity 5 years, 9 months ago

Jhsf, I know people who have been here for over a decade, have worked hard at jobs no citizen will take even though the pay, benefits and bonuses are above average (and great effort has been made to find citizens who will/can do the jobs). They have paid taxes, SS, and Medicare, and they will never receive a penny of return on SS and Medicare. They have tried to get citizenship, their bosses have tried to get citizenship for them. They want to be legal, their bosses want them to be legal. Not at all easy.

Actually, voting is the least of their worries. They are not appearing at the polls.

jhawkinsf 5 years, 9 months ago

And I've seen illegal immigrants by the thousands in California taking jobs that Americans would love to have, in the trades (carpenters, painters, plumbers, electricians, etc.).

But I didn't think we were speaking of illegal immigrants. I was under the assumption that we were speaking of people who were citizens of other countries but were here legally. The question was should those people be allowed to vote. It seems the writer of this blog was advocating for that, using the grounds that it was once legal. Also, Alyosha seemed to be saying that we should return to those "glory" days. Well, a return to the good ol' days come with a price for blacks, women, Native Americans, those under 21.

I would reject a return to those days as I would reject any proposal to allow non-citizens the right to vote. Let them take an oath of allegiance when they are sworn in as citizens and I will fully accept their right to vote. Not until them.

BTW - I have several members of my family who were not born in this country but came here legally. They waited their turn in line. And when they came here, they became citizens as quickly as they could. It can be difficult. But so is getting a college degree. So is raising a family. So are many things.

verity 5 years, 9 months ago

Difficult? If only. Try impossible.

jhawkinsf 5 years, 9 months ago

As I said, several members of my immediate family are immigrants. They applied, waited their turn, arrived legally and then became citizens. Now if you're talking about people who jumped the line, came here illegally, and now want to change that to legal, then I might agree with you. By foregoing the legal process, they may well have made the journey to citizenship impossible. But even then, should they return to their country of origin, perhaps with a functioning knowledge or our legal process, perhaps having learned English, they might in fact have a leg up on someone beginning the process. But if you're suggesting that having stolen an opportunity from someone who is patiently waiting their turn we should now codify that bad behavior by putting them at the front of the line, I would say no.

Alyosha 5 years, 9 months ago

Nowhere have I stated that I favor non-citizens voting.

And I don't believe this to be a pointless discussion. I myself was surprised to find that non-citizen voting was common for over a century all throughout the United States. The way some talk about it now, you'd think that anyone bringing up the topic wants to destroy the US Constitution.

That's why this is a non-pointless discussion: we have to make sure we know what's truly radical, truly never-before-seen in US politics, before we go off half-cocked making inane statements.

And I do believe that it's profitable to consider how far modern Kansas is from the kind of society envisioned by and codified into its original Constitution.

jhawkinsf 5 years, 9 months ago

Well, when you first sentence is "let's return to the traditional, historical ... ", it does indeed sound as if you're wanting to return to the days of non-citizens voting. As well as barring women, blacks, Native Americans, etc. I'd rather not go there.

There are many conversations we may have that will end up being efforts in futility. We can talk about ending the military industrial complex tomorrow. Want to talk about putting a colony on the moon in the next five years? How about something as simple as ending all wars worldwide, end all hate, share the wealth so we may all have prosperity and happiness all our remaining days? Or we can talk about allowing non-citizenns to vote in our elections.

fiddleback 5 years, 9 months ago

Would you mind specifying/quoting the constitutional phrases that would support items 1-4? I'm scrolling around and not having luck identifying them.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.