Would you marry a man or woman that is in prison for second degree murder and a weapons charge?
Perhaps you would, but that shouldn’t be the determining factor here, because in a situation like this, it is not your choice alone. When there are two people that are free from prison or any other monitoring by state or federal authorities, they are free to associate with whom they wish. If they want to be married, they should be granted that wish by the state or the federal government without question. But, if one of the partners has misused the trust that is held by him or her in a responsible community by committing a major crime, that partner should lose all rights except those that enable him to fight the charge.
A Rochester Hills woman married a man that is in prison for second degree murder and other weapons charges. If he is not granted clemency or parole, he will be there for the rest of his life. He misused the trust of the community by committing these crimes. He should lose all his rights other than those necessary for his defense.
Should we let him out of prison because it is a beautiful Spring day? Or should we let him start a business, an operation that requires a great amount of trust between people? How about voting if he is still in confinement? No, no and no again. All those acts are granted only to those that the community can trust.
So why do we allow prisoners to marry? It is the relationship that requires the most amount of trust between two people.
On another point, the man is convicted of murder. His actions resulted in the death of another person. That person can’t enjoy the coming Spring, can’t get involved in a business and certainly can’t marry. If an individual’s actions have limited or permanently taken the rights of another person you should also not have any rights.
Allowing a person in prison to defend himself is an absolute right. But, once convicted he should have no other rights until he has served his term (by serving, parole or clemency) or, until he is proven innocent.
-----
Responsible Community Working Together in Shared Responsibility.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Keep school activities equal
Little Jane should have the same opportunities as little Johnny, well, unless of course it interferers with the good ol’ boy sports programs.
If you listen to the good ol’ boys of sports, you would think that football is on the way out of high school sports. The panic is nationwide. The warnings come from none other than The College Sports Council, a organization created to support college sports.
A months ago, the National Women’s Law Center asked the United States education department’s Office for Civil Rights investigate 12 school districts nationwide that they suggest are violating Title IX. It is a portion of the former Education Amendments of 1972, now called the Patsy T. Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act in honor of its principal author. It states in more precise legal language that no person should be denied equal opportunity in education on the basis of their gender.
The Pacific Legal Foundation recently filed a counter suit asking that the department of education not only reject the request to investigate the 12 school districts but suggested that the act doesn’t apply to K-12 education. Pacific Legal Foundation’s staff lawyer, Joshua Thompson, says that there is nothing in the act or in this regulation that applies to high school sports.
None of the school districts in question are in Michigan. But, every school district in the state will be watching the events. The outcome of the fight will effect districts by either loosening the regulations or by making them stronger.
Since 1972 every challenge of this act has been rejected. Every presidential administration, Republican and Democratic, have supported the Title IX and its regulation of high school sports. That includes the Reagan administration that was the inspiration for the founding of the lead challenger in this latest barrage, The Pacific Legal Foundation.
Whatever the legal outcome of this fight and those that may follow, a responsible community should not support any policy that discriminates by gender. Within that policy, it would not be expected that if a school district determines that there isn’t enough participation in a sport to field a team, then let it go. But, if there is, it should be treated as fairly as any other sport.
The National Women’s Law Center is right to asked the United States education department’s Office for Civil Rights to investigate the school districts. The calls of foul by the Pacific Legal Foundation is off base.
The National Women’s Law Center, in their own words, champion laws and policies that work for women and families.
Pacific Legal Foundation is an organization, in their own words, that is rescuing liberty from coast to coast.
-----
If you listen to the good ol’ boys of sports, you would think that football is on the way out of high school sports. The panic is nationwide. The warnings come from none other than The College Sports Council, a organization created to support college sports.
A months ago, the National Women’s Law Center asked the United States education department’s Office for Civil Rights investigate 12 school districts nationwide that they suggest are violating Title IX. It is a portion of the former Education Amendments of 1972, now called the Patsy T. Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act in honor of its principal author. It states in more precise legal language that no person should be denied equal opportunity in education on the basis of their gender.
The Pacific Legal Foundation recently filed a counter suit asking that the department of education not only reject the request to investigate the 12 school districts but suggested that the act doesn’t apply to K-12 education. Pacific Legal Foundation’s staff lawyer, Joshua Thompson, says that there is nothing in the act or in this regulation that applies to high school sports.
None of the school districts in question are in Michigan. But, every school district in the state will be watching the events. The outcome of the fight will effect districts by either loosening the regulations or by making them stronger.
Since 1972 every challenge of this act has been rejected. Every presidential administration, Republican and Democratic, have supported the Title IX and its regulation of high school sports. That includes the Reagan administration that was the inspiration for the founding of the lead challenger in this latest barrage, The Pacific Legal Foundation.
Whatever the legal outcome of this fight and those that may follow, a responsible community should not support any policy that discriminates by gender. Within that policy, it would not be expected that if a school district determines that there isn’t enough participation in a sport to field a team, then let it go. But, if there is, it should be treated as fairly as any other sport.
The National Women’s Law Center is right to asked the United States education department’s Office for Civil Rights to investigate the school districts. The calls of foul by the Pacific Legal Foundation is off base.
The National Women’s Law Center, in their own words, champion laws and policies that work for women and families.
Pacific Legal Foundation is an organization, in their own words, that is rescuing liberty from coast to coast.
-----
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Courts must rule from the Constitution and not religion
What many of us mean when we say freedom of religion is really freedom of our religion at the exclusion of others.
An Ohio judge hung the Ten Commandments in the lobby of the court house where he presides. Alongside the Ten Commandments was a statement, that he said, was attributed to “humanist” view of the rule of law. (It does need to be noted here that the humanists views were not from a “humanists”. They were his own interpretation of the humanist view point. Needless to say, perhaps, they were not flattering.) The judge argued that it was a freedom of speech issue because he was making a comparison between his religious beliefs and those that do not believe in a god. He claimed that his action is protected under the First Amendment.
Members of the community objected and took him to court. They did this since they owned the court house in union with others in the community and not the judge. By the judge hanging a display expressing his own religious beliefs and not that of the overall community, he didn’t express the community’s overall view of religion.
The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that it was a display of a religious document. The court ordered that he take down the display.
The audacity of the judge is remarkable. What the Ohio judge was doing was excluding all other religions in the community from expressing their own views in the same manor. He also insulted some in the community, the humanist, with his negative interpretation of their view. He was doing this because he thought he owned the court house and could do as he pleased. But the truth is, everyone in the community owns an equal share of the court house. They also pay the judge’s wages in equal share. His actions should reflect the will of the entire community and not exclude anyone because of his or her religious beliefs.
Freedom of religion doesn’t mean that you can use the resources of other community members to practice your faith. It means that on your own, or in association with a private group, you can worship, express, gather and in other ways exercise your religion.
This most likely took place in a predominantly Christian area of the country. What if the judge was Muslim and in a part of the country that is predominantly Islam? What if he wanted to hang the a list of the five pillars of Islam in the lobby of the court house and compare it to Judaism in a negative way. Events in some parts of the country already have an answer to that question. In Oklahoma, they passed a voter initiative that doesn’t allow courts to use Sharia Law as a basis for decisions. Sharia Law is the primary basis of law that guides most Muslims. Courts in Oklahoma can only use Constitutional law in harmony with state law.
It is proper that Constitutional law be the only law for any court in the United States follow. It should be used worldwide. We should not use Muslim, Christian or Judaism as a factor in decided cases. There are many legal issues in Constitutional law that are in conflict with Christianity, Islamic and Judeo law. But, courts and their judges, specifically the judge in Ohio, must be blind to the faith of the individual that is in front of them. They must adhere to the law of the Constitution in all of his or her rulings.
-----
An Ohio judge hung the Ten Commandments in the lobby of the court house where he presides. Alongside the Ten Commandments was a statement, that he said, was attributed to “humanist” view of the rule of law. (It does need to be noted here that the humanists views were not from a “humanists”. They were his own interpretation of the humanist view point. Needless to say, perhaps, they were not flattering.) The judge argued that it was a freedom of speech issue because he was making a comparison between his religious beliefs and those that do not believe in a god. He claimed that his action is protected under the First Amendment.
Members of the community objected and took him to court. They did this since they owned the court house in union with others in the community and not the judge. By the judge hanging a display expressing his own religious beliefs and not that of the overall community, he didn’t express the community’s overall view of religion.
The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that it was a display of a religious document. The court ordered that he take down the display.
The audacity of the judge is remarkable. What the Ohio judge was doing was excluding all other religions in the community from expressing their own views in the same manor. He also insulted some in the community, the humanist, with his negative interpretation of their view. He was doing this because he thought he owned the court house and could do as he pleased. But the truth is, everyone in the community owns an equal share of the court house. They also pay the judge’s wages in equal share. His actions should reflect the will of the entire community and not exclude anyone because of his or her religious beliefs.
Freedom of religion doesn’t mean that you can use the resources of other community members to practice your faith. It means that on your own, or in association with a private group, you can worship, express, gather and in other ways exercise your religion.
This most likely took place in a predominantly Christian area of the country. What if the judge was Muslim and in a part of the country that is predominantly Islam? What if he wanted to hang the a list of the five pillars of Islam in the lobby of the court house and compare it to Judaism in a negative way. Events in some parts of the country already have an answer to that question. In Oklahoma, they passed a voter initiative that doesn’t allow courts to use Sharia Law as a basis for decisions. Sharia Law is the primary basis of law that guides most Muslims. Courts in Oklahoma can only use Constitutional law in harmony with state law.
It is proper that Constitutional law be the only law for any court in the United States follow. It should be used worldwide. We should not use Muslim, Christian or Judaism as a factor in decided cases. There are many legal issues in Constitutional law that are in conflict with Christianity, Islamic and Judeo law. But, courts and their judges, specifically the judge in Ohio, must be blind to the faith of the individual that is in front of them. They must adhere to the law of the Constitution in all of his or her rulings.
-----
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Right idea, wrong target
The Republicans in congress would like more aggressive workplace raids to find undocumented workers. That is one the steps to solve the illegal immigration problem that The Responsible Community supports. (End illegal immigration in five steps) But, those they want targeted in the raids will make a political statement and do little to solve the overall problem.
Under the Obama administration, work place raids in search of undocumented workers have reached new heights. Republicans, with their new majority in the house, are pressing for even more raids. But, they want the raids to seek out undocumented workers to send them back to their country of origin. They aren’t suggesting that the employers of those raids be punished. But, if the raids would focus on the employers, there would be very few undocumented workers taking jobs away from legal workers.
Raids should be conducted to enforce employment law. This must be done on the national level, not the state or local level. Unless every employer understands the risk they take when they use undocumented workers, they will make mistakes at the very least and ignore laws on the most flagrant level.
If raids are focused just on the workers to send them back, then it will be a political statement that will be a mere inconvenience to employers. Perhaps winning votes for the “get tough” Republicans, but doing little to stop the problem. If undocumented workers can’t get a job, they won’t come to the country seeking work.
Let’s have more raids. But, the focus of the raids should be on the employers.
-----
Under the Obama administration, work place raids in search of undocumented workers have reached new heights. Republicans, with their new majority in the house, are pressing for even more raids. But, they want the raids to seek out undocumented workers to send them back to their country of origin. They aren’t suggesting that the employers of those raids be punished. But, if the raids would focus on the employers, there would be very few undocumented workers taking jobs away from legal workers.
Raids should be conducted to enforce employment law. This must be done on the national level, not the state or local level. Unless every employer understands the risk they take when they use undocumented workers, they will make mistakes at the very least and ignore laws on the most flagrant level.
If raids are focused just on the workers to send them back, then it will be a political statement that will be a mere inconvenience to employers. Perhaps winning votes for the “get tough” Republicans, but doing little to stop the problem. If undocumented workers can’t get a job, they won’t come to the country seeking work.
Let’s have more raids. But, the focus of the raids should be on the employers.
-----
Monday, January 31, 2011
Governor Synder, please consider this
Arizona and Missouri have a good idea, but it only goes half way. Michigan would be smart to do the same thing only complete the job.
Since November of 2009 Arizona has required that welfare recipients not use drugs. If they do, they will lose their benefits. The state uses a survey of the applicants, as well as police and court records, to determine if someone should be tested. Since the start, only 16 have been identified. Eventually, one of the 16 was tested for drug use and denied benefits.
Missouri would like to do the same thing and legislation to allow it to do so was passed last week.
Michigan should go even farther. The Arizona and Missouri laws, for the most part, use “surveys” to determine if someone may be using drugs while accepting benefits. Michigan should make it mandatory as part of the application process and do random checks during the remaining time they are accepting benefits. The random tests should be at a scale that everyone will be checked at least once a month.
If someone is found to be using any illegal drugs, not only should they stop receiving benefits but they should then be ordered to attend a drug rehab program.
A community needs to take responsibility for those that may be unemployed for an extended period of time. But that doesn’t mean that the recipient should not take responsibility also. As in a post on this blog, Require a return on investment from unemployment, this should be a part of the overall requirements that both helps people become self sufficient and asks for a return from the benefits they are receiving.
Government Synder, please consider what they are doing in Arizona and Missouri.
-----
Since November of 2009 Arizona has required that welfare recipients not use drugs. If they do, they will lose their benefits. The state uses a survey of the applicants, as well as police and court records, to determine if someone should be tested. Since the start, only 16 have been identified. Eventually, one of the 16 was tested for drug use and denied benefits.
Missouri would like to do the same thing and legislation to allow it to do so was passed last week.
Michigan should go even farther. The Arizona and Missouri laws, for the most part, use “surveys” to determine if someone may be using drugs while accepting benefits. Michigan should make it mandatory as part of the application process and do random checks during the remaining time they are accepting benefits. The random tests should be at a scale that everyone will be checked at least once a month.
If someone is found to be using any illegal drugs, not only should they stop receiving benefits but they should then be ordered to attend a drug rehab program.
A community needs to take responsibility for those that may be unemployed for an extended period of time. But that doesn’t mean that the recipient should not take responsibility also. As in a post on this blog, Require a return on investment from unemployment, this should be a part of the overall requirements that both helps people become self sufficient and asks for a return from the benefits they are receiving.
Government Synder, please consider what they are doing in Arizona and Missouri.
-----
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Short subjects
• Frivolous lawsuits?
Oh, Dennis, have you ever voted to prevent frivolous lawsuits?
Dennis Kucinich is suing the owner of the House of Representatives’ cafeteria. The congressman and one time presidential hopeful, had a sandwich with what was advertised as pitted olives. Well, one of the olives still had a pit much to the surprise of Kucinich. He is suing for $150,000 in damages.
Don’t the members of congress have a great dental plan?
• Parents need to protect their children
It is important to stop the abusers. It is also important to stop the enablers. The woman in this case needs to go to jail.
A woman, who is not indentified to protect the victims, pleaded guilty to charges of child endangerment and hindering prosecution. Her husband fathered four babies with one of the couples' daughters. If the wife had gone to authorities right away, she could have protect her daughter.
If the father is an abuser, the mother should at least be the defender.
• Keep the news flowing
Reporters would stop informing us about our government if they were afraid of being sued. The Supreme Court understands that. They refused to even hear a case about a media defamation suit against a reporter for accurately reporting the news from court filings.
• Drunk driving in Tennessee
It is very important to get the drunks off the roads forever, but government can’t put someone in jail for an undetermined amount of time. Let’s find another solution. How about in jail for ten years on second time around?
In Tennessee they want to put people that are charged with DUI that have been convicted before behind bars. But, they will be there for as long as a judge believes they are still a danger to the community. The punishment is much to arbitrary.
• Those money grapping politicians! They will do anything for a buck.
Seems that the Hawaiian legislature is going to allowing anyone that will pay $100 to purchase an official copy of President Obama’s birth certificate. While it won’t shut the birthers up, it will raise some money.
-----
Oh, Dennis, have you ever voted to prevent frivolous lawsuits?
Dennis Kucinich is suing the owner of the House of Representatives’ cafeteria. The congressman and one time presidential hopeful, had a sandwich with what was advertised as pitted olives. Well, one of the olives still had a pit much to the surprise of Kucinich. He is suing for $150,000 in damages.
Don’t the members of congress have a great dental plan?
• Parents need to protect their children
It is important to stop the abusers. It is also important to stop the enablers. The woman in this case needs to go to jail.
A woman, who is not indentified to protect the victims, pleaded guilty to charges of child endangerment and hindering prosecution. Her husband fathered four babies with one of the couples' daughters. If the wife had gone to authorities right away, she could have protect her daughter.
If the father is an abuser, the mother should at least be the defender.
• Keep the news flowing
Reporters would stop informing us about our government if they were afraid of being sued. The Supreme Court understands that. They refused to even hear a case about a media defamation suit against a reporter for accurately reporting the news from court filings.
• Drunk driving in Tennessee
It is very important to get the drunks off the roads forever, but government can’t put someone in jail for an undetermined amount of time. Let’s find another solution. How about in jail for ten years on second time around?
In Tennessee they want to put people that are charged with DUI that have been convicted before behind bars. But, they will be there for as long as a judge believes they are still a danger to the community. The punishment is much to arbitrary.
• Those money grapping politicians! They will do anything for a buck.
Seems that the Hawaiian legislature is going to allowing anyone that will pay $100 to purchase an official copy of President Obama’s birth certificate. While it won’t shut the birthers up, it will raise some money.
-----
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Detroit City water board representation
“No taxation without representation,” is a phrase that came out of the American Revolution.
When the government charges for something, either direct taxes on property or income or a fee for usage, it is a tax. By making that payment, representation should also be provided.
The Detroit water system provides the water that all of us in our homes. They charge a fee for that service but the residents of the suburbs do not have any direct oversight or representation on the water board of the city. That is in direct violation of the compact between a community’s government and its residents.
John McCulloch, Water Resources Commissioner for Oakland County, filed a motion in federal court asking to create a regional management board to oversee the water system. The system provides water and sewer treatment for 76 communities in the Detroit Metro area. About 3 million people use the water every day. McCulloch’s plan would allow each community to have some representation on the board. It would be able to bypass the current board, Detroit Water and Sewage Department, and the Detroit City Council. The council currently approves water rates for the system.
The water system and the suburbs have been fighting for control for over 30 years. The system, according to the Oakland Press article about the issue, is in violation of federal law. Depending on how the violations are settled, the suburbs could pay up to 60% of the cost of a fix to bring it in to compliance. This alone would be reason to have representation on the board and oversight of the expenditures.
There are those that argue that the representation on the board flows through the state. State legislation established the ability of the Detroit Water board to provide water to residents outside of the city. But that representation is indirect and convoluted.
It the federal courts don’t end this problem with a long term solution than the state needs to step in and provide legislation that does. Only by receiving proper and direct representation on the board by the residents of the communities the system serves can we achieve a long term solution that doesn’t violate the compact residents have with their community’s governments.
-----
When the government charges for something, either direct taxes on property or income or a fee for usage, it is a tax. By making that payment, representation should also be provided.
The Detroit water system provides the water that all of us in our homes. They charge a fee for that service but the residents of the suburbs do not have any direct oversight or representation on the water board of the city. That is in direct violation of the compact between a community’s government and its residents.
John McCulloch, Water Resources Commissioner for Oakland County, filed a motion in federal court asking to create a regional management board to oversee the water system. The system provides water and sewer treatment for 76 communities in the Detroit Metro area. About 3 million people use the water every day. McCulloch’s plan would allow each community to have some representation on the board. It would be able to bypass the current board, Detroit Water and Sewage Department, and the Detroit City Council. The council currently approves water rates for the system.
The water system and the suburbs have been fighting for control for over 30 years. The system, according to the Oakland Press article about the issue, is in violation of federal law. Depending on how the violations are settled, the suburbs could pay up to 60% of the cost of a fix to bring it in to compliance. This alone would be reason to have representation on the board and oversight of the expenditures.
There are those that argue that the representation on the board flows through the state. State legislation established the ability of the Detroit Water board to provide water to residents outside of the city. But that representation is indirect and convoluted.
It the federal courts don’t end this problem with a long term solution than the state needs to step in and provide legislation that does. Only by receiving proper and direct representation on the board by the residents of the communities the system serves can we achieve a long term solution that doesn’t violate the compact residents have with their community’s governments.
-----
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)