Kansas Governor Sam Brownback apparently has a thin skin. He can't apparently stand the idea that a high school senior in Kansas thinks that "he sucked".
On November 21, 2011, during a field trip to the Kansas State Capitol Building in Topeka, Shawnee Mission East High School student Emma Sullivan, age 18, tweeted to a friend "just made mean comments at gov brownback and told him he sucked, in person #heblowsalot". This tweet was apparently picked up by Gov. Brownback's staff, who then tracked it (how?) to Ms. Sullivan, and notified her principal. The principal has demanded that she write a note to Gov. Brownback apologizing.
The more immediate question is, what for? For saying she thinks he sucks? It might surprise His Excellency, but not all Kansans think he is the second coming. Governor Brownback's policies have led to a decline in Kansas schools, less opportunity for Kansas youth, all that the expense of making sure that his corporate buddies don't have their taxes raised. His religious ideologies are somewhere out of the 15th century, and he has consistently tried to force his beliefs down the throats of the Kansas people.
Now, apparently his staffers think they need to protect him from what a high school student thinks. Governor Brownback has shown his true colors as a fascist, who is not interested in freedom of speech unless he approves of the speech, and is interested only in what is good for Brownback, not for the people of Kansas.
Emma Sullivan should be given a medal, not punished.
UPDATE: Shortly after noon on Monday, November 28, Governor Brownback's office released a statement indicating that his staff had "over-reacted" to the tweet. Apparently, Fuhrer Brownback has decided to back off given all the negative publicity this incident has given to him and to Kansas. He should also think long and hard about educating his staff on the basics of civil liberties, including the right to disagree publically with a public official, and including the right to say that a public official "sucks".
Monday, November 28, 2011
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Unintended Consequences
This past week, a Republican led attempt to change the US Constitution with the Balanced Budget Amendment failed when it received only 261 votes, well short of the 290 needed to send the amendment to the Senate. Senate approval of the amendment was virtually a non-starter, and the entire Balanced Budget Amendment was largely a political gesture, intended to attempt to embarrass President Obama and congressional Democrats. However, neither Republicans nor Democrats should be interested in an amendment such as this; Republicans should consider it especially anathema.
A balanced budget amendment would virtually guarantee judicial involvement in the political budget process. In a time when ranting and raving about "Judicial Activism" is the political mantra for Republicans, especially for Republican presidential candidates, the idea that our judiciary should be involved in the budget process seems to be especially galling. Judges, whether elected or appointed, are not intended to be involved in budget processes. Their jobs, as defined in our system, is to resolve legal disputes brought before them by interpreting the laws and applying them to disputes. This does not extend to determining budgets and whether or not they are appropriate.
If this amendment were to pass Congress, and were enacted by the states, anyone who disagreed with a budget, passed by congress, would sue to block the budget, and/or to have a part or parts of the law declared unconstitutional. Judges would, of necessity, have to resolve those problems, and would then have to determine whether the law in question passed the test and/or was creating an unbalanced budget. This puts judges in an untenable position, as they are being called upon to exercise judicial function to approve or disapprove a law, but are instead involving themselves in the political process.
If congress does not have the intestinal fortitude to balance our budget, that is a problem the voters need to resolve: they can do it at the ballot box by refusing to re-elect those congresspersons or senators who are unwilling to put politics aside and to do what is needed to truly resolve the budgetary problems of the United States.
A balanced budget amendment would virtually guarantee judicial involvement in the political budget process. In a time when ranting and raving about "Judicial Activism" is the political mantra for Republicans, especially for Republican presidential candidates, the idea that our judiciary should be involved in the budget process seems to be especially galling. Judges, whether elected or appointed, are not intended to be involved in budget processes. Their jobs, as defined in our system, is to resolve legal disputes brought before them by interpreting the laws and applying them to disputes. This does not extend to determining budgets and whether or not they are appropriate.
If this amendment were to pass Congress, and were enacted by the states, anyone who disagreed with a budget, passed by congress, would sue to block the budget, and/or to have a part or parts of the law declared unconstitutional. Judges would, of necessity, have to resolve those problems, and would then have to determine whether the law in question passed the test and/or was creating an unbalanced budget. This puts judges in an untenable position, as they are being called upon to exercise judicial function to approve or disapprove a law, but are instead involving themselves in the political process.
If congress does not have the intestinal fortitude to balance our budget, that is a problem the voters need to resolve: they can do it at the ballot box by refusing to re-elect those congresspersons or senators who are unwilling to put politics aside and to do what is needed to truly resolve the budgetary problems of the United States.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)