Comments by
Page 1 of 1
Posted on April 27 at 11:54 a.m.Suggest removal
This article is ridiculous. There are strict guidelines for amending the Constitution because the founding fathers meant for it not to be easily influenced by the political mindset of any given period.
For instance, if it could have been easily amended under Bush II with a Republican Congress, it would have reflected neo-conservative values that just years later seem absurd.
If it could have been easily amended after Pearl Harbor or 9/11, it would not have been difficult to amend it discriminate against Asian-Americans or Muslims.
The requirements of amendments are strict for a reason, and it is because of this that the Constitution has maintained its integrity.
The 20th century “values” are addressed by legislative bodies and courts of law, namely the Supreme Court.
Also, it doesn’t matter how the founding fathers feel about modern day issues. They had no foresight on issues like abortion or gay marriage. When examining these issues, it is not important what they think, but what the Constitution explicitly and implicitly reveals.
Substantive due process through the 14th Amendment allows such issues to be addressed without modifying the Constitution.
In regards to ambiguity, it has been convincingly argued that such wording has left the law to be interpreted in light of contemporary issues.
For instance, search and seizure (addressed in the 4th Amendment) was interpreted differently in the 1950s than it is today. Such ambiguity and subsequent interpretation allows for the preservation of the document.
I highly recommend you take a Poli Sci class that examines the Constitution in context to specific times in American history.
Posted on April 16 at 12:11 p.m.Suggest removal
Jayvo,
I noted that discrepancy and even spoke with a representative of State Representative Deborah W. Heinrich (D-Madison) (one of the bill's co-sponsors) office who, after initial confusion, confirmed that the bill was still in committee. For that, I apologize.
Opposing the bill by challenging sovereign immunity is illogical because the system already makes such discriminations. The bill itself would not change the status quo in regard to public employees. The bill itself does not explicitly attack private institutions, but rather extends the rights to those harmed by sexual abuse by them.
Just because the state protects public employees and public property (supposedly to protect taxpayers) does not mean the bill should be thrown out. It does take a positive step to show those in private institutions that they will be held responsible for the crimes they have committed.
The Catholic Church has expressed their concerns for implications regarding their property, but has not shown that just because House Bill 5473 does not address sovereign immunity that criminals should not be prosecuted for their past crimes.
In regards to suing the state, it can be sued for both injunctive relief and declaratory relief. Sovereign immunity just protects the state against suits involving monetary damages. It is not specific to House Bill 5473, but to the laws of the state of Connecticut.
Such protections are common to states and to the federal government in order to safeguard taxpayers' assets.
The Catholic Church is using this fact as an argument against the bill seemingly because they don't have another basis on which to defeat it.
I sincerely doubt that the Church cares that public assets are protected from monetary damages.
Furthermore, no other private institutions including synagogues, Protestant churches, mosques, banks, daycare centers, gyms, etcetera, seem to be so adamantly against the the legislation.
Posted on April 15 at 5:15 p.m.Suggest removal
Dio,
I believe the concept that you are referring to is “sovereign immunity,” something in almost all, if not all state constitutions.
Sovereign immunity protects the assets of the state, and thus the taxpayer, from repossession in criminal and civil suits. The purpose of such a measure is obviously to protect taxpayers.
Whether or not it is fair… well that’s up for you to decide.
House Bill 5473 DOES NOT addresses sovereign immunity in any way— explicitly or implicitly. It does not change anything in regards to who can be charged based off of employment in private or public entities.
Therefore, opposing the bill on the basis that it discriminates between public and private intuitions, as the Catholic Church websites (some of which have been inappropriately cited on this page) have tried to do.
The discrimination has already been made in the other statues. All the house bill does is remove the statue of limitations and illustrate what is exempt from the court in sexual abuse cases.
Furthermore, in response to your first post, it applies to more than clergy, security guards, and private institutions…
In conclusion, the bill does not discriminate against any particular body. The discrimination is already there (allegedly to prevent the loss of taxpayer money). The bill just removes protection for those that have committed crimes that cannot be prosecuted without the implementation of said legislation.
I apologize for saying you received your talking points from a church. They were very similar to the ones found at the Connecticut Catholic Public Affairs Conference website…
Posted on April 15 at 4:18 p.m.Suggest removal
Jayvo,
According to CNN, the bill has passed the House:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/11/c...
“The bill passed in Connecticut's House of Representatives, and [co-sponsor] Bye said the state Senate should vote on it in the next week or two.”
You're wrong about what the bill does as well. It does not differentiate about who may or may not be prosecuted; rather what is exempt from being recovered by the victim (burial plots, wedding rings, health insurance, etc…)
Please read the bill before posting about what is and is not in it. I have no idea where you are reading that it protects public employees, but it is not in the bill.
If you would like to know for yourself, I implore you to please read the legislation in its entirety.
EVEN IF it only protected those in public institutions, which it does not, that does not warrant the Church’s apprehension towards the Connecticut House Bill 5473.
It is reasonable to believe that by prosecuting members of the Catholic Church and removing them from the body of the Church will help prevent future cases of abuse.
Yes, sexual molestation is a wide-spread problem. I agree that those who commit such crimes, regardless of the time in which those crimes were committed, should face appropriate penalty.
I am outraged that the Catholic Church is actively protesting the measure, especially in light of all the recent allegations.
No members of any institution, public or private, are above the law, including the Catholic Church….
Posted on April 15 at 1:26 p.m.Suggest removal
Mckinleyblues,
The article is not accusing the church of anything, but rather focus on the accusations already made that members of the Catholic Church have committed such crimes and that they (including the Pope) have covered them up.
"Recent history would Suggest just that" does not incriminate anybody, nor does it accuse to an extent more so than has already been published....
Posted on April 15 at 11:05 a.m.Suggest removal
Read the First Amendment Josh. Furthermore they wouldn't make any one religious group do anything. Ignorance.
Posted on April 15 at 10:57 a.m.Suggest removal
Original poster,
Perhaps YOU should READ THE BILL before posting. It does not protect any one profession or preclude charges against any other. Did your church tell you it was out to get innocent security guards and clergy?
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/TOB/H/2010...
Jeff,
While I understand that removal of the statue of limitations could potentially lead to unwarranted lawsuits, I think the Catholic Church needs to face the music for the crimes they have committed. It has become apparent that for many years once-molested parishioners said nothing in fear of rebuke and damnation. The possibility of frivolous lawsuits should not hamper their right to justice. Besides, it shall be left to the courts to decide what cases are worthy of deliberation.
Somebody has to show the Catholic Church that they cannot continue to get away with this things.
Jews, Protestants, and Muslims do not seem to fear the threat of frivolous lawsuits. Hmmm....
Posted on November 12 at 4:36 p.m.Suggest removal
Wow. You're column reveals just how naive pro-lifers really are. Nice attempt to draw parallels between the protection of the rights of women to the systematic murder of 11,000,000 people based upon their religion, ethnicity, mental capability, and political beliefs. I'm ashamed you go to my university...
Page 1 of 1
Posted on May 5 at 10:51 a.m.Suggest removal
I cannot believe that more people are not commenting on this. The apathy around here astounds me. I also agree with the first poster, Texans should have to pay a disproportionate amount of tuition because our tax dollars fund the school.
We also need to look at ways to generate revenue other than tuition and fee increases. How about we start by allowing beer to be sold at the football and basketball games? No, I am not some fat frat kid wanting to get hammered while I watch us run up 150 points on some no-name team from Idaho.
Imagine this: 85,000+ people (not including those stumbling around campus corner and common areas) at the football games. Hell let’s say 100k just for good measure. Hypothetically HALF those people want ONE beer (which I think is a rather conservative estimate). Sell the beer at around 5 dollars for a profit of 3.75 a beer (sound about right. That alone is $150k netted in revenue from one of six home games, and that doesn’t even include basketball—$900k for a football season. Say we get to 1 million dollars through football AND basketball combines (though I think the number would actually be closer to 3 million). I just saved 20,000 undergrad students 50 bucks apiece. Hypothetically, we could send 50 or so Oklahoma residents to our university on full rides if we get to 3 million.
Ok. So I am not an economist. I admit that I did just pull those numbers out of my ass. Maybe I didn’t account for a few things. So what. Frankly though it is apparent that serious revenue can be raised through selling alcohol at games. REVERSE THE ALCOHOL POLICY.
Just my 2 cents.
--Barry O.
On