The Kansas House needs to give up its misguided attempt to amend the state’s constitution. It doesn’t have the two-thirds votes required, and besides, it’s a bad idea to rush through a constitutional change based on emotion. Stop wasting time and money. Approve the extra spending on schools. And if lawmakers really want to duke it out with the Supreme Court, do so next legislative session.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- KSGolfnut on Whose ‘unchecked spending’?
- outlander on Open thread 11/24
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- Chas on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- BlueJay on Huckabee felt costs of campaign
- BlueJay on Huckabee felt costs of campaign

7 Comments
Hey, if the gay marriage ban was able to be passed based highly on emotion, why can’t it work this time?
Same as roo’s post. ;)
Here’s an interesting take on the issue.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bminiter/?id=110006879
Ireland, I checked your link. What on earth does that have to do with the Kansas House and Supreme court? I’ve read some of your other posts. You’re kind of a one track sort, aren’t you? I’d think that some who’s as hot on the war as you are would be tearing down the door at the Army Recruiting office. You DO support our troops, don’t you? Why not support em close up? Nah, I didn’t think so.
“Stop wasting time and money. Approve the extra spending on schools”
Biggest oxymoron I’ve heard in a long time.
That’s right…don’t debate whether or not the court had the right to issue the order…just go ahead and comply and then try and take back that power once you’ve effectively handed it over. That’s the answer.
Quick…name a court case where a court has ordered a legislative branch to increase spending by a specific amount that was later unheld by further scrutiny.
My apologies, Rider. I had the wrong link active on my clipboard. Here is the correct link:
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/nadler200506280802.asp
Well, that makes much more sense. I think multiple appoligies are in order, and I offer mine.