Since the payraise, we have had the same type of people elected to office as before as shown by any number of votes on any number of pieces of legislation. The people who voted (to this day who can guarantee there has been no illegal use of the names of deceased or those who relocated in elections since) may have changed a name and a face here and there, but largely these are the same voters who have no desire to upset the gravy train back to their own districts. No matter who is delivering.
It's a nice dream to have - the people are not acquiescent (after the payraise). But it simply is not evident in reality PA.
Where do you find that statistic? 25% of PA incumbents thrown out of office? Talk about revisionist history. not that there weren't some changes but in most cases of those incumbents who faced a Primary challenge back in '06, the newcomer was as supported by the so-called local political party machine as the incumbent previously was. Reports have followed that the (about 52) 'newcomers' and 'reformers' have become nothing more than the 'incumbents.' But they all jump on the reform bandwagon as it gets some free PA Newspaper Association news publicity and they can claim pals among the clean sweep brand of reformers. Meanwhile, these same reform-minded break their oaths of office and the principles on which the state and federal governments were founded in any number of ways yet have the nerve to seek higher office or re-election advocating 'reform' of the very Constitution they already breached.
It's not putting the payraise vote all on Rohrer to remark he's as guilty of oathbreaking if he voted for the unvouchered expenses/salary increase for legislators.
correct if I'm mistaken, but when voting for the salary increase which was to apply to the general assembly, too, the lawmakers also voted for the ability for "legislators" to take the salary hike in the same term of office as its passage - in the form of unvouchered expenses.
It's Rohrer's acquiescence (no matter how the unvouchered expenses made it to the table) that exposes him to voter dismissal. He was as willing as others to 'bend' the letter of the (already written into the Constitution) law. It doesn't matter whether Rohrer denied taking the increase for himself (in the same term).
When the dust settled, the unconstitutionality of the unvouchered expenses remained the unconstitutionality of the unvouchered expenses. The situation becomes worse if he sold his vote for support from the same type willing to bend the law to suit their own purposes.
PS. The parents and son will likely continue to make the rounds of Fox News Network, but will face no questions about a potential for misuse of webcams by teens whether the laptop is provided by the school district or the parents. Imagine the lawsuit had students had a porn exchange ring using school property at home or anywhere off school grounds. Or for that matter, on school grounds using school laptops, webcams, or anything else. It could happen, in fact, it's a shock such hasn't yet broken as having happened.
I'd be interested to know what the stated/written policy of the school district is regarding public property/laptop computers taken home that is off school location by anyone, employees, administrator, supervisors and students. The district has the right to have a policy to monitor activities and use of school property while on school property, with proper notification of parents and guardians. It seems a school district would have this same ability when the school property is taken off site. Were the parents of the minor informed of the program for students to take home a school computer? If notification was provided, and there was notification of all policies, including a policy to be able to monitor via any means technologically available, the lawsuit is on very shaky grounds. One would also think, given the overwhelming known problem of teen sexting an epidemic , and with a webcam, having the same potential for misuse, parents would either refuse the school laptop where there may not be sufficient preventative measures of viewing/making child porn, etc. or inquire what measures are available! I think unfortunately the case was a grab for headlines and won't be surprised when parents and son set up a foundation accordingly..
I thought I had an account there at ID as earth_is_cool. Sorry for the problem. Guess it's walksoftly (earth_is_cool)
Agree abolish the income tax, it is unconstitutional. As to ending special benefits conferred by the State, exactly eliminate. Not a power of government. As to the clamor for same sex marriage, recognized by the State, (contractual purposes) - doubtful. Again, who are any with a differing belief of a right (infinitely unenumerable/unenumerated) to dictate what another's right should be? All rights are guaranteed and unalienable.
But the Constitution guarantees the unalienable (infinitely unenumerable/unenumerated) rights of the individual, and any action by the government formed by the Constitution to curtail those rights is in itself unconstitutional. As an individual, I don't only have the right to life, liberty, property/pursuit of happiness, I have more than as many rights as anyone else could ever express. In fact, as long as I don't intrude on another's right/s, my rights could be unique to what I believe them to be (and agree within human 'reason.')
Hmm. I was going to agree with that. Morbius: the exercise of individual liberties can be restricted when those actions violate Natural Law. But where do individual (infinitely unenumerated) rights come in as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution? I hold the personal belief abortion is wrong, morally, not in my mind in a religious way, but a humanistic way. Overall, the effect on humanity lessens humanity. Does a 'marriage' between same sex, recognized by the State as a contract, lessen humanity? Do we all become less human by enabling (thru the state non-action) such? My opinion I don't think so. However, if an individual believes in a right to marry a minor, marry a monkey (that odd woman's odd relationship comes to mind) does enabling those lessen humanity? I believe so. So the State has a role in such restrictions, but not for 'religious' - Church - foundational tenets.
I have to disagree though I overall accept much of your well-written viewpoints. The Constitution is merely the document that establishes the government. (Dolley_Madison) Isn't the Constitution of the United States the single written guarantee of the protection of individual rights? Individual rights which are (I would say, infinitely) unenumerated? The State can't deny rights which an individual believes are unalienable to the individual. If an individual believes in a right to a contractual right with another and recognition of such by the State, who is the State to deny? The State is obligated to carry out the tenets of the Constitution, and the Constitution is silent on infinitely unenumerated rights. The State recognizes a legality of a contract of a marriage between a man and a woman, but again, how could the State deny a choice of a contract between same sex couple? So the State cannot tell the Church what the Church should require of its followers/believers, likewise, the Church cannot tell the State what right another individual has or does not have.
I hope this adds to the discussion.
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
Thingamajig