davjohns 1 #26 March 4, 2013 Sigh...it was in the link you provided. "The Secular Coalition for Alabama lobbied in opposition to SB112 because of provisions in the bill that are not included in the ballot language. Specifically, the proposed amendment removes the right to an education for Alabama's children: '..but nothing in this Constitution shall be construed as creating or recognizing any right to education or training at public expense..' To be clear, the no right to education "poison pill" language is a vestige of the Amendment that introduced the racist language in the first place. We want those provisions removed too, since they can still be used against children in Alabama and even to end public education." The amendment did a couple of really good things, but made it law that children are not entitled to a public education. That's why it was defeated. The amendment would not have changed racist laws. Those were changed decades ago. It would have just gone back and erased the language was overturned. But it would have also denied that Alabama children had a right to a public education. So, the bill was objectionable when entirely known. Coupled with a very powerful Alabama Education Association lobby, this bill was doomed to fail for reasons that had nothing to do with racism.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #27 March 4, 2013 QuoteOh BTW, in New York State, the Supreme Court are what New York calls its trial-level courts, not the highest-level appellate courts in the state. (Don't ask me why.) So this ruling was by a trial-level judge. Andy Do you know if the story I posted and this one are the same issue or topic in the courts? http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2013/03/cuomo_must_prove_new_yorks_gun.html"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #28 March 4, 2013 QuoteQuoteOh BTW, in New York State, the Supreme Court are what New York calls its trial-level courts, not the highest-level appellate courts in the state. (Don't ask me why.) So this ruling was by a trial-level judge. Andy Do you know if the story I posted and this one are the same issue or topic in the courts? http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2013/03/cuomo_must_prove_new_yorks_gun.html From a very quick look, it seems like the same one. I say that because of the paragraph in this story that says "Schulz and his co-plaintiffs won an order Friday that will require the governor and Legislature to prove the message of necessity was warranted." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #29 March 4, 2013 Quote The amendment.... Yeah, yeah. But now we're not talking about NY any more, are we? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #30 March 4, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteOh BTW, in New York State, the Supreme Court are what New York calls its trial-level courts, not the highest-level appellate courts in the state. (Don't ask me why.) So this ruling was by a trial-level judge. Andy Do you know if the story I posted and this one are the same issue or topic in the courts? http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2013/03/cuomo_must_prove_new_yorks_gun.html From a very quick look, it seems like the same one. I say that because of the paragraph in this story that says "Schulz and his co-plaintiffs won an order Friday that will require the governor and Legislature to prove the message of necessity was warranted." Thanks I missed that part"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
