Tag Archives: court

April 7, 2011 · 4:00 am

Digging A Hole -Will We Drain The Lake?

Ok here’s the problem, you are in a financial hole you owe a large sum of money, do you make the full payment due or do you make a partial payment and allow the hole to go deeper? Maybe that is a hard concept, so let me put it another way, you are digging a hole next to Coventry Lake and suddenly the water starts to drain from the lake into your hole which then slowly leeches out into a stream. Do you stop digging or do you continue to dig at a slower rate and allow the lake to drain out?

Now I think most of you will come to the same conclusion you STOP DIGGING! Now let’s say you are on the Coventry Town Council and the pension committee tells you there is a big hole in pension funding and you need to deposit $160,000 per year for ten years to fill the hole. You have a decision to make do you put the money into the pension account or do you only put in $99,000? You are aware that if you do not make the full payment now, you will at some time in the future still have to make up for and pay those funds into the pension account.

Do you stop digging the financial hole or do you do what your Town Council did, vote for the lower payment that only makes the partial payment and allows the hole to continue to grow? It’s a good thing the Town Council is not digging the hole by the lake mentioned above or they would keep digging and allow the lake to drain.

When it comes to financial responsibility the wise and prudent thing to do would be to pay off what you owe before you continue new spending. The Town staff of Coventry has many long-term employees nearing retirement age; they will soon be deducting money from the account. If at some point deductions exceed the annual income it will reduce the amount invested and lower the return thereby increasing the debt to the taxpayers. Kicking the “financial can” down the street for a future date was not in the best interest of the taxpayers. The pension fund should receive a higher priority.

To his credit Town Council member Richard Williams spoke in favor of fully funding the pension payment. Unfortunately the majority on the Town Council did not agree so the pension funding did not receive the entire amount recommended by the Pension Committee. It is just another example of pay now or pay more later; in this case we will pay more later.

Crafting a budget is a lot easier if you just ignore what you owe and put it off until tomorrow. It didn’t work in Hartford and Governor Malloy is now facing a huge financial decision. It will not work in Coventry just as it does not work in your own household.

Leave a Comment

Filed under COVENTRY GOVERNMENT ISSUES

Tagged as , , , , , ,

February 24, 2011 · 10:28 am

Be Careful What You Wish For, No Wish is Worth Moral Decay

At some point in life we all learn there is more to a wish than what we expect.  The little girl that wants a horse rarely thinks about the time expense and effort required to maintain a horse.  Riding can be so much fun but there is the burden of care, feeding, exercising, and of course mucking out the stall.

Like the little girl often special interest groups in politics wish for positions or outcomes of an issue without regard as to collateral impact it may have.  Yesterday we may have seen just such a moment.  It was announced yesterday that the Obama administration will decline to defend the Defense of Marriage Act.  This law was passed 15 years ago and defines marriage as only between a man and a woman.

This action was applauded by some special interest groups.  There can be honest sincere debate as to the merits of the law or the constitutionality of the law but that is a matter for the courts.  The issue here is not the Defense of Marriage Act the issue is the action of the executive branch of the federal government.  The question that must be asked is would the same special interest groups applaud if the President announced his administration would not longer defend discrimination in housing based on sexual orientation?

When any President takes the oath of office they pledge “to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”  The Constitution clearly defines three branches of government and it is the responsibility of the judicial branch to determine the validity of laws under our Constitution.  Our Presidents are not kings granted the right to act alone and only enforce laws they agree with.

It is an ill advised perilous position for a President to pick and choose which laws the justice department will enforce.  Congress has the responsibility to pass laws the executive branch has the responsibility to enforce the laws and the judicial branch makes judgment as to the legality of any law.  When a president decides to arbitrarily pick and choose which laws to defend he is extending his judgment beyond the scope of responsibility for which the office of President was charged.

Have other presidents refused to argue defense of a law before the courts?   Yes but in the vast majority of cases the point of law revolved around the authority or restriction of authority being place on the office of President by the Congress.  In simple terms the lack of argument was due to the direct impact on the constitutional authority of the office of President of the United States.  No such position is present in this decision by the Obama administration.

The validity or enforceability of any law should be left to the courts.  The three branches of government have clear roles to play under our Constitution and each branch should carry out their duties with great care and respect for the others.

How you get your wish can be just as important as or more important than what you wished for.  Support what ever position you like on the issue of the Defense of Marriage Act but more importantly demand good government.  Demand that all our laws be enforced, and that the responsibilities for each branch of government be respected and honored.

When we compromise our principles to reach our goals we erode our foundations of government and the moral fiber of our nation.  There is no goal worth that price.

 

Thank you for reading the Opining Quill you are invited to become a friend on Facebook or subscriber.  If you enjoy this site please tell a friend.

Leave a Comment

Filed under NATIONAL ISSUES

Tagged as , , , , , ,

August 4, 2010 · 1:03 pm

GOVERNOR RELL READY TO PLAY HARDBALL OVER CAMPAIGN FINANCE

Governor M. Jodi Rell today announced, in an effort to preserve the state’s clean election program, she has shared with legislative leaders her draft of campaign finance legislation that she would sign into law.  Her proposal repeals sections of the Citizen Election Program a federal court has deemed unconstitutional and preserves public financing of elections.

The Governor vetoed legislation last week that while attempting to address the constitutional issues also significantly increased the public grant spending from $3 million to $6 million for gubernatorial candidates.   Rell made it absolutely clear to the General Assembly how committed she is to act swiftly and without reservation when she said, “It is therefore my intention, because I believe so strongly in this program and in safeguarding the progress that we have made in removing the taint of corruption from our electoral process, to call the legislature into special session if you do not either override my veto or take other action to address the concerns of the court.”

The Governor’s legislation includes provisions that would:

  • Repeal the unconstitutional provisions, including supplemental grants that the federal court ruled burdened the free speech of non-participating candidates;
  • Enact a true severability clause instead of a reversionary clause, therefore preserving the rest of the law;
  • Allow for $100 contributions from lobbyists but does not permit such contributions to count as “qualifying” contributions for public financing; and
  • Immediately restrict from whom lobbyists and state contractors can solicit contributions. Lobbyists cannot solicit from their clients and state contractors are banned from soliciting from their employees and subcontractors.

Leave a Comment

Filed under CONNECTICUT ISSUES

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , ,

June 14, 2010 · 7:30 am

FATHER GIVES CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY AND DELIVERS A MESSAGE FOR AMERICA

Darrell Scott, the father of Rachel Scott, a victim of the Columbine High School shootings in Littleton, Colorado, was invited to address the House Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee. The meeting took place on May 27, 1999 at the Rayburn House office building in Washington, D.C.

What he said to our national leaders during this special session of Congress was painfully truthful. They were not prepared for what he was to say, nor was it received well. It was a message that should be heard and should be discussed.   The courageous words spoken by Darrell Scott are powerful, penetrating, and deeply personal. The following is a portion of the transcript:

“Since the dawn of creation there has been both good & evil in the hearts of men and women.  We all contain the seeds of kindness or the seeds of violence. The death of my wonderful daughter, Rachel Joy Scott, and the deaths of that heroic teacher, and the other eleven children who died must not be in vain. Their blood cries out for answers.”

“The first recorded act of violence was when Cain slew his brother Abel out in the field. The villain was not the club he used. Neither was it the NCA, the National Club Association. The true killer was Cain, and the reason for the murder could only be found in Cain’s heart.”

“In the days that followed the Columbine tragedy, I was amazed at how quickly fingers began to be pointed at groups such as the NRA. I am not a member of the NRA. I am not a hunter. I do not even own a gun. I am not here to represent or defend the NRA – because I don’t believe that they are responsible for my daughter’s death. Therefore I do not believe that they need to be defended. If I believed they had anything to do with Rachel’s murder I would be their strongest opponent.”

“I am here today to declare that Columbine was not just a tragedy-it was a spiritual event that should be forcing us to look at where the real blame lies!  Much of the blame lies here in this room. Much of the blame lies behind the pointing fingers of the accusers themselves.”

“I wrote a poem just four nights ago that expresses my feelings best. This was written way before I knew I would be speaking here today:

Your laws ignore our deepest needs,

Your words are empty air.

You’ve stripped away our heritage,

You’ve outlawed simple prayer.

Now gunshots fill our classrooms,

And precious children die.

You seek for answers everywhere,

And ask the question “Why?”

You regulate restrictive laws,

Through legislative creed.

And yet you fail to understand,

That God is what we need!

“Men and women are three-part beings. We all consist of body, soul, and spirit. When we refuse to acknowledge a third part of our make-up, we create a void that allows evil, prejudice, and hatred to rush in and wreak havoc. Spiritual presences were present within our educational systems for most of our nation’s history. Many of our major colleges began as theological seminaries. This is a historical fact.

What has happened to us as a nation? We have refused to honor God, and in so doing, we open the doors to hatred and violence. And when something as terrible as Columbine’s tragedy occurs – politicians immediately look for a scapegoat such as the NRA. They immediately seek to pass more restrictive laws that contribute to erode away our personal and private liberties. We do not need more restrictive laws. “Eric and Dylan would not have been stopped by metal detectors. No amount of gun laws can stop someone who spends months planning this type of massacre. The real villain lies within our own hearts. Political posturing and restrictive legislation are not the answers. The young people of our nation hold the key. There is a spiritual awakening taking place that will not be squelched! We do not need more religion. We do not need more gaudy television evangelists spewing out verbal religious garbage. We do not need more million dollar church buildings built while people with basic needs are being ignored. We do need a change of heart and a humble acknowledgment that this nation was founded on the principle of simple trust in God!
“As my son Craig lay under that table in the school library and saw his two friends murdered before his very eyes-He did not hesitate to pray in school. I defy any law or politician to deny him that right! I challenge every young person in America, and around the world, to realize that on April 20, 1999, at Columbine High School prayer was brought back to our schools. Do not let the many prayers offered by those students be in vain. Dare to move into the new millennium with a sacred disregard for legislation that violates your God-given right to communicate with Him. To those of you who would point your finger at the NRA – I give to you a sincere challenge. Dare to examine your own heart before casting the first stone!” My daughter’s death will not be in vain! The young people of this country will not allow that to happen!”

Leave a Comment

Filed under NATIONAL ISSUES

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , ,

June 2, 2010 · 12:08 pm

CHILDREN AND VOTERS AT RISK IN COVENTRY

Danger in Coventry, federal officials must act to save the children!  Voters in Coventry banned from voting by federal court judge!  Are these examples of alarming headlines or possible headlines?

Yesterday the topic here at the Opining Quill was the decision of Federal Judge Janet Hall to end the practice by the Enfield Board of Education of using the First Cathedral in Bloomfield for graduation ceremonies.  Her reasoning extends far beyond that case her tentacles of thought may well extend to our community of Coventry.

Coventry voters in District 2 vote in the Prince of Peace Lutheran Church.  Clearly, the scholarly intellectual Judge Hall would have a negative opinion of that based on her writings in the Enfield case.  Judge Hall seems to think that the mere presence of a cross on the property or architectural design of the building is enough to show endorsement of the religion by any tenant using the property.  The fact that the Town on occasions may have covered anything of a religious nature within the building to limit it from view would show a connection between church and state according to erudite Judge.

Perhaps shutting down the voice of the people would not bother the Town Council since they ignored their own poll input when 67% of the participants endorsed tipper barrels for trash collection without green bags.  But that is an issue for another day.

What is Coventry to do?  Will we ignore the ruling of a Federal Judge?  Will we wait for an actual complaint and the legal expense to defend what is happening?

Oh, but wait there’s more!  The Superintendent of Schools may have to act to protect our children if the good Judge Hall comes to town.  Yes, the Coventry school system is connected with a preschool program within a church.  Oh my, those innocent children, have we no concern for their well being?  Shall we move the program or stop the funding?  What is Coventry to do?

Are the people of Coventry really in violation of the United States Constitution?  Have our Town leaders led us down a path in violation of Federal law?  Certainly we do not think of our community as a rogue state of criminals with little regard for the rule of law.  Perhaps, just perhaps the decision of Judge Hall will be overturned and we will once again be, Coventry the Gateway to the Quite Corner of Connecticut.

If you enjoy the Opining Quill please pass the link on to your friends.

Leave a Comment

Filed under CONNECTICUT ISSUES, COVENTRY EDUCATION, COVENTRY GOVERNMENT ISSUES, NATIONAL ISSUES, QUILL SALUTES

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , ,

June 1, 2010 · 5:40 pm

FEDERAL JUDGE’S CONVOLUTED REASONING BORDERS ON ABSURDITY

The recent ruling by Federal Court Judge Janet C. Hall banning the use of First Cathedral in Bloomfield as a site to hold graduation ceremonies for the Town of Enfield high schools has stirred the interest in the issue of separation of church and state.  Which as any scholar of the constitution knows is never mentioned in the U. S. Constitution.

The basis upon which Judge Hall made her decision is the First Amendment to our Constitution which reads as follows; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” That is the entire amendment.

The intent of our founding fathers in amending the Constitution was to protect the people from the government.  The first ten amendments are now known as the Bill of Rights. The concern of the representatives, as members of different colonies, founded with different religions, was to assure that no single religion would dominate and restrict the practice of religion.  Americans would be able to practice religion unfettered by government and this freedom would also extend to freedom of speech, of the press, with the right to assemble and petition the government to remedy injustice.

The founders recognized the existence of “God” in the Declaration of Independence when they referred to “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”.  Would those that today call for any mention of God or religion in connection to government also call for those words to be stricken from the Declaration of Independence?  How would Judge Hall rule if the suit were questioning the wording of our founding fathers?  The founding fathers were not in violation of the first amendment and the overly broad interpretations of today are inappropriate and misguided.

In the Enfield case Judge Hall interjected her personal belief and interpretation as too what religion is when she chose specific architectural features and leaps to the conclusion that they represent a religious endorsement.  Her reasoning if strictly followed could lead one to the conclusion that overpasses crossing interstates are an endorsement of religion by the state because viewing them as you approach can look like a cross if a light pole aligns with the center support structure.  Yes, that is convoluted and so is the reasoning of Judge Hall.

The cathedral is a building, it is not a religion it is structure.  A building used by a congregation can become a church.  Many communities have an ecumenical service outdoors at Easter this does not mean that the community is endorsing a religion in violation of the Constitution and that somehow all of the air breathed is intolerable for those that do not share the same belief.

There are many buildings that were at one time used as a church that have been converted to other uses.  That does not mean the secondary user endorses one religion.  The congregation of Saint Bartholomew church in Manchester used the gym of Buckley Elementary School as a church while their own church building was being erected.  That was did not make Buckley School a church and was not an endorsement by the Town of Manchester of religion.  It was merely a rental of a site for use which is also the case for Enfield and First Cathedral.

The Enfield Board of Education’s decision to use a building that happens to also be used by a religious group does not make them part of or an endorsement for that religion any more than if the graduation ceremony were held on the football field it would not make graduates football players or fans of the game.  Attending an Enfield graduation where ever it is held will not be an endorsement for other activities held within the same building.

The entire situation was addressed at another graduation.  Opining Quill is reminded of the student that was to speak at a graduation ceremony surrounded by the same type of controversy that has been wrought upon the graduating classes in Enfield.  The student walked to the microphone paused and then suddenly sneezed and the senior class responded in unison “God Bless you”. The speaker smiled and returned to their assigned seat no other words need be said.

For more on the importance of religion in government see Opining Quill of April 18, 2010 by clicking here:  http://wp.me/pPLAn-1g

Leave a Comment

Filed under CONNECTICUT ISSUES, NATIONAL ISSUES

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , ,