2013 Legislative Ideas and Principles

As we head into this legislative session a few ideas and principles to pass along for a successful 2013! Good luck to all of you!!

Conservative Ideas - Building A Solid Foundation

Suggestions:

Accountability for Government

1)     Setting up the Redress of Grievances Committee. This committee will meet year round. This has been implemented or reintroduced in New Hampshire.

2)     Special Grand Juries - Complaints will come before them only after other legal remedies have been exhausted. The Juries should have the power to strip those judges of their protection of judicial immunity who are the subject of complaints for criminal acts and be able to investigate, indict, and initiate criminal prosecution of wayward judges and public officials.

3)     Executive and Legislative Branch Adoption of Originalism - Both the executive and legislative branches should be encouraged to adopt originalism as a mode of constitutional analysis when deciding on the constitutionality of executive and legislative branch actions and the constitutionality of legislation.

4)     Recall Statutes - Every elected official in the State can be recalled except for judges. This practice must end.

5)     A Public Integrity Act - This bill would allow or give the Attorney General the power to investigate Color of law violations and other criminal violations of “ANY” public employees in their capacity to do their jobs. This law would allow the Attorney General to go into any county without invitation to investigate these types of problems to prevent local corruption as well as suspend or place on administrative leave any public employee, or recommend a Grand jury investigation of those allegations.

6)     Secure the 2^nd Amendment for the State. Conceal carry on campus’s and public buildings.

7)     Cut State spending projects and employees. Many jobs can be supported through private business and contracts.

8)     Take the courts out of the family business - Domestic Courts were never designed or intend to be punitive. These courts were set up after the Constitution was written and to use the same adversarial settings as criminal courts is an absolute abomination to our society. Courts will no longer be able to order, hold or take children without documented evidence.

9)     Add voluntary "Citizen Review Boards/Panels". These can be selected by the County Commissioners, or others that provide for “NO” Judicial tampering or interference in this process. Mandate for every county.

10)  Immigration – Illegal means “Illegal”. We must stop the public funding of these individuals. There is a system and laws in place to be here “Legally”. This goes for schools, colleges, etc.

11)  Major reform in “not sending people to jail” for non-aggravated crimes i.e. (child support, trespassing, and other misdemeanors) to reduce the taxpayer cost. Consider fines for marijuana possession rather than jail terms or arrest? We do not have to participate in this "war on drugs" ignorance.

12)  Make major cuts in the funding of SRS, Youthville and other services that interfere in child development and family settings with a “state first” mentality.

13)  Making sure Capital punishment is instituted and carried out. That murder, rape, aggravated crimes are penalized accordingly for the crime.

  

Judicial Branch

1)     State ballots in 2014? Let the citizens of Kansas elect of our District court Judges for the state process.

2)     State ballots in 2014? Change the Constitution for the selection of the Supreme Court Justices.

3)     Change the Statutory law for the selection of the Appellate Court Justices. A Governor selection with a Senate majority approval..

        a.     HB 2101http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2011_12/measures/documents/hb2101_00_0000.pdf

        b.     SCR 1606 http://24.123.107.252/blackbelt_kf/FMPro.php?-DB=BillTracker_KS_109&-lay=Description&-format=Bill_Detail_House_109.html&-RecID=706&-find

4)     Make sure the Statutory laws for the selection of the District Court and Magistrate judges can be opened up to (non-attorneys) and allow them to serve by the age of 18, as Texas has done for decades.

5)     Create voting Districts for both the Supreme and Appellate Courts. Give the State balance in representation on the State Courts.

6)     Look at taking the “retention votes” for State Judges to 75% to retain them, or raising them.

7)     No Judicial Immunity for Judges or others within the court system. Immunity was reserved for the legislators only in the Kansas Constitution.

8)     Abolish Judgeships and Lower Courts - The Constitution vests Congress with the power to create and abolish all courts, with the sole exception of the Supreme Court.

9)     Cutting court staff - It would be more cost effective to have video recorded court hearings, eliminating the need to pay a transcriptionist to transcribe the record of every hearing. You would only need to cite the record and the time, which would be recorded on the video. Voice inflection, body language and gestures would now be seen. Reduces cost!

10)  Limiting the General Application of a Judicial Decision - As the head of the executive branch, a Governor can command all executive branch agencies or its sub contracted agencies in certain circumstances to limit the application of a Supreme Court decision to only the litigants involved and otherwise ignore it as a rule of general application.

11)  The court lacks jurisdiction anytime it denies you the Bill of Rights or Amendments, especially Due Process. Any judges orders issued under these conditions are to be void immediately when found.

12)  Anyone can assist others in the courtroom. SCR 5.5 Law Firms and Associations: This legislation does not, in any way shape manner or form, define a non-lawyer assisting others, whereby it was legal to assist others in the State of Kansas. These rules were put in place originally for only disbarred attorneys. The practice of common law is a public arena, in which all those who are caught up in it are always advised that there is no excuse for ignorance of the law. Multiple areas of the law that are presented by non-attorney’s every day are (police, real estate agents, law clerks, lobbyist, etc. the courts cannot be allowed to regulate non-attorney’s.

13)  Judges will no longer hide behind "Broad Discretion or Best interest of the child" terms in Domestic or Juvenile Courts. The courts are using this term to expedite court settings without vetting the cases properly. These are parents not criminals. We took away the discretion from judges when it came to sentencing criminals or clearly limited their ability or range to sentence criminals with the National guidelines. This was due to their inability to do their jobs properly or consistently. When it comes to families these judges are using the bench to intimidate and place fear in these citizens and their families - this must stop.

14)  Case Management will be voided in whole state statute 23-3507. Limited Case Management and Mediation will be available to the parties and the courts, but actually having an individual trying to run families day to day affairs from afar and through the courts is over. This social experiment of government/judicial branch has gone awry and must end.

15)  All children over the age of 10 will be allowed to testify. This legislation already exists now in Chapter 38. Both Domestic and Juvenile Courts should be using this legislation. Statute 38-2262: Placement; testimony of certain children. We have to get the courts and the State Judiciary away from this idea that they are in control of our kids until 18 simply because someone filed for a divorce
.

16)  All Juvenile and Domestic courts will offer to the parties juries of their peers. Currently judges are singularly ruling and controlling the cases by acting as Judge, jury and prosecutor. This is not working in favor of the public and or the citizens or the laws of this state.

17)  Public debate and voting of the legislature in the "Child Support Guidelines" to make them LAW. The Supreme is drafting these without a single vote of our legislature being cast. Many states use legislative committees without the Judiciary even being involved. This is a public issue being railroaded through the Judiciary. The idea that we are using a broken formula to penalize nonresidential parents, while asking them to pay child support percentages that are ridiculously high and then compounding it with having them pay shared expenses is barbaric. The state is intentionally trying to hurt one parent in this setting. Even putting them in jail for nonpayment and it's not even law or been approved by our congress.

Schools

               

Suggestions:

1)     Move toward removing the State BOE. I realize this too is a constitutional matter to change but this entity is simply inept. The school districts have the representation of legislators the same as the public. The school districts have not been redrawn or moved in over 50 years, this single item has led to school districts running into different city limits and making wasteful use of tax payer dollars to bus student that would no longer even be bused to closer schools.

2)     Hire an Independent company to evaluate each school district in the State and review its efficiency and cost per student. By learning the “true” cost associated with education and its expenditures we will never “really” know how to fix the problem. Schools are administration heavy, with an emphasis on classroom size rather than quality of education. These reports should be used by the legislature and Governor to ascertain better solutions to a growing problem of “out of control spending” and better review how certain school districts are not cost effective.

3)     Serious consideration needs to be applied to a “voucher system” for the citizens of this state. Kansan’s deserve more choices and their kids deserve an education worthy of competition.

4)     Any type of formula that allows other formulas to add to the states cost. School Districts continue to have bonds and expect the state to cover the bonds without a single legislator vote or the cost or impact to our budget. Lobbyist group continually insists on tax increases and demands more funding without any accountability for public education – PERIOD!

5)     Focus needs to be on “Special programs”, Special schools, and the needs for busing. Schools are not being responsible for this cost and providing them as a “want” not a need. Any advanced courses or college classes in high school should clearly have more students due to the very nature of the course in preparing them accordingly.

6)     School years can be shortened to eliminate enormous amounts of cost in August and May due to the Heat.

7)     Collective Bargaining for Public Employees needs to end.

8)     Privatizing KPRS.

9)     Bond and Interest formulas have to be reformed so that our legislators have to review before acted on.

10)  End the Kansas Board of Regents ability to continue to increase tuition rates yearly and at ridiculous rates.

Overall State Expenditures

Suggestions:

Tags staying on the vehicles. Texas assigns the tag to the vehicle so there is no additional cost for tags every 2-4 years. Eliminates tag offices except for new cars. The rest of the registration can be done on line. (21^st century?)

Toll fees still being incurred for 35 Turnpike. A 10 year toll that has lasted 50 years. Turn the road over to the counties and eliminate the tolls.

Tax reform, to stop increasing “Property Taxes” on retired seniors with fixed incomes. This defies logic.

Focus on ending stupid State permits and licensing that are burdensome. http://www.businesslicenses.com/licenses.php 

 The Department of Health will create a process for anything, tanning, dairy, raffle, tattoos, nails, Barbers and Cosmetologists would no longer need to be licensed. It’s these type regulations that are killing small business and if the daily individual can’t select their barber or the fact that people cut their own hair – then we are in trouble. Let alone the fact that “not having” these may lead to your imprisonment or the government fining them. We have dog licenses, hunting licenses, park permits, boat permits, garage sale permits, trash permit, just how much needs to be charged for?? Common Sense must prevail.

Laws like this:  Pedestrians crossing the highways at night must wear tail lights. 

Opinion: State’s judge selection undemocratic

• Email
• Comments (33)
• Print
• Facebook
• Digg
• Delicious

By Stephen J. Ware

November 29, 2012

ADVERTISEMENT

In a democracy like ours, should lawmakers be selected democratically? Not according to the Journal-World (“Court, politics,” Nov. 23), which wants some of our state’s most important lawmakers selected in a deeply undemocratic process that makes the votes of some residents count far more than the votes of others.

The lawmakers in question are our state’s appellate court judges.

Judges are lawmakers? Yes. Judges have routinely made law throughout our country’s history and even earlier, going back to England. This judge-made law, called the “common law,” has generally worked well and continues today to govern thousands of cases including those involving contracts, property rights and bodily injuries.

Common law rules differ from state to state. States with more liberal judges tend to have more liberal common law, while states with more conservative judges tend to have more conservative common law. The political leanings of appellate judges, rather than trial judges, are especially important because appellate judges have much more power over the direction of the law.

In short, the appellate judges of Kansas, like those of other states, are tremendously important lawmakers. What is unusual about the lawmaking judges of Kansas is how they are selected. None of the other 49 states uses the system Kansas uses to pick its two appellate courts. And for good reason, because the Kansas system is a shockingly undemocratic way to select lawmakers.

At the center of the Kansas system is the Supreme Court Nominating Commission; most of the members of this commission are picked in elections open to only 10,000 people, the members of the state bar. The remaining 2.8 million people in Kansas have no vote in these elections.

This violates basic equality among citizens, the principle of one-person, one-vote. The current system elevates one small group and treats everyone else like second-class citizens.

Kansas lawyers tend to be fine people but they’re not superheroes. They don’t deserve more power than lawyers have in any of the other 49 states. In a democracy, a lawyer’s vote should not be worth more than any other resident’s vote.

So the problem is not that Kansas has a nominating commission but how that commission is selected. As Washburn law professor Jeffrey Jackson wrote, democratic legitimacy “would appear to favor a reduction in the influence of the state bar and its members over the nominating commission because they do not fit within the democratic process. Rather, the more desirable system from a legitimacy standpoint would have a greater number of the commission’s members selected through means more consistent with the concept of representative government.”

Bar groups in Kansas claim that this violation of our democratic principles is the only way to get competent judges. But the bar provides no evidence that judges selected in lawyer-favoring systems are better than judges selected in the more open and democratic appointment systems used by a dozen other states. Kansas should follow those states’ lead so that our state’s courts can have democratic legitimacy as well as professional competence.

— Stephen J. Ware is a professor in the Kansas University School of Law.

Post Election 2012 - keep it Real

Since the election Tuesday several things are happening. On Wednesday, the Stock Market was so thrilled with facing another four years of Obamanomics that it fell 313 points. If nothing is resolved by Jan. 1 and the Bush era tax cuts are allowed to stop, the economy is expected to suffer, so some investors are already selling while the Stock Market is relatively high and before it plunges further down. Boeing, revealed their plans to restructure their defense division.  Those plans include reducing management jobs by 30%, consolidating several of their business divisions to save money and to shut down their facilities in California. In Las Vegas, one business owner believed he was left with no choice but to lay off 22 of his 114 employees because of Obama’s victory.  He said that his costs of running a business and having to pay more in taxes and health insurance costs due to Obamacare left him no alternative. A Utah coal company owned by a vocal critic of President Barack Obama has laid off 102 miners. The layoffs at the West Ridge Mine are effective immediately, according to Utah American Energy Inc., a subsidiary of Murray Energy Corp. They were announced in a short statement made public Thursday; two days after Obama won re-election. The Fiscal Cliff is not January 1 as everyone claims, but it was November 6, 2012. We are already seeing the first few rocks tumbling down the face of the cliff and believe me, there is a lot more to come and when it does, we will find ourselves buried beneath it with little hope of getting out.

Who are the ones that are truly unwilling to compromise? It’s Obama and the Democrats. They have said it’s their way or no way. The legislation they passed, they did not allow debate and now we have “THEIR” legislation in place.  And like old times, the media is already taking the liberal side and laying the blame on Republicans for not compromising. January 1, 2013 is being referred to as the Fiscal Cliff.  If nothing is done, the tax breaks enjoyed by all of us will end and we will see a significant decrease in our take-home pay.  Additionally, there will be forced massive spending cuts in the federal government, some of which will not be beneficial such as in the Defense Department. There is one thing that hasn’t changed at all and that is the unwillingness of the Democrats to compromise and then blaming Republicans for the same.

             It’s easier and cheaper to take over the GOP. Starting a viable third party or just take over an existing political party? I have been hearing the same rhetoric for more than 30 years. The establishment stock is down when it comes to the Republican establishment, and it’s ripe for a takeover. Most Conservatives despise the Republican Establishment (as I do), but they haven’t offered a viable alternative except in principle. Viability is important for people who do not have an ideological dog in the fight which is where a majority of Americans are. People support winners. If you can’t or will not grasp this point, then you better find a different line of work.

             I firmly believe that many (maybe most) third-party people don’t want a real change in the political landscape because they know they couldn’t make it work. We split or water down the platforms even more which confuse the already blind electorate and they don’t have the skills, knowledge, or the work ethic to make the fundamental changes that are needed to turn things around and the clock is working against them. Some are content to watch it all burn and then believe that a new political Phoenix will rise from the ashes and a desperate world will call on them to show the way to salvation. It’s not going to happen. If it burns, it’s taking us with it. Sorry folks, but that’s not the way it works. It doesn’t work in politics like it doesn’t work in medicine, fixing cars, building a house, learning a new language, designing a sky scraper, or learning to play a musical instrument. It’s hard work. Talk does not build a building. The majority of people do not devote that amount of time to politics, but it shows us that change is not magical. It doesn’t drop from the sky after wishing, bitching, and hoping. It takes a lot of hard work and determination. Are you up to the task?

There are plenty of things to take away from this election and a clear understanding of just the pure numbers:

In 2008 McCain/Palin vs. Obama/Biden - 132,653,958 voters turnout rate of 61.6%

In 2012 Romney/Ryan vs. Obama/Biden - 118,782,374 voters

We were (Down - 13,871,584) voters. 10 million less Obama voters. We lost the popular vote by a difference of 2,899,844, less than the 3 million that stayed home and didn't vote.

              The Democrats removed God from their platform and supported pro-Abortion while the Republican platform reflected a pro-Life position yet 50% of the Catholics voted for BHO. In comparison 78% of White Evangelical Christians voted for Romney. What does this tell us? The Obama team ran on no vision for the future other than more of the same. High unemployment, 47 million people on food stamps, Middle East is in shambles, cover ups, and the Federal government trying to impose its will on states and the Republican Party could not win at the National level – WHY?

                Ready???? Women are the biggest voting block in the United States. The media wants to paint Sarah Palin as a “polarizing individual” – to whom? The statistics at the National level are more than clear. Unless the Republican Party can “PHYSICALLY” get away from White male leaders only and make sure the ticket cross’s gender and ethnic lines, the war on women, the isolation tag on minorities is going to stick. Sarah Palin brought out the women in 2008 and the conservative base voters with her strong conservative values. When we continue to allow the media and the establishment to keep bringing Moderate (all be it bright and experienced) individuals to the front of the pack, the party will continue to fade at the NATIONAL level where building a platform that cross’s ethnic and gender gaps is imperative because these individuals have simply been unable to articulate their message into these groups. The Republican Party/Tea Party continues to gain and have success at the State level and lower where the ethnic and gender gaps are being crossed at a rapid pace but when it comes to the National level it is a miserable failure. Even the State levels can garner way more support if the leaderships were changed.  

                There is simply no argument to the fact that they have to be experienced for the job knowing what we have at the current President and the Vice President, these two are the joke of the World, making us the laughing stock of the World. I would also even consider going back to the last 3 Democratic Presidents (Carter, Clinton, and Obama) and extending that argument. Romney needed to have either a women or a minority on the ticket that was staunchly conservative to rally the base and the other voting blocs – he failed miserably. We could not even get voters out after the last four years of the start of Armageddon. You may not want to accept this but this is the world we live in.

                America's voters – 73% White, 13% Black, 10% Latino, 3% Asian. Women make up 55% of the voting electorate and when they vote 56%-41% Democrat or 67%-31% Democrat that are un married to the Democrat Party we lose every time. Even with Blacks voting 93% Democrat and Latino voting 75% Democrat. The numbers are the numbers – either we change the menu or you get served the same meal!

http://www.latintimes.com/articles/965/20121108/presidential-election-2012-voters-breakdown-women-latinos.htm

http://frontporchpolitics.com/2012/11/divided-gop-resulted-in-obama-victory/

http://www.purdueexponent.org/opinion/columnists/article_0da9fe71-667d-5be9-a50e-7c5a88438041.html

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/08/gop-respect-women-or-keep-losing.html

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/08/republicans-learn-the-cost-of-alienating-women-voters.html

http://www.scholarsstrategynetwork.org/sites/default/files/ssn_basic_facts_sanbonmatsu_on_the_gender_gap.pdf

Some things did go right November 6th. http://michellemalkin.com/2012/11/07/20-things-that-went-right-on-election-day/

September 15, 2012 Marriage

STRENGTHENING MARRIAGE

September 15, 2012

Legislators and friends,

The best way to reduce divorce rates and to encourage commitment back into marriage is to bring back "fault divorce" laws. Cheating on your wife or husband is a "breach of contract" and the guilty party should be held liable and forced to pay damages.  No-fault divorce also gutted marriage of its legal power to bind husband and wife, allowing one spouse to dissolve a marriage for any reason — or for no reason at all. Neither court nor judge can mitigate the pain and suffering of divorce for a family. Contrary to popular opinion, few people enter into a divorce lightheartedly.

The promise of sexual exclusivity (fidelity) is a very important part of marriage. This needs to be clearly written into all civil marriage contracts and enforced by the divorce courts. Marriage is about rights and responsibilities to each other. Modern society has taken all of the responsibility out of marriage. If people were held accountable for their actions, we would see much fewer divorces.

The liberalization of divorce that is no-fault reflects cultural changes. The law caught up with society in the 1960s. The rise of no-fault divorce can be traced to the recognition that requiring people to state the traditional grounds for divorce often led to fraud or lying; that rehearsed perjury diminished respect for the law; that society had no compelling interest making a couple stay together if the marriage has broken down and the two of them don’t want to stay together.

From 1960 to 1980, the divorce rate more than doubled — from 9.2 divorces per 1,000 married women to 22.6 divorces per 1,000 married women. This meant that while less than 20% of couples who married in 1950 ended up divorced, about 50% of couples who married in 1970 did. And approximately half of the children born to married parents in the 1970s saw their parent’s part, compared to only about 11% of those born in the 1950s.

In the years since 1980, however, these trends have not continued on straight upward paths, and the story of divorce has grown increasingly complicated. In the case of divorce, as in so many others, the worst consequences of the social revolution of the 1960s and '70s are now felt disproportionately by the poor and less educated, while the wealthy elites who set off these transformations in the first place have managed to reclaim somewhat healthier and more stable habits of married life. This imbalance leaves our cultural and political elites less well attuned to the magnitude of social dysfunction in much of American society, and leaves the most vulnerable Americans — especially children living in poor and working-class communities — even worse off than they would otherwise be.

But what about the children? In the older, institutional model of marriage, parents were supposed to stick together for their sake. The view was that divorce could leave an indelible emotional scar on children, and would also harm their social and economic future. Yet under the new soul-mate model of marriage, divorce could be an opportunity for growth not only for adults but also for their offspring. The view was that divorce could protect the emotional welfare of children by allowing their parents to leave marriages in which they felt unhappy. In 1962, as Whitehead points out in her book The Divorce Culture, about half of American women agreed with the idea that "when there are children in the family parents should stay together even if they don't get along." By 1977, only 20% of American women held this view.

When a couple marry with the hope of life together and the marriage fails, easy divorce is an oxymoron. Contrary to popular opinion, few people enter into a divorce lightheartedly. A divorce is wrenching, and for most people going through one is, under the best conditions, an experience in mental and emotional anguish and sadness. Even when divorce is the only answer, it is painful and dislocating, and when it becomes a war, the idea of victory and winning is an illusion. The belief that "divorce breeds divorce," meaning that the easy availability of divorce makes other couples more likely to divorce, has grown in its foundation. Divorce has become contagious.

What is no-fault divorce?

The claims were that, the no-fault divorce helped courts get rid of “cooked-up stories in the court of law”; a spouse now no longer needs to prove that their partner had faulted in the marriage. Issues concerning “irreconcilable differences” and “incompatibility” are now reasons strong enough to get a divorce under no-fault divorce laws. No-fault divorce helps one spouse get rid of a burdensome relationship even if there has been no infidelity, desertion, brutality, abandonment or any related crime. No-fault divorce strips out a legal recognition of blame. The injured or rejected partner, perhaps the one who does not want the marriage to end, has little financial and emotion recourse. Moralists argue that no-fault divorce makes it too easy to get a divorce, which get you in to the court system faster and easier..

            Similar claims were made that no-fault divorce laws would offer or ensure a speedy divorce and this would ultimately be less expensive compared to fault divorce, of course they didn’t see the lawyers and Judges using this process to exaggerate or lengthen the process with Parent Coordinators or Case Management evolving. Everybody has heard of a “Pandora's Box”? This is an artifact in Greek mythology; the "box" was actually a large jar which contained all the evils of the world. Today, to open a Pandora's box means to create evil that cannot be undone – Parent Coordinators and Case Managers.

This was to displace some of the volatility of what makes negotiations so explosive; that a couple would negotiate the end of the marriage without assigning blame or fault, wow did they miss that one! It is always advantageous to avoid a divorce trial, having agreed to end their marriage without a finding of fault and have successfully negotiated the terms and conditions of support and custody and the division and distribution of the marital estate.

            The reality is the Domestic Courts have had an explosion in increased numbers and states are paying a toll larger than they ever dreamed in state agencies (child support, court trustee’s, etc.) and then the untold story of the negative impact on the children as the courts and the state attempt to lay claim to working in the “child’s best interest” knowing there is nothing they can do to make the situation more positive. We need the state out of this process and we need to take the money out of divorce.

            Many scholars, therapists, lawyers, Judges and journalists served as enablers of this kind of thinking. These elites argued that children were resilient in the face of divorce; that children could easily find male role models to replace absent fathers; and that children would be happier if their parents were able to leave unhappy marriages. In 1979, one prominent scholar wrote in the Journal of Divorce that divorce even held "growth potential" for mothers, as they could enjoy "increased personal autonomy, a new sense of competence and control, [and the] development of better relationships with [their] children." And in 1974's The Courage to Divorce, social workers Susan Gettleman and Janet Markowitz argued that boys need not be harmed by the absence of their fathers: "When fathers are not available, friends, relatives, teachers and counselors can provide ample opportunity for youngsters to model themselves after a like-sexed adult."

Thirty years later, the myth of the good divorce has not stood up well in the face of sustained social scientific inquiry — especially when one considers the welfare of children exposed to their parents' divorces. Since 1974, about 1 million children per year have seen their parents’ divorce — and children who are exposed to divorce are two to three times more likely than their peers in intact marriages to suffer from serious social or psychological pathologies. In their book Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps, sociologists Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur found that 31% of adolescents with divorced parents dropped out of high school, compared to 13% of children from intact families. They also concluded that 33% of adolescent girls whose parents divorced became teen mothers, compared to 11% of girls from continuously married families. And McLanahan and her colleagues have found that 11% of boys who come from divorced families end up spending time in prison before the age of 32, compared to 5% of boys who come from intact homes.

Research also indicates that remarriage is no salve for children wounded by divorce. Indeed, as sociologist Andrew Cherlin notes in his important new book, The Marriage-Go-Round, "children whose parents have remarried do not have higher levels of well-being than children in lone-parent families." The reason? Often, the establishment of a step-family results in yet another move for a child, requiring adjustment to a new caretaker and new step-siblings — all of which can be difficult for children, who tend to thrive on stability.

Skeptics confronted with this kind of research often argue that it is unfair to compare children of divorce to children from intact, married households. They contend that it is the “conflict” or “high conflict” that precedes the divorce, rather than the divorce itself, that is likely to be particularly traumatic for children. The problem here is there is no threshold or clear definition for these terms.

More than two-thirds of all parental divorces do not involve such “highly conflicted” marriages. And unfortunately, these are the very divorces that are most likely to be stressful for children. When children see their parents’ divorce because they have simply drifted apart — or because one or both parents have become unhappy or left to pursue another ¬partner — the kids' faith in love, commitment, and marriage is often shattered. In the wake of their parents' divorce, children are also likely to experience a family move, marked declines in their family income, a stressed-out single parent, and substantial periods of paternal absence — all factors that put them at risk. In other words, the clear majority of divorces involving children in America are not in the best interests of the children.

            Even under no-fault divorce, things can turn acrimonious when children are involved. The primary consideration in child custody is the best interests of the child; this may force the couple to take adversarial roles to demonstrate that the other is not as fit to be a parent. Thus even a supposedly non-adversarial approach can quickly pit one spouse against the other.

Disadvantages?

It has been observed that as a result of no-fault divorce laws, there has been a jump in the number of divorces in USA. In a study carried out in 1989 by Justec research in Virginia on the impact of no-fault divorce laws in 38 states of USA, have shown that there has been a 20-25% rise in the number of divorce cases. One of the reasons for the increase is found to be due to the ease with which people can divorce each other as provided by the laws of no-fault divorce. People are increasingly becoming less tolerant to each other and wishing to break up the marriage as the law also permits them to do so! Thus, to say marriage has become a matter of joke and the beauty of the relationship is getting lost!

            Sometimes a spouse contests a divorce for all kinds of reasons, some of which are not in his or her long-term best interest. Divorce is so wrenching an experience that people sometimes do not think clearly. One spouse may want to reconcile, so he or she hopes for a change of heart in the other. Or one spouse, hurt and angry by the other’s rejection, may want to make it difficult. Sometimes, one spouse wants additional time to hide assets that would be distributed. A party may have religious or philosophical objections to ending a marriage.

            When a couple marry with the hope of life together and the marriage fails, easy divorce is an oxymoron. A divorce is wrenching, and for most people going through one is, under the best conditions, an experience in mental and emotional anguish and sadness. Even when divorce is the only answer, it is painful and dislocating, and when it becomes a war, the idea of victory and winning is an illusion. The belief that "divorce breeds divorce," meaning that the easy availability of divorce makes other couples more likely to divorce, seems to have a foundation. Growing up in a two-parent home has its advantages, and thus there may also be advantages to a system which puts up some barriers to divorce, at least among parents.

           

New measures and Laws

There are no magic cures for the growing divorce divide in America. But a few modest policy measures could offer some much-needed help to the problem.

            First, the states should reform their divorce laws. A return to fault-based divorce is certainly going to raise the bar back up but this will become a political matter, but some plausible common-sense reforms could nonetheless inject a measure of sanity into our state and nation's divorce laws. Require married adults to prove any of the traditional grounds for divorce: adultery, physical or mental cruelty, abandonment or desertion, imprisonment, insanity, and drug or alcohol addiction. The benefit of a fault divorce is that, if one spouse is clearly to blame, the other may be entitled to greater benefits in the form of spousal maintenance. Also, a fault divorce allows a couple to avoid any state-mandated waiting period for a no-fault divorce. Spouses who are being divorced against their will, and who have not engaged in egregious misbehavior such as abuse, adultery, or abandonment, should be given preferential treatment by family courts. Such consideration would add a measure of justice to the current divorce process; it would also discourage some divorces, as spouses who would otherwise seek an easy exit might avoid a divorce that would harm them financially or limit their access to their children.

Second, Congress could extend the federal Healthy Marriage Initiative. In 2006, as part of President George W. Bush's marriage initiative, Congress passed legislation allocating $100 million a year for five years to more than 100 programs designed to strengthen marriage and ¬family -relationships in America — especially among low-income couples. As Kathryn Edin of Harvard has noted, many of these programs are equipping poor and working-class couples with the relational skills that their better-educated peers rely upon to sustain their marriages. Many of these programs will be evaluated; the most successful programs serving poor and working-class communities should receive additional funding, and should be used as models for new programs to serve these communities. New ideas — like additional social-marketing campaigns on behalf of marriage, on the model of those undertaken to discourage smoking — should also be explored through the initiative.

Third, the State and the Federal government should expand the child tax credit; incentivize it by the fact that one marriage gets more benefits. Raising children is expensive, and has become increasingly so, given rising college and health-care costs. Yet the real value of tax deductions for children has fallen considerably since the 1960s. To remedy this state of affairs, have proposed expanding the current child tax credit and making it fully refundable against both income and payroll taxes. A reform along those lines would provide a significant measure of financial relief to working-class and middle-class families, and would likely strengthen their increasingly fragile marriages. I would promote the Fair Tax model as it protects the Family Budget and gets government OUT of the Social Engineering business.

Of course, none of these reforms of law and policy alone is likely to exercise a transformative influence on the quality and stability of marriage in America. Such fixes must be accompanied by changes in the wider culture. Parents, churches, schools, public officials, and the entertainment industry will have to do a better job of stressing the merits of a more institutional model of marriage. This will be particularly important for poor and working-class young adults, who are drifting away from marriage the fastest.

This is a tall order, to say the least. But if our society is genuinely interested in protecting and improving the welfare of children — especially children in our nation's most vulnerable communities — we must strengthen marriage and reduce the incidence of divorce in America. The unthinkable alternative is a nation divided more and more by class and marital ¬status, and children doubly disadvantaged by poverty and single parenthood. Surely no one believes that such a state of affairs is in the national interest. Nothing in a fault or no-fault, uncontested divorce, however, speaks to the sadness and sorrow of a family torn apart and NO ONE should profit from such a tragic event.

Besides the efforts in Michigan to eliminate some forms of no-fault divorce, three states have established a second form of marriage, called a covenant marriage, which makes divorce more difficult to obtain. In 1997 Louisiana became the first state to establish covenant marriage, followed by Arizona and Arkansas. Under covenant marriage, the couple agrees to pre-marital counseling and accepts fewer grounds for divorce. (Domestic violence and adultery, for example, are still valid grounds.) Even with these barriers in place though, the couple could still obtain a divorce in another state which does not recognize covenant marriages.

Although the no-fault divorce caught on rapidly in the U.S. in the last 40 years, the efforts by state lawmakers in Michigan, Louisiana, Arizona, and Arkansas to make divorce more difficult to obtain may reflect a growing concern over high divorce rates, and point to a growing trend. No-fault divorce may face increased scrutiny both in Massachusetts and throughout the country.

No more than the comment that when government trumps religion as the provider of organization of the culture the result is the indulgence of self-interest and the art of the deal when it comes to marriage. A model of a business contract that impersonally must be dissolved.

Next week I will put together the Corruption of the Judicial Branch issues! If for some reason you need to find out more on certain subjects please don’t hesitate to call or email me or visit our blog at http://kansasjudicialsystem-casemanagers.blogspot.com/

Chris Brown

browncontract@hotmail.com

Kansas Judges - The 'Merit' Selection - The "Good Ole Boys"

"To oppose corruption in government is the highest obligation of patriotism." 
— G. Edward Griffin

Appeals Court Upholds Kansas Judicial Selection --- "WHAT?''

 2012 Sept. 14th - Kansas Judicial "Merit" System Upheld By the Good Ole Boys' 

-  the unpublished opinion -

"The ruling comes in a lawsuit challenging the lawyer-dominated commission that forwards judicial nominees to the governor."

Kansas Supreme is now the only part of the Judicial branch being selected by the KBA or the Kansas Lawyers. The Appellate Courts were changed in 2013 through HB 2019. In order to change the Supreme Court it will take a Constitutional Amendment change requiring 2/3 of each house and a majority of the electorate to an open process rather than a closed political process. (Good Ole Boys)

Kansas Paper KS Bar picks it's Judges. Dr. Steven Ware

Selection to the Kansas Supreme Court Kansas is the only state in the union that gives the members of its bar majority control over the selection of state supreme court justices. The bar consequently has more control over the judiciary in Kansas than in any other state. This process for selecting justices to the Kansas Supreme Court is described by the organized bar as a “merit,” rather than political, process. Other observers, however, emphasize that the process has a political side as well. This paper surveys debate about possible reforms to the Kansas Supreme Court selection process. These reforms would reduce the amount of control exercised by the bar and establish a more public system of checks and balances. 

KansasPaper KS Bar picks it's Judges. Dr. Steven Ware