Wikipedia

Search results

How to Impeach a Superior Court Judge


After reading this news article this morning, I thought it best to break out the law area and see if we need to get rid of a Supreme Court Judge. Antonin Scalia Says Constitution Permits Court To 'Favor Religion Over Non-Religion'

This guy is off his rocker. He mentions the Pledge, giving it as an example, when the Pledge was changed in the 1950's and the part, "under God" was added. The original pledge did not refer to God at all. I just did a whole article on how much the Founding Fathers were NOT Christian, nor did the Constitution or the Bill or Rights come from the Religious principles these people want to say they did.

The new Texas Senator has declared that he too is going to be pushing to get church "back into state where it belongs". I see very ugly things coming with these men. I see a new age of hate, and persecution. No good has ever come from mixing church and state. Never. Any country run with church has been in war after war and brought down by allied nations.
A Supreme Court Justice may be impeached by the House of Representatives and removed from office if convicted in a Senate trial, but only for the same types of offenses that would trigger impeachment proceedings for any other government official under Articles I and II of the Constitution. 
Article III, Section 1 states that judges of Article III courts shall hold their offices "during good behavior." "The phrase "good behavior" has been interpreted by the courts to equate to the same level of seriousness 'high crimes and misdemeanors" encompasses. 
The Impeachment Process
Impeachment is a two-step process; the impeachment phase is similar to a Grand Jury hearing, where charges (called "articles of impeachment") are presented and the House of Representatives determines whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant a trial. If the House vote passes by a simple majority, the defendant is "impeached," and proceeds to trial in the Senate. 
The House of Representatives indicts the accused on articles of impeachment, and, if impeached, theSenate conducts a trial to determine the party's guilt or innocence. 
The Senate trial, while analogous to a criminal trial, only convenes for the purpose of determining whether a Justice, the President (or another officeholder) should be removed from office on the basis of the evidence presented at impeachment. 
At the trial a committee from the House of Representatives, called "Managers," act as the prosecutors. Per constitutional mandate (Article I, Section 3), the Chief Justice of the United States (Supreme Court) must preside over the Senate trial of the President. If any other official is on trial, an "Impeachment Trial Committee" of Senators act as the presiding judges to hear testimony and evidence against the accused, which is then presented as a report to the remained of the Senate. The full Senate no longer participates in the hearing phase of the removal trial. This procedure came into practice in 1986 when the Senate amended its rules and procedures for impeachment and has been contested by several federal court judges, but the Supreme Court has declined to interfere in the process, calling the issue a political, not legal, matter. 
At the conclusion of the trial, the full Senate votes and must return a two-thirds Super Majority for conviction. Convicted officials are removed from office immediately and barred from holding future office. The Senate trial, while analogous to a criminal trial, only convenes for the purpose of determining whether a Justice, the President (or another officeholder) should be removed from office on the basis of the evidence presented at impeachment. 





No... What the Founding Fathers Meant Was....

George Washington at a Masonic Lodge
I fell into a conversation regarding the educational abuse that Texas has brought down on its children tonight -- and was assaulted by such arrogant ignorance that I could barely think. Apparently there lives in several minds the belief that Moses was the inspiration for the Constitution of the United States and even though the founding Fathers carefully debated, and the strongly opposed putting "God" in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, or the Manga Carter ... I was told bold faced by several people that --. The Founding Fathers were so deeply Christian that God was Assumed to be in there. 

I stuttered in amazement at the audacity of this statement, and the depth of its error. The statement is so utterly untrue, insulting and ... well.. un-American.

I really do not believe that they understand the depth of error they have stumbled into. The Constitution was not unique, really, in that it gave all men their freedom of choice regarding religion. It could be argued that several other governments allowed this before the Founding Fathers crafted those words. What was unique in this regard was that the Freedom of Religion they crafted also protected a citizen's right of "No Religion." The right not to chose was globally unique. No citizen was restricted by his unbelief from any office or any profession. And this is expressed not only as "permission" but as a protected right. If there is cause for the Exceptionalist to crow American values, this is definitely one of the most uniquely American descriptors.

I would also like to point out, that every time this line has been challenged and a molecule of favor to any one religion or another has been gained by hook and crook -- between the time of victory and the moment that victory was smashed by constitutional protection, there has always been shown by these radical and un-American Christians a devastating example of why we don't go there.

It is seriously doubtful that all of the Founding Fathers were Christian. Jefferson wasn't. There is tons of documentation supporting this fact, from his own letters and journals to the preachers of that time who campaigned against him because he was an atheist.

Ben Franklin the first American was not Christian either, again, plenty of documentation for that.

George Washington was private about his worship, but it is fairly clear that he was a Deistic, and a Freemason. There is tons of evidence for this, including the writings of preachers he befriended, and other good friends.

I'm not a historian, but I do know how to follow and look up references. This is a page I found, which did quite a bit of work:  Founding Fathers were Christian at all.

"... wish to return this country to its beginnings, so be it... because it was a climate of Freethought.  The Founders were students of the European Enlightenment. Half a century after the establishment of the United States, clergymen complained that no president up to that date had been a Christian.  In a sermon that was reported in newspapers, Episcopal minister Bird Wilson of Albany, New York, protested in October 1831: "Among all our presidents from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism." 
There is a small problem with that quote. It is highly possible that Bird Wilson wasn't actually the one who wrote and performed that sermon, but it was actually delivered by James Renwick Willson, a Reformed Presbyterian or Covenanter. This error of attribute is everywhere, even as far back as Paul Boller's book on Washington's religion,
It is a little telling -- regarding the vehemence of the Covenanters -- that the British during WWII named one of their most fierce tanks the same name. Perhaps also telling was that the design was prone to overheating, and was soon discontinued
Willson's sermon was still largely accurate, but it lacks the authority of being by James Wilson's son. The story of all of this is here, and though it changes nothing, I include it for accuracy. I would like to add something from that page however, just in case you decide not to follow the link, about James Renwick Wilson:
Finally, note that Rev. Willson was an early prominent member of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Covenanted and they were notable dissidents on the US Constitution. They believed its lack of supplication to God, absence of a religious test, and absence of explicit covenant with the Triune God of the Bible made it a document, at the very least, inconsistent with their view of covenant theology and civil government. (At the worst it is an anti-Christian, infidel document). This is the very group to whom Gary North dedicates his ebook. And though North doesn't cite Rev. Willson, many of Willson's same arguments against the US Constitution are fleshed out in detail in North's book.
Rev. Willson was a true "dominionist," and he should remind the Reconstructionists that a dominionist theology is inconsistent with the US Constitution.
This is a far cry from Moses being on everyone's mind as they hid the word of God inside the text of the Constitution of the United States.

Further on, in that same sermon :

When the war was over and the victory over our enemies won, and the blessings and happiness of liberty and peace were secured, the Constitution was framed and God was neglected. He was not merely forgotten. He was absolutely voted out of the Constitution. The proceedings, as published by Thompson, the secretary, and the history of the day, show that the question was gravely debated whether God should be in the Constitution or not, and after a solemn debate he was deliberately voted out of it.... There is not only in the theory of our government no recognition of God's laws and sovereignty, but its practical operation, its administration, has been conformable to its theory. Those who have been called to administer the government have not been men making any public profession of Christianity.... Washington was a man of valor and wisdom. He was esteemed by the whole world as a great and good man; but he was not a professing Christian (quoted by Remsberg, pp. 120-121,).

So, that is a great deal to think about on his topic and certainly there are many references both given and named which have backed up this sermon's accusations.

In research you find quickly, that on any topic of significance there are always two or more sides. I find the topics with three sides to be the most interesting myself. As research is being done, points of interest and events are located. When a point is suspected of being of major significance to the topic, supporting documentation is then searched out to validate the point. Each of these discovered documents are then judge for validity and then appraised as "weight" This appraisal includes matters such as "who wrote it?" like I pointed out that this particular sermon would have more value if it was written by Bird, instead of James, because of the connections and position Bird had. Other factors include where was it found? Is it supported by other documentation? Was it published or private? And so on.

A prime factor, and one I always give a great deal of weight to, is when I discover that one of the contesting sides has ancestor witnesses who decry present day belief. We have that here.

The Christians of that time, and nearly every outspoken Minister of every sect,  of every state in the union, is reported by sermon, membership diary, newspaper article or non-fiction account of the day in book form to have denounced the lack of Christianity incorporated in their Government. Going so far as to condemn the government. The accusation is incessant in fact. The accounts of heathenism, barbarism, heresy and even public protests are all over the place.

This suggests to me, a strong indication that the Founding Fathers were not publically believed to be religious. A few of them, in private letters and journals suggested more than a nodding dedication to Christianity, but also these same express a strong need not to publicly demonstrate their beliefs, as it could be used by others to give them a foothold into government preference of Christianity over other religions. Indeed, the protestations of modern Christians demonstrate their fears to be all too true.

From this point however... I'l let the great men of our nation speak for themselves.

Pundits Pund and Yap but Common Core Successful

This years stats on Common Core off the Scholastic Web site show good, even great reviews.

A majority of teachers (68%) who say implementation has started in their school agree it is going well, up six points from 2013. As one teacher noted, “I feel that within my district, efforts are being made to help teachers understand and implement the Common Core State Standards, and I feel comfortable and enjoy learning about new ways to do things.”
When focusing on student outcomes, teachers remain optimistic that the Common Core State Standards will improve:
  • students’ ability to think critically and use reasoning skills (74% in 2013, 72% in 2014).
  • students’ ability to effectively present their ideas based on evidence (71% in 2013, 70% in 2014).
  • students’ ability to read and comprehend informational texts(68% in 2013, 66% in 2014).
To that end, many teachers are already seeing a positive impact on their students’ abilities to:
  • think critically and use reasoning skills (53%),
  • effectively present their ideas based on evidence (53%),
  • read and comprehend informational texts (50%),
  • use real-world tools and resources (46%), and
  • work collaboratively with peers (46%).
A study done on Common Core A Progress Report on the Common Core by the Brown Center gives good reviews as well. It also shows that the states that didn't move over to Common Core did less well. Not much less, only a "1.27 gap between strong implementers and non-adopters" So, not huge growth in the testing area yet. Which is to be expected, since we are likely using the same curriculum as we were last year and the year before. -- because Common Core doesn't have its own Curriculum. Right? We know that, yes?

Pundits have thrown up all kinds of garbage about Common Core and it is a little depressing how much of it is believed before checking and find out that 80% of the meme's are flat out fiction.

My favorite is the math one:


To which anyone n my age group says ARG! Make it STOP! Cause we have no idea about what is going on there. Well First off, that gibberish on the bottom (the new way) really is a way of doing subtraction,  I know,Right? I didn't believe it either, but it is and I'll let this guy explain it on his blog page.

What is a fib.. well.. a flat out lie actually, is that Common Core has anything to do with this change. Common Core has nothing to do with this. This would only come into the classroom because the Teacher or the State curriculum brought it there.

Myth: The standards tell teachers what to teach.
Fact: Teachers know best about what works in the classroom. That is why these standards establish what students need to learn but do not dictate how teachers should teach. Instead, schools and teachers will decide how best to help students reach the standards.
-- Common Core Myths and Facts  

What that means is, the student needs to know how to subtract, and add and read, but you can teach him how to do that anyway you want to.

A pundit (sometimes called a talking head) is a person who offers to mass media their opinion or commentary on a particular subject area (most typically political analysis, the social sciences, technology or sport) on which they are knowledgeable (or can at least appear to be knowledgeable), or considered a scholar in said area. The term has been increasingly applied to popular media personalities. In certain cases, it may be used in a derogatory manner as well, as the political equivalent of ideologue. -- Wikipedia 


Bill Nye the Science Guy on Common Core

Bill Nye the Science Guy, one of my favorite Teaching Personalities and very popular with kids, looks into Common Core and gives his opinion


If I were king of the forest we would have math in the core curriculum. Science would be in the core curriculum. English in the core curriculum. Elementary science is where you get scientists. Everybody in the space program, everybody who's a doctor got interested in science when he or she was seven or eight years old, before they were ten, not when they were 16 or 18. That's where you spend your money is science education in elementary levels. Now, people are opposed to core curriculum I believe for two reasons. One of them good and the other just not. The first reason, my perception is they are afraid having these core curriculum, these standards, prohibits teachers from having time to do other stuff that they're good at. It takes away from other things that a teacher brings to the party. And by that I mean what is your favorite thing about your favorite teacher? And it's his or her passion. It's his or her like I'm so excited about this I want you to get excited about this when you're a little kid or when you're any student at any level, even if you're a 58-year-old guy going to the Smithsonian to take a course in oceanography for fun. It's the passion of the person presenting it that gets you going. So, by having too many standards that have to be met too rigorously, the concern is, and I understand this, that you'll keep students from having any fun and getting excited about anything.
But the other reason people seem to be, my perception of what people don't like about core curricula is that it forces them to learn standard stuff when they could be teaching their kids things that are inconsistent with what we know about science. I'm talking about people that want to teach creationism instead of biology. And that's just bad. And the excuse or the justification is you don't want the government telling you what to do. We all have to learn the alphabet everybody. I'm sorry, if we're we're going to have a successful society, it's not an arbitrary arrangement of letters, you got to learn it. Sorry. And the same way if you're asking me everybody's got to learn a little bit of physics, chemistry, mathematics and you got to learn some evolution. You got to learn some biology.
I mean the idea is obvious right? You have a certain minimum that everybody's got to meet. What? Everybody's got to learn the alphabet. Everybody's got to learn to read. The U.S. Constitution is written in english so everybody's got to learn to read english. It would be great if you learned some tonal languages, some romance language that would be good, but our laws are written in english. Everybody's got to learn to read english. Everybody's got to learn math. Everybody's got to learn some algebra. Everybody's got to learn some biology including evolution. So what's not to love? But I know there are people opposed to that.
There may be small errors in this transcript.
Perfect, right?
 

Teachers’ Views on the Common Core State Standards One Year Later

  • In 2014, teachers are more likely to report feeling prepared to teach to the Common Core (79% in 2014 vs. 71% in 2013); they are also now more likely to say implementation is going well in their schools (68% in 2014 vs. 62% in 2013).
  • Fifty-three percent (53%) of teachers overall have seen a positive impact on their students’ ability to think critically and use reasoning skills due to Common Core implementation. Sixty-eight percent (68%) of teachers who report they are in schools where implementation was fully complete in the 2012–13 school year (or earlier) say the same.
  • Eighty-four percent (84%) of teachers who have experienced more than one year of full implementation say they are enthusiastic about the implementation of the new standards.
  • Fewer teachers overall this year than last say that they are enthusiastic about Common Core implementation (68% in 2014 vs. 73% in 2013); teachers are now also more likely to say implementation is challenging (81% in 2014 vs. 73% in 2013).
  • Teachers identify Common Core–aligned instructional materials (86%), quality professional development (84%), additional planning time (78%) and opportunities to collaborate (78%) as critical to ensure successful implementation.

Recall of Williams Appears the only measure to stop Obstruction of Education

Just read this article on Chalk Beat Colorado 

I didn't realize that the Jeffco Board Majority was being so obstructive to their student's education. While most of my interest in this area diminished with the AP Censorship, if I was a parent in this district I would be seriously concerned with what I'm hearing. 

This Julie Williams, who apparently has experience as an office manager in a medical office, and no experience or training at all in the field of education -- and after starting all of this because she didn't bother to read the instructions on the AP US History documents, but instead took the word of reactionists and extremist who also didn't read the instructions -- is doing more to disrupt education than anyone I've ever seen (Except perhaps the Governor of Texas). It really feels like she would prefer the schools to be closed. Several times she has been quoted as admiring the latest actions of the department of education in Texas -- which most people look at as a monumental travesty. Here are the instructions these people can't seem to find or read.

http://www.collegeboard.com/html/apcourseaudit/courses/us_history.html

I think Re-Call is in order. If only for this Williams woman who it appears is bent on destruction.

Oh.. and a look at Texas, who Julie Williams seems to be so enamored with..from News Week


...students reading Perfection Learning’s new textbook on American history will think Moses was right up there with John Locke and Charles de Montesquieu in influencing Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and their brethren. What role did Moses supposedly play? The textbook claims he contributed the concept that “a nation needs a written code of behavior.” Forget the biblical ignorance shown in suggesting Moses provided the code for a “nation” rather than for the Jewish people, who had no nation (failing to reach the Promised Land was kind of key to the Book of Deuteronomy). Forget the legal ignorance in suggesting the Constitution had anything to do with a “code of behavior” rather than establishing democratic government and the rights guaranteed to citizens. Forget the historical ignorance in suggesting that the first laws came from Moses when the sixth Amorite king of Babylon established one of the first written set of laws, known as Hammurabi's Code, hundreds of years earlier.
 I shudder every time I think of this... It is sedition and corruption of the highest -- and yet it is happening right now. 

"The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion to another ... in the words of Jefferson, the [First Amendment] clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State' ... That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach. -- The United States Supreme Court

The article suggests that the publishers created these text books for Texas (under the board's direction) because Texas was such a huge purchaser of school text books (number one in the nation it seems). I think that the rest of the nation should insure that Texas is now their ONLY customer, for being so greedy that the students learning from these text books didn't matter to them at all. 

Seriously publishers.. shame on you. 

Trevor Packer -- Very Effective, Completely Ignored by Krieger

Tevor Paker VP College Board
The following is a document sent to an official at the Georgia Department of Education forwarded, as written by Trevor Packer, a vice president at College Board. 
Trevor Packer – April 9, 2014
This document is in answer to a piece written by Larry Krieger and Jane Robbins and published on the propaganda machine Heartland.org. New Advanced Placement Framework Distorts America’s History but this document pops up all over the web at different Ultra-Right propaganda/hate-pages across the internet. These websites should not be confused with actual Republican party websites, or even Republican News websites. They are all twisted distant sisters which propagate false controversies and erroneous information. Most of these can be traced in funding to the Koch network.

So.. lets begin the rebuttal from Trevor Packer.


Mental Models for Decision Making

Mental models are frameworks or theories that people use to understand and interpret the world around them. They are essentially the set ...