Looks like Phillip T. has surfed in from Glorieta. Thanks for stopping, and we’re wishing you all the best on the missions trip!

I recently opined about the Shurden bill (co-sponsored, by the way, by Claremore Republican Tad Jones) that would have taken the tuition-setting power back from the appointed State Regents, leaving it in the hands of the elected Legislature. Fortunately the bill passed in the special session of the Legislature. And then, Gov. Henry vetoed it because, in his estimation, it went beyond the scope of why he called the special session. And then, voila! today the OU Regents raise their tuition 5.8%. Are you all beginning to see how this works???

UPDATE: It’s like a domino effect. Everyone is getting into the act. Even my alma mater is raising tuition 6.8%.

I thought I would spend just a few moments here addressing the recent failure of the US Senate to approve the proposed Constitutional Amendment against flag desecration.

This is always dangerous ground, especially because it is so easy to be misunderstood. Why? This: I am opposed to US flag desecration. It makes me angry. It is disrespectful to this nation and those who have fought and died to preserve it. It is a shameful act. Further, it appears to me to be not so much intended to make a statement but to encite a riotous response. That said, I believe that the courts have rightly ruled that US flag desecration (when an individual burns a flag that he or she owns) is protected speech under the US Constitution as amended. I am a firm believer that the 1st Amendment exists to protect speech, and very often it must protect unpopular speech. Unfortunately, the courts have not done enough to protect free specch (ala McCain-Feingold Free Speech Abridgement Campaigh Finance Reform). But on flag desecration, I believe, the courts did rightly determine the meaning of the Constitution, as much as I see that right exercised.

Now, that gets us to the point of a Constitutional Amendment banning flag desecration. I am in favor of this Amendment, and I am certainly in favor of the citizens of our fair country having an opportunity to debate the issue and vote on the Amendment. Of course, before we citizens can have our say, our representatives get to have their say, as a proposed Amendment must pass each house of Congress by a 2/3 majority. And today the US Senate was one vote short of passing it with the required majority.

The news accounts are full of people screaming about the proposed Amendment violating the 1st Amendment. I am just completely bumfuzzled that, in the first place, people are stupid enough to make this argument and, in the second place, that there are others stupid enough to accept it.

An Amendment modifies and/or changes the original; therefore, it will “violate” (i.e., run counter to) the original. For example, the Constitution, as written, did not limit the number of terms a President can serve. We have amended the Constitution to change that. Both Presidents Reagan and Clinton favored repealing that amendment. If it were attempted would we all have to suffer the fools who say a repeal is not in order because it doesn’t agree with a previously adopted Amendment? If that were the case, Prohibition would still be upon us all.

What the instant proposed Amendment means is that we all agree that the Constitution restrains the government from restricting speech, even flag desecration (but strangely enough not campaign contributions), and that the citizens, as holders of all powers not expressely granted to the Federal Government, are voluntarily granting the Federal Government the power to restrict speech in the one sense of flag desecration. It means no more and no less. And yes, it is opposed to the 1st Amendment, but the citizenry has the right and power to narrow any and all of the Constitution at any time, as long as proper procedure is followed. We the People can literally Amend the Constitution to make it illegal to say the word “purple” on Tuesdays if we choose so to do.

It should surprise no one that it is mainly conservatives behind the proposed Amendment. We conservatives attempt to work within the framework to change what we view as a problem. If it were a liberal cause, they would not run to the people, because by and large the majority of people do not support their ideals and goals. Liberals do what they always do: run to the courts. If conservatives worked like liberals, we would have long ago had a federal judge on our side of the issue issue and edict from a bench somewhere that was 180 degrees out of phase with what we all know the Constitution to truly say. 

It is diningenous to hear the liberals rant and rave about us not tinkering with Jefferson’s work (in addition to being disingenuous, it shows their utter stupidity: Madison is the father of our Constitution; Jefferson was out of the country as Minister to France. In fact, the Bill of Rights is the work of the 1st Congress, members of which Washington and Jefferson were not, though they were both in favor of the Bill of Rights). But it is hypocrisy of the highest order to have the liberal Left who drone on and on about the Constitution being a “living document” actually revere the work, incorrectly as they may identify the author, of Jefferson. The Libs have no problem messing with the founders when they go after the 2nd Amendment. We have to remember that it’s a “living document.” When the Courts find emanations of penumbras making abortion on demand a divine right that the founders intended to secure for all Americans, no one gives a hoot in heck about the founders’ real work. Originalist theory of the law, championed by justices like Antonin Scalia, is usually subject to boo-hisses and catcalls from the Left, until it fits their purposes. Originalism is a good policy, so how about we follow the original meaning of the Constitution. You don’t like something about the Constitution? Could something be done to make it better? Then there is an original process to change it. Use the amendment power of the Constitution and get the people to assent to a modified contract with their government. It’s simple.

Libs, any time you feel like trying to amend the Constitution, please feel free to give it your best effort. Be on notice, though, that it might be a little tougher to get 2/3 of both houses of Congress and 3/4 of all the States to buy into your insanity than it has been to get 5 members of the Supreme Court to do so.

THE GODS we worship write their names on our faces, be sure of that. And a man will worship something —have no doubt about that, either. He may think that his tribute is paid in secret in the dark recesses of his heart—but it will out. That which dominates will determine his life and character. Therefore, it behooves us to be careful what we worship, for what we are worshipping we are becoming.

—Ralph Waldo Emerson

Brand new WynnCast is hot off the memorex. Visit the WynnCast blog to download.

I have not made up my mind for the gevernor’s race yet, but I have to say that Bob Sullivan knows how to make a campaign ad. Gaylord Sartain is priceless!

http://bobsullivanforgov.com/custom/video.php?show=3

Everyone is thrilled that a report of WMD in Iraq has been de-classified, but we already knew this!

Here’s the link to my old blog post from Nov. 17, 2004, referencing a find of Sarin in Fallujah. The link to the screen grab of the USA Today site is broken since I am on a new server, but here is a link to that very picture. Click the thumbnail below: 

WMD were found in Iraq. It’s a truth.

I am not the biggest Frank Shurden fan in the world. He has been a great sportsmen’s advocate, but he was also against the cockfighting ban, embarrassingly. All that aside, he has proposed an amendment that is essential for Oklahoma’s higher education system and the future of Oklahoma students’ ability to get an education beyone high school.

State Senator Amends Bill On To Give Legislators Tuition Control

AP – 6/22/2006 6:25 AM

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — A Henryetta state senator amends a higher education measure to return control over tuition increases to the Legislature.

Term-limited Senator Frank Shurden, a Democrat, has complained in the past of large tuition increases since the Legislature in 2003 gave the Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education sole authority to approve the changes.

Before 2003, members of the state House and state Senate voted on tuition schedules for state colleges and universities.

Shurden is running for labor commissioner this year.

State Senate President Pro Tem Mike Morgan says he doesn’t think Shurden’s amendment will pass.  

I was working in higher ed when the tuition power was given by the Legislature to the Regents. I predicted then that there would be no stopping the Regents from raising tuition almost the maximum they could each year. It’s just their nature. They see how much “more” they could do if they just had a little more money.

Before the Regents had control, the universities had to make a good case to the Legislature, the members of which are much more accountable to the citizenry than the Regents. It always worked. The universities functioned just fine, and the Legislature, held in check by the people, allowed necessary tuition increases (plus state funding) without being too extreme with the increases.

In the years since tuition power was vested in the Regents, tuitions have indeed increased greatly. I don’t have the exact numbers in front of me, but I believe the maximum tuition increase per year was capped at 8% at the discretion of the Regents. My position then was that if the regents restrained themselves to 7% a year, over three year’s time, that was a 21% increase in tuition (over the starting number–it would indeed be more due to compound increases on each year’s new level). That is a huge increase in the cost of anything over a short period of time. I haven’t had time to pull the actual numbers, but the tuition increases have been substantial over the three years since the change was made, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the net was something like 20% (and that doesn’t include increased funding from the Legislature due to the lottery windfall and funding from sources such as private donations, ala T. Boone Pickens).

And so, I hope for the success of Shurden’s amendment. The main reason is not that I don’t support our universities; it is that I think there needs to be strong accountability for the power and money they are given. I know for a fact that the Regents are hard to keep accountable. Due to some friends having been tied up in a matter with a university, the bulk of the Regents’ response for accountability over a university they governed was to instruct my friends to speak to the Regents’ attorneys.

There must be a better means of accountability for expenditure of state funds and exercise of power in raising tuition in Oklahoma higher ed. I mean really folks, has there ever been a time when higher ed got more money from the state and private contributions? Why, on top of that, have tuitions had to rise so sharply? The Legislature is an insulating force, accountable to the people, to keep the high price of tuition in check. When it’s rising gas prices we all freak out because Evil Big Oil might make a small (percentage-wise) profit. When it’s Big Education, we’re supposed to look the other way because it’s for the children. I think not.

State Supreme Court Strikes Down Eminent Domain Petition

According to KOTV, the Oklahoma Supreme Court has stopped a vote of the people on the eminnent domain abuses that have emerged in the wake of Kelo. It was on procedural grounds, so I hope the efforts will start again and proceed in the proper manner so as to make it to a vote of the public.

Story:

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — The Oklahoma Supreme Court Tuesday ruled an initiative petition proposing to restrict government use of eminent domain is unconstitutional.

The state high court held that Initiative Petition 382 violated the single-subject rule of the Oklahoma Constitution and may not be submitted to a vote of the people.

A legal challenge had been filed to the ballot title by several economic development and business groups. The court said that issue is now moot.

A [sic] Oakhurst Baptist Church Is Vandalized

Unfortunately, an Indian Baptist Church in Creek County was vandalized this weekend. You can read the story at the link above.

I am glad to see that the church didn’t allow the vandalism to cancel their services today.

I do take exception, however, to one part of the story:

The Creek County Sheriff’s office is investigating the vandalism at Indian Fellowship Baptist Church. There were some racial slurs written on the walls. But so far this is not being considered a hate crime.

Racial slurs aside, why would this not be a hate crime? Does anyone reading my little blog have any doubt that had this been a mosque–rather than a Baptist church–this would be the biggest hate crime to ever hit the state? Why can’t Christians be victims of hate crime?

And for the record, I am opposed to “hate crimes” as a special class of crimes. I think all crime is based in hatred for the criminal’s fellow man. To even have a “hate crimes” category is to say, like Orwell, that all the animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. All victims of crime should have their rights protected. My point here, though, is that if Muslims can be the victims of hate crime, why can’t Christians–racial slurs or not? If we’re gonna have the “hate crimes” category, shouldn’t we apply it evenly?