The thought police and montana

[PlayerRep]

LOL, Playerrep. So, your point is that the accused should be believed until proven otherwise? Of course our system is innocent until proven guilty, but how does that really apply in practice? People charged with all sorts of crime ranging from murder to simple assault are held on bond and have their rights restricted in some way. Is it unconstitutional for an accused abductor to be held on an 8 million dollar bond, essentially keeping him in jail until he is convicted? Should authorities DISbelieve the victims in the Cleveland kidnapping and rape case and believe the accused until he it is proven otherwise?

I wish I could say that this sudden increase in justice for Defendants is based solely on a continuing dedication to criminal justice, but it is not. The harsh reality is that many Defendants are guilty as charged. Some, of course, are not. Does that mean we shouldn't put protections in place for potential victims? Does it mean we limit their avenues to pursue justice?

The criminal justice system is already slanted heavily towards Defendants. Do you want us to move to a more Middle-eastern based system of justice for alleged rape victims and stifle their ability to come forward together? There is no other way to open up avenues for justice than to place limits on freedom for the accused. They shouldn't be able to contact their alleged victims. They shouldn't be able to roam free because they are presumed innocent. Wake up Peter Pan, Count Chocula. This isn't a theoretical debate. It's all about the practice.

At the investigaton stage, neither the accuer or the accused should be presumed to be telling the truth. It should be a neutral investigation. Surprised you can't understand something as simple as that.

While there are significant rights for the accused and required criminal procedures, in point of fact, the criminal justice system is slanted towards the prosecution side, because they generally have the bulk of the resources and power.

 

[Jerry Punch]

I hit the nail on the head and you missed. The UM policy is NOT a criminal proceeding and has none of the attendant protections. Innuendo alone can now be used to deny a young man an education thanks to the new pc policy. You are fine with that? :?

So if UM proceedings are not criminal and students do not have the same constitutional protections, I don't see the problem. There is no "right to education" found in the US constitution. Ask Justice Scalia. You won't find those words there. If it sounds ridiculous, your fight is with the Constitution, not the DOJ. Nobody's constitutional rights are being deprived by being booted out of school on an administrative hearing.

Other remedies are available in that same exact situation where a court may get involved. Don't act like the University has the last word on the matter. Obviously UM's didn't when it came to Jordy.

 

[GrizPony]

You are an idiot and I hope you get wrongly accused sometime soon. :thumb:

 

[AllWeatherFan]

There was a cartoon in the New Yorker once. Okay, maybe it was Playboy.

Anyway, there's a guy sitting in his easy chair, reading the paper, and he says to his son, who looks to be about seven years old, "Son, there's a lot of injustice in this world. That's why I want you to grow up to be an attorney - so you can profit from it."

 

[Grizlaw]

I hit the nail on the head and you missed. The UM policy is NOT a criminal proceeding and has none of the attendant protections. Innuendo alone can now be used to deny a young man an education thanks to the new pc policy. You are fine with that? :?

So if UM proceedings are not criminal and students do not have the same constitutional protections, I don't see the problem. There is no "right to education" found in the US constitution.

No, but there is a right to due process, and if a state institution is going to expel a student (or take away a scholarship), then it must give the student a fair hearing, and that hearing must satisfy certain due process requirements.

So while it's true that a student in a disciplinary hearing doesn't have the same constitutional protections as a criminal defendant, that doesn't mean he doesn't have any constitutional protections.

 

[PlayerRep]

I hit the nail on the head and you missed. The UM policy is NOT a criminal proceeding and has none of the attendant protections. Innuendo alone can now be used to deny a young man an education thanks to the new pc policy. You are fine with that? :?

So if UM proceedings are not criminal and students do not have the same constitutional protections, I don't see the problem. There is no "right to education" found in the US constitution.

No, but there is a right to due process, and if a state institution is going to expel a student (or take away a scholarship), then it must give the student a fair hearing, and that hearing must satisfy certain due process requirements.

So while it's true that a student in a disciplinary hearing doesn't have the same constitutional protections as a criminal defendant, that doesn't mean he doesn't have any constitutional protections.

Grizlaw is absolutely correct. I wonder Punch is aware of Article X of the Montana Constitution? Here's Section 1.

"Section 1 . EDUCATIONAL GOALS AND DUTIES. (1) It is the goal of the people
to establish a system of education which will develop the full educational potential of each person.
Equality of educational opportunity is guaranteed to each person of the state."

 

[srgrizizen]

You're not going to make this about politics? I'm disappointed. I so enjoy learning the political affiliations of eGriz posters! Great comment BTW

YITB

Yes, it's irrelevant to football, but I'll hazard a guess that the percentage of rabid right-wingers among Griz board participants vastly exceeds that of the population at large.

 

[Jerry Punch]

PR, you are being very liberal in your interpretation of the Montana Constitution. It doesn't say anything about college in that section. It also does not mention anything about college disciplinary proceedings. How far does the section go? To graduate school? Med school?

 

[PlayerRep]

PR = the god of all. :roll: :lol:




FWIW, you're wrong. But arguing with you is about as enjoyable as a cavity search, so I'll bow out and let my statement stand on its own. There isn't room on my 4 T hard drive for your ego.

Actually, I'm completely correct on this employment law point. I have advised in the area of employment for over 30 years. Our firm has scores of lawyers in its employment law area.

 

[PlayerRep]

PR, you are being very liberal in your interpretation of the Montana Constitution. It doesn't say anything about college in that section. It also does not mention anything about college disciplinary proceedings. How far does the section go? To graduate school? Med school?

I was just addressing your earlier comment indicating there was no constitutional right to education. I don't think you would win that type of case in MT, due to the MT constitutional provision on education. I didn't try to interpret anything in my post on the MT constitution. I just quoted the first part of the provision. I figured you weren't aware of that provision.

I assume you don't dispute that there are constitutional rights to due process that apply to public universities?

 

[grizindabox]

I hit the nail on the head and you missed. The UM policy is NOT a criminal proceeding and has none of the attendant protections. Innuendo alone can now be used to deny a young man an education thanks to the new pc policy. You are fine with that? :?

So if UM proceedings are not criminal and students do not have the same constitutional protections, I don't see the problem. There is no "right to education" found in the US constitution.

No, but there is a right to due process, and if a state institution is going to expel a student (or take away a scholarship), then it must give the student a fair hearing, and that hearing must satisfy certain due process requirements.

So while it's true that a student in a disciplinary hearing doesn't have the same constitutional protections as a criminal defendant, that doesn't mean he doesn't have any constitutional protections.

Grizlaw is absolutely correct. I wonder Punch is aware of Article IX of the Montana Constitution? Here's Section 1.

"Section 1 . EDUCATIONAL GOALS AND DUTIES. (1) It is the goal of the people
to establish a system of education which will develop the full educational potential of each person.
Equality of educational opportunity is guaranteed to each person of the state."

I thought Article IX was Environment and Natural Resources? I believe Education is Article X! I also believe that "Equality of educational opportunity" and "Due Process" of the disciplinary hearings are two very different topics.

 

[PlayerRep]

So if UM proceedings are not criminal and students do not have the same constitutional protections, I don't see the problem. There is no "right to education" found in the US constitution.

No, but there is a right to due process, and if a state institution is going to expel a student (or take away a scholarship), then it must give the student a fair hearing, and that hearing must satisfy certain due process requirements.

So while it's true that a student in a disciplinary hearing doesn't have the same constitutional protections as a criminal defendant, that doesn't mean he doesn't have any constitutional protections.

Grizlaw is absolutely correct. I wonder Punch is aware of Article IX of the Montana Constitution? Here's Section 1.

"Section 1 . EDUCATIONAL GOALS AND DUTIES. (1) It is the goal of the people
to establish a system of education which will develop the full educational potential of each person.
Equality of educational opportunity is guaranteed to each person of the state."

I thought Article IX was Environment and Natural Resources? I believe Education is Article X! I also believe that "Equality of educational opportunity" and "Due Process" of the disciplinary hearings are two very different topics.

Correct, X. Yes, Education and Due Process are different. The MT Constitution has both Education and Due Process. Due Process applies to public universities, generally. The extent of due process is still being developed in the courts. Again, I posted the MT provision on Education in response to a poster's statement that there was not a US constitutional right to education.

 

[TxGriz]

 

[behappp]

Absolutely right! Without the constitution, we would never have a black man as President!

 

[Grisly Fan]

Absolutely right! Without the constitution, we would never have a black man as President!

It is a technicality I suppose but actually it was the 13th Amendment to the Constitution that made it possible. The original version of the Constitution (Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3) counted black men only as 3/5 of a vote. While it didn't specifically exclude them from becoming the president, it is hard to believe that Obama could have been elected with the equivalent of 40% fewer black people voting for him.

 

[brian s]

Absolutely right! Without the constitution, we would never have a black man as President!

And hopefully will not have another one for a very long time. The great black hope has crashed and burned, bringing Chicago politics to Washington DC.

 

[AllWeatherFan]

Brian, you forgot your hat.

 

[GrizPony]

You have to be stupid to not agree with Brian at this point. :thumb:

 

['68griz]

Brian, you forgot your hat.

This!

 

[grizindabox]

PR, you are being very liberal in your interpretation of the Montana Constitution. It doesn't say anything about college in that section. It also does not mention anything about college disciplinary proceedings. How far does the section go? To graduate school? Med school?

I was just addressing your earlier comment indicating there was no constitutional right to education. I don't think you would win that type of case in MT, due to the MT constitutional provision on education. I didn't try to interpret anything in my post on the MT constitution. I just quoted the first part of the provision. I figured you weren't aware of that provision.

I assume you don't dispute that there are constitutional rights to due process that apply to public universities?

Punch is correct. The basis of the provision on education is free public K-12 and each student getting equal opportunities. It does not extend to public universities, because once it is not free education, there is nothing equal about it.