DISQUS

Yes, Clay Aiken has surely risen from the ashes, and I believe the best is yet to come!!

I have one granddaughter who somewhat shares my fandom, but most of the rest of my family are not interested. I have travelled to concerts with friends (and one with my gd)but this time won't be able to go. I've had a busy time traveling with family and can't manage it this time. But next time
YES!!

Clay Aiken calls we respond. Loyalty, YES!!

This is so absolutely true. We know he treasures Parker and it's so heartwarming that he includes us. What's more, he misses us.

What I liked best? "I love Clay Aiken." That just made my day.

This just goes to show that the time is dire to choose a Democratic canidate, and pull together!

dumb congressman If meatpackers really did pay 18 bucks an hour as a starting wage they would  get plenty of legal citisens in line for jobs.  The penalties to companies AND thier officials are not harsh enough to their bottom line and persons to keep them from continuieing to hire illegals. 

You'll be seeing a lot more of this in the next 10 years -- better resign yourself.

I don't know about reading a book. I think it's doing karate. Hiii-yah!

katy's reply Am I planning on running for Congress in CD 2? I don't even live in CD2. Plus, friends don't let friends run for Congress.

Thanks for having me as a guest today.

Enjoy the good weather.

katy's reply If there's a moral to the Amendment 41 story, it's be very careful about amending the constitution. Whether the measure is sponsored by Common Cause or by Douglas Bruce, amending the constitution is something we ought to avoid.

katy's reply Profiles of the plaintiffs can be found on The First Amendment Council's web site www.firstamendmentcouncil.org<p>
Like Common Cause, the First Amendment Council is not required to disclose our donors. I can say that we're being supported by both businesses and nonprofit groups.

The groups officers are Bill Becker from Adams County Economic Development, Inc. and former state senator Norma Anderson.

katy's reply I think the Washington scandals had everything to do with voters approving Amendment 41. The voters were ready to tar and feather any politician, preferably Republican, they could get their hands on.

katy's reply Our motion for preliminary injunction will be coming very soon. If I could give you an exact date I would, but you know lawyers...

katy's reply It's important to remember that, prior to passage of 41, Colorado already had a number of statutes regulating ethical behavior. One statute subjects public officers, members of the general assebly, local government officials, or an employee whose conduct departs from his or her fiduciary duty liable to the people of Colorado.

If folks want tougher ethics laws, the statutes are the right place to put them.

It's impossible to predict the cost of our legal challenge. It all depends on how far the district court decision is appealed.

katy's reply If the voters are asked to revisit the issue, I hope it's not in the form of another constitutional amendment.

katy's reply I believe the courts will find that 41 is unconstitutional which creates a clean slate. The legislature can adopt an ethics code that means what it says or voters can adopt something that is more carefully crafted.

katy's reply I'm working with The First Amendment Council. It's a nonprofit corporation that has retained former CO Supreme Court Justice Jean Dubofsky and Doug Friednash to represent seven plaintiffs in a constitutional challenge to 41.

The attorneys filed a complaint in Denver Dist. Court asserting that 41 violates certain fundamental rights including, the right to free speech, freedom of association, freedom to petition government and unlawfully interferes with private contracts. In addition, the complaint contends that 41 is unconstitutionally vague and violates Colorado's single subject rule.

katy's reply The plain language of Amendment 41 lost the forest. In other words, it goes far beyond its stated purpose.

I guess the bottom line is that you should be very, very careful when you amend the constitution and the authors of 41 were very careless and now we're left with a mess where the legislature is being asked to vote for a bill whose basic premise is that Amendment 41 doesn't mean what it says.

katy's reply I never objected to 41's purpose. Who could object to ethics in government? My concern has always been that the measure is so broad that it misses the target, impacting "innocent" government workers, rather than simply regulating the relationship between lobbyists and legislators.

katy's reply The irony of the situation is pretty amazing. Someone who purports to hate the idea of lobbyists spending money to influence legislators is spending small fortune influencing legislators,

Katy's Reply Unfortunately, Amendment 41 requires more than a "tweak" to fix it. In fact, an organization I'm working with believes the measure is fundamentally unconstitutional.

Katy's Reply Thanks, Wendy

I don't get it.....

You're mad, Baked Potato. Nice to meet you anyway. :)