Kennedy-Western lawsuit

Discussion in 'Accreditation Discussions (RA, DETC, state approva' started by Alan Contreras, Jul 30, 2004.

Loading...
  1. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    Re: Personal attacks

    I reread the exchange and do not believe that you were attacked. You had made statements that federal laws would "trump" state laws and similar statements. Your writing frequently seems obtuse and hard to follow. You messed up one post and didn't properly attribute Gus's words so that they looked like your own. I mistakenly took a sentence out of Gus's text that you had not properly attributed to Gus to try and address the difference between constitutional law and statute law because it appeared to me that it was being confused.

    What made your indignation ironic is that in your very response denying that you had written that sentence (and accusing me of doctoring your post!) you repeated the same thing.

    It is not true that federal law trumps state law. What is true is that the US constitution is the foundation of our government and all laws whether federal, state or municipal must abide by the US constitution. There is nothing that I know of that says that federal law trumps state law.
     
  2. DesElms

    DesElms New Member

    Ha! As I suspected! I didn't think anyone actually wanted to confine this discussion to the merits of the case. Methinks this group doth secretly prefer a bit-o-th' rancor to the obvious alternative, no?

    Boy, can I kill a thread, or what! :p
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 14, 2004
  3. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator Staff Member

    Re: Re: Personal attacks

    Federal law always trumps state law when there is a conflict between the two. The most recent example is something I just posted in the Off-topic section.

    The wording of that law, translated from legalese, is that despite state/local laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms, qualified off-duty & retired law enforcement officers can now carry a concealed firearm anywhere in the country.

    As a matter of fact, the title of the bill is; "EXEMPTION OF QUALIFIED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS FROM STATE LAWS PROHIBITING THE CARRYING OF CONCEALED FIREARMS".

    If Federal law didn't take precedence over state law, there is no way the concealed carry for cops law would have been approved.
     
  4. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    Sorry Gregg while there may or may not be truth in your assessment, I disagree that it was an overridding factor. (I must admit though that it is a very subjective idea on my part though.) My view is that the issues became too numerous. I really am interested in the case but have difficulty in understanding how we could proceed in a forum such as this. It seems that two or three points of discussion is about the maximum that can be going on at once in a single thread.

    Seriously, for example when I first read your post I stopped and thought about it for awhile. Then reread your post and thought about it some more. I still wasn't sure how to proceed. I decided to try to address one point that had also been discussed more recently.

    I would be happy if you would just write some more about it so that I could read what you wrote but, that really isn't fair to you. :confused:
     
  5. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: Re: Personal attacks

    A most interesting example, there is nothing I can recall in the constitution that indicates that federal law would trump state law except the bit about the Supreme Court being the supreme law of the land and by reasonable extinction the federal court system would trump the state systems.
     
  6. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator Staff Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Personal attacks

    No, there is nothing in the Constitution that gives Federal law precedence over state law. I believe it's that way through case law.

    The Federal vs. state law thing has always interested me. There is also the concept of "dual sovereignty", which basically gives the Feds and the state two shots at a defendant. Recent examples are Terry Nichols and the LAPD cops involved in the Rodney King incident.

    IMO, it's a blatant violation of the double-jeopardy clause, but it's been upheld consistently.
     
  7. Kirkland

    Kirkland New Member

    Greg, your post, in response to my summary, gave the impression you had not yet read the complaint. That would be a good thing to do so that we aren't just discussing theory over generalities. I've enjoyed your posts and am interested in your views on this case.
     
  8. DesElms

    DesElms New Member

    Oh, I read the complaint... well... more scanned it, actually... as should be obvious by a post I made either earlier in this thread or some other -- I can't even remember and keep-up anymore. I confess I'm trying not to get too bogged-down in the minutia of it. It isn't that it isn't worth doing so; rather, it's that I just don't have the time. People think I have lots of time because I make such long posts, but I type over 80 wpm and have always been blessed with the ability to pretty much put it to paper pretty much the way I want it on the first draft (or thereabouts), said draft having just flowed without my having to stop much to think about it. Weirdly, that isn't so much the case when I speak, just when I write -- proof, I guess, that completely different parts of the brain must be in use, eh?

    Actually, I was mostly just kiddin' around when I made the "hey, where did everybody go" post, above.

    I agree with your theory over generalities statement. Maybe if I can find time this weekend (yeah... right), I'll try to get into some real specifics of the complaint. The truth is, however, that I really don't want to waste my time 'til I see the defense's answer. Maybe we should all just sort of sit tight 'til that comes.

    If Alan is still reading this thread (and I hope he is), I know he's (wisely) decided not to talk about it any more here at least until and unless his lawyer says he can, but once the state's answer to the complaint is filed, maybe Alan could make sure it gets converted into a PDF file, have someone upload it to some folder on some web site or FTP site somewhere, and could then come back here and give us the URL.

    Oh... and, by the way: If the state's answer does not include the consolidated answers of both Alan and whomever the other individually-named party was (I can't remember at this instant), perhaps their individual answers, once filed, could be PDFed, uploaded, and the URL to them given here also.

    Any chance of that, Alan? Thanks, in advance.
     
  9. Alan Contreras

    Alan Contreras New Member

    NPR's All Things Considered ran a story on the KWU lawsuit on Wednesday, August 18. It is available off their online archive.
     
  10. DaveHayden

    DaveHayden New Member

  11. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    Bruce,

    Article VI of the U.S. constitution states:

    "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

    It should be noted carefully, however, that the supremecy of federal laws extends ONLY to those laws made under the theoretically limited sovereignty of the federal government. It is perfectly possible, and has recently occurred, that the Courts have set aside a federal enactment because it intruded into an area left to the states. You are quite right; the actual contours of supremecy are a matter of case law.
     
  12. Alan Contreras

    Alan Contreras New Member

    I'll be glad to post a copy or link for any public record emerging from the case. My only restriction is in talking about the case.

    As I understand the process, the next flurry of paper will be late Sep or early Oct, but I am somewhat disconnected from that.
     
  13. Kirkland

    Kirkland New Member

    This report is interesting. Seems like the media is lining up on the issue of whether KWU is a diploma mill or not. It will be interesting to see how KWU keeps their operations from becoming the core issue rather than the first amendment issues as stated in the complaint. It is unfortunate that KWU is bringing the suit. It would have been more meaningful if one of the better and less controversial state approved schools had brought it.

    Also, did you notice that the ODA list is referred to as a list of diploma mills? It appears that Alan doesn't go out of his way to correct that broad-brush misconception. It is one of the main complaints that have been raised a number of times in this forum.
     
  14. plcscott

    plcscott New Member

    Here is a link to the NPR story where you can click on it to listen to the segment.

    NPR Link
     
  15. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    Yes it is unfortunate that KWU has brought the case. The truth of the matter though is that none of the "legitimate" CA approved schools would seem to have anything to gain by bringing suit. They are not on the list, except for couple. One of which is a degree mill that should be desperately trying to fly below the radar so would likely only have much to lose by bringing attention to themselves. The other will likely be accredited shortly and would then be removed from the list for that reason before the case could ever be decided.

    Also consider that Alan said that only one school had ever failed an official ODA evaluation. Alan also said that he thought that they were really a decent school that failed because their doctorate program failed some specific requirements. Which school on the list best fits that description? If you were the head of that school would you consider that to be cause to file a suit or would it make more sense to drop the known inferior doctorate program and go for DETC accreditation? (Still loving the irony!)
     
  16. DesElms

    DesElms New Member

    Thanks, Alan. Good to see your posting. And when I have time later this afternoon I'm going to go listen to the NPR piece. John mentioned it in another thread and I subsequently downloaded it to my hard drive, but haven't actually listened yet. I'm sure it's terrific. Weirdly, I was in my car and listening to All Things Considered on the day it aired. But I must have gotten to my destination or something before it got its turn to reach my car's speakers and, through them, my ears. I'm sorry I missed it.

    Whenever Oregon files an answer (which I presume will include your answer, personally, or, if not, then whenever that gets filed, too), please just let us know where a PDF copy of it can be found and downloaded. I'd sure like to read it.

    Finally, I want to say that I hope my bantering back and forth with you over these issues here and elsewhere in these forums is not taken by you as lack of support, fundamentally. You and your state are blazing some important trails that need to be blazed. On balance, I'm a much, much bigger fan than a critic. If you can ever think of a way that I can help, just let me know. The only thing I would ask in return is that when Oregon sets about to amend its statute (and, trust me, sooner or later it will, one way or another), please give me a shot at convincing you guys how it could be done better and providing an example thereof. I so want Oregon to get this right. Other states are watching, and there is nothing worse than a trail blazing state getting it ever-so-slightly wrong (as I believe Oregon has done) and then others following suit and propagating the error. This thing you're doing so needs to be done. But it just needs to be done in a way that the bad guys can't get overturned every time you turn around. And that's tricky.

    I, for one, am applauding you and am hereby wishing you best of luck in the case. If a part of me secretly wishes Oregon's way of doing things gets struck down, it's only because I see this as a process whereby the state tries one thing, then finds out in court that it can't do it that way; then tries another, and then finds out that it's close but still not quite right; and then, finally, yet another that ultimately stands-up in court. Then and only then will there be a sufficient body of case law to provide guidance to others as they draft their similar laws across the nation. If a part of me secretly wishes Oregon's way of doing things gets struck down, I wish no personal financial hardship to you as a result, and I hope that you have ensured that the state will defend you, as a named defendant, at no cost or potential liability to you. If not, please make sure your lawyer steers the state's counsel properly in that direction (which I'm sure you've covered).

    Much luck to you as you travel this unpleasant road. I hope it works out in a way that becomes a learning experience for us all and best serves the public interest.
     
  17. Rob Coates

    Rob Coates New Member

    I don't think there's any doubt it was CCU. It's interesting though that he stated he thought they were really a decent school. I don't recall reading that. Could you reference that post?
     
  18. Kirkland

    Kirkland New Member

     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 20, 2004
  19. DaveHayden

    DaveHayden New Member

    Hi

    I think it is very likely we will see many States follow Oregon, Florida and New Jersey's lead. We need to get past this law suit, but with Hawaii and Louisiana working at removing the degree mills in their states, the trend is clear. Also, with the growing number of accredited distance learning options, the state approved schools are running out of time. Without accreditation they are going to be just another degree mill to most people. I have alot of sympathy for people unwittingly conned by the likes PWU and K-W, but they must take some responsibility for their decisions.
     
  20. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    I believe that you're absolutely correct, Rob. The term decent was me trying to parapharse what Alan had actually said. Perhaps the word used was "serious", as in a serious attempt at a real school? I don't have time to search for it now. Perhaps later tonight?
     

Share This Page