tvc184

Yep. All the preseason predictions and attaboys from former players and coaches will not compare to the number of wins on the ledger.

I talked to a guy a week or so ago that limited on redfish in the same location.

Constitutional rights are to protect people from certain intrusions by the government. It does not apply in most cases to your employer and the rules that are set. The Constitution is not criminal or civil laws but procedures and rights protected against or from the government. For example we have the right against unreasonable searches and seizures by the 4th Amendment. That is from government searches and seizures, not by companies or private citizens. So the cops can't come into your home without your permission or without a warrant (except in limited circumstances). That doesn't mean that your employer can't open up your private locker that you use at work. That means that your employer can require you to submit to searches on their property. Can the government enforce such rules on citizens? The answer is obiviously no. That is what the Constitution is for. Can a company that you work for set rules that the government cannot? Yes they can. Such is the same in this case we are discussing.

Yes, I think that they can but they would have to ban all such gatherings, not just religious ones. If a school district makes a rules that no more than three students can gather together between classes for example, I think they can uphold that. They cannot however say that students can gather as long as they don't pray.

You've got to be kidding. Better head back to college and take Constitutional Law 101 again Cody.

You are correct that him taking a knee does not endorse a religion. See my previous posts. I have clearly said that it is constitutional for him to pray in that manner. I have also said that I disagree with the district's stupid rules. The issue in court was, does the district have the right to make rules. The answer is, "yes". The coach's response is along the lines of, "Since it is about religion, the district cannot make me follow the rules". He is incorrect. It is the same as in the case from Texas of Daniels vs. City of Arlington that went to the 5th Circuit Court (next highest to the Supreme Court in this region). A police officer from Arlington, TX wanted to visibly wear a cross on his uniform. It was against the department policy to have individual pins. His argument was that since it was about his religious beliefs, he did not have to go by policy. Sgt Daniels was fired and then he sued in federal court. The trial court threw the case out. He appealed to the 5th Circuit. Same answer. When you are at work, the place you work for can set rules. You cannot say that you don't have to go by the rules if it is based on religion. Well, you can say it but in most cases you won't win according to the Constitution.

Yep. Unfortunately even this conservative court agrees that the school district can set its own rules. The right to pray doesn't mean that you can do what you want, when you want any more than freedom of speech allows you to yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater. While the passion that some people in this thread have shown is admirable, it doesn't go along with the law.

That's terrible! Poor little animals. How do you like them? I like smoked rabbit and I have had some pretty good squirrel in a light brown gravy over rice. You have to simmer them a long time to get them tender sometimes.

He can pray all he wants. He just can't take a knee with his team in what appears to be an endorsement of their religion. I do not agree with the district's decision. It is a stupid rule but lawful. I am guessing that a lawyer suggested that it is a violation of the law, which it isn't. The school district probably took the lame/easy way out and made such actions a violation of policy. Time to move on to another district if he doesn't like the rules. He does have that freedom. I've been in jobs where I didn't like the rules and moved on to greener pastures.

You kill little fluffy animals and eat them?

No one made a law by Congress or anyone else. The ruling was that the school district has the right to set rules in their schools. Nothing more. The coach violated school rules. His argument is that he doesn't like the rules. I agree with him, I don't like that rules either. It is however, the district's right to make it. The coach violates no law by silently praying while at school or a school function.

If this weather holds in its pattern, you should be hitting them at just the right time.

From previous US Supreme Court rulings, I think the coach can pray if he wants to. It is not against the Constitution. The USSC did not rule that he violated what is constitutionally accepted. What they let stand is a school district policy without comment. Prayer in school is not illegal but it cannot be prayer led by the school or its staff. The prayer itself was not ruled against but the coach has school rules that prohibit it. There is nothing the keeps such a school district from making such a rule. As a police officer I have a set uniform. I cannot wear a cross that shows without the consent of the chief. I have no religious freedom to overcome department uniform policy. It is not the wearing of the cross that is illegal but the department's right to make such a rule. Flame the school district for a stupid (and probably uninformed) rule. The court just upheld the school district's right to set rules.

It's good to see the kids from smaller areas getting recognition that they may not get from the newspapers with larger coverage areas. Good jobs to all of those that made it.

Good looking home crowd for PNG. ;D

I'm sitting at Keith Lake right now and it looks good but I don't know if the fish have moved in yet. With this warm weather, it shouldn't be long. I talked to a guy a couple of days ago that was going out in Sabine Pass and he said that he has limited on reds at Texas Bayou twice in the last week.

Just like a local player that signed with a Big 12 after two arrests locally. So as not to change his ways after being given probation, he played as a true freshman and then got arrested for breaking into a car and then an armed robbey. After the two arrests locally (with the coach letting him continue to play), it makes you wonder how far they will sacrifice or cover up for a win. It also lets you see that if a person isn't held accoutable for his actions at an earlier age, you can't really be that surprised when he doesn't change his ways later.

I will agree that it should be more but I always wonder when people speak of the money vs the risk. I don't think the risk compared to pay is the problem. It is pay period with the risk almost meaningless in my opinion. What it be worth the risk for $45,000? $55,000? How many people would say that they don't want to risk dying for $35,000 but will be more than happy to risk dying for $55,000? After four years the game wardens are making about $50,000 per year. For the people that don't want the risk (and I truly understand that), the pay would seem to me to be a non-issue. I think a person that wants in law enforcement is more than willing to accept the risk at any cost but can't raise a family comfortably on $35,000. The risk isn't the issue. Paying the bills is.

The article isn't a year behind. The article is about the rest of high school sports is now catching up with the NFL and the NCAA which Texas goes by. I think the rest of the states us the National Federation high school rules and that is what changed. It has no effect on Texas.

Now if they could just find a coach.

The game warden pay is about typical police pay statewide. There are a very few that pay a little more but now a lot different. Starting pay is generally about $35,000 per year and it usually maxes out around 20 years between $50,000-$60,000.

I thought about applying years(and I mean YEARS ago), but the money was not worth the risk. Think about it, most people you talk to have a gun! The risk doesn't change with a pay increase. Does more money make it worth the risk?

At least they can't claim that their heart isn't in it but they are doing it for the money.

Criminal charge will cause the LOI to be Null and Void! They can rescend the offer if they choose! Having absolutely no knowledge in that area, that is what I thought. A LOI makes a player ineligible at another university without him being released by school a player signs with. The LOI is not a guaranteed contract that says they have to pay his way to their university no matter what. I am sure that there are plenty of clauses in the contract for a player being denied the LOI from the university or the player even being kicked off of the team for mere disciplinary problems after enrolling at the university.

No kidding. They are taking the right to hunt away form people that don't care about the lawful right to hunt.