Beshear asks court to dismiss Common Core challenge; we respond today in court

Plaintiff David Adams in opposition to Defendants Motion to Dismiss, states:

ARGUMENT

            The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Kentucky is the heart of Kentucky law. Violations of same by government officials constitute the vilest of injuries in a constitutional Republic, which fact should not need explanation to otherwise educated people in the 21^st Century. Nevertheless, Defendants apparently fail to recognize constitutional rights as inherently valuable and worthy of protection by the Court in their Motion. Violation of Section 183 of the Kentucky Constitution occurs when appropriate legislation providing for efficient common schools is not sufficiently present. That situation has come about with the acceptance by Defendants of the Common Core State Standards. Lack of efficiency in Kentucky schools, as defined by the Court in Rose v. Council for Better Education, Inc. (KY 1989) 790 S.W.2^nd 186 cannot be wished away as evidence of harm to a Plaintiff.

            This case involves a request for a declaration of rights. Plaintiff attended Kentucky schools, is a citizen of Kentucky, a taxpayer in Kentucky, a parent of students in Kentucky schools and asserts rights under KRS 418.040 that states when “an actual controversy exists, the plaintiff may ask for a declaration of rights, either alone or with other relief.” Defendants claim Senate Bill 1 from 2009 authorized the acceptance of Common Core. They cannot prove this because it is not true. If Defendants’ acceptance of the Common Core standards and all the baggage that goes with them involved no controversy, why would they feel the need to lie about their genesis and otherwise choose the decidedly sketchy KRS Chapter 13A administrative route to implementation rather than appropriate legislation? Defendants attempt at subterfuge so early in this case is telling.

CONCLUSION

            Defendants argue that Senate Bill 1 authorized acceptance of Common Core State Standards, which it did not. Defendants further argue that using the KRS Chapter 13A regulatory process to implement the scheme somehow absolves Defendants of their sworn allegiance to following the requirements of Section 183, which it does not. Defendants expect the Court to accompany them on this magic carpet ride to a place in which falsehoods and distortions by government officials wipe away centuries of jurisprudence carefully constructed to protect individual rights in the Commonwealth.

            Plaintiff requests the Court refuse to allow Defendants to abuse the system in this fashion.