WICHITA, KAN. – A federal jury convicted a Kansas man Wednesday on child exploitation charges, according to the United State's Attorney.

The jury found Daniel Kroeker, 49, of Dighton, guilty of receiving child pornography via his social media account in July 2019. 

The jury also found he possessed a laptop and cell phone containing pornographic images of a child under the age of 12 when agents conducted a search in December 2020.

Kroeker is scheduled to be sentenced on April 24, 2024 and faces a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison of each count.&nbsp; A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2022/4/1650402271599.png" alt="Kroeker is being held in Butler Co." />
 <figcaption>Kroeker is being held in Butler Co.</figcaption>
 </figure>WICHITA, KAN. – A federal jury convicted a Kansas man Wednesday on child exploitation charges, according to the United State's Attorney.The jury found Daniel Kroeker, 49, of Dighton, guilty of receiving child pornography via his social media account in July 2019. The jury also found he possessed a laptop and cell phone containing pornographic images of a child under the age of 12 when agents conducted a search in December 2020.Kroeker is scheduled to be sentenced on April 24, 2024 and faces a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison of each count.&nbsp; A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors

Western Kan. man faces 20 years in prison for trading child porn

WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Republicans blocked a bipartisan border package Wednesday, scuttling months of negotiations with Democrats on legislation intended to cut back record numbers of illegal border crossings.

Many Republicans said the election-year compromise&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-border-security-bill-ukraine-b386eae0c4947497da931870dbcb28a0">wasn't enough</a>, even as supporters of the bill insisted it was the best possible in divided government.

The 49-50 vote, far short of the 60 ayes needed to take up the bill, came after most Republicans said they&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-border-security-ukraine-a39e188fa2c6a563203d2c69eaabdc6d">would vote against the legislation,</a>&nbsp;which also includes $60 billion in wartime aid to Ukraine and $14 billion for Israel and was backed by President Joe Biden. GOP lawmakers had insisted that the money for conflicts abroad be paired with help for the U.S. border. Kansas U.S. Senators Jerry Moran and Roger Marshall voted with the majority. Senator Susan Collins of Maine, James Lankford of Oklahoma, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Mitt Romney of Utah were the only Republicans who voted to advance.

Forcing the showdown with Republicans, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said earlier that he would try to salvage the wartime funding, and would next push ahead on a crucial test vote for tens of billions of dollars for Kyiv, Israel and other U.S. allies — a modified package with the border portion stripped out.

The bipartisan group of senators who negotiated the compromise for the last four months said it was a missed opportunity to try and make some progress toward one of the most intractable issues in American politics.

In a speech on the Senate floor just before the vote, Republican Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma said that it was a chance for the Senate to decide “if we’re going to do nothing, or something.”

“It’s an issue that’s bedevilled, quite frankly, this body for decades,” Lankford said. “It’s been three decades since we’ve passed anything into law to be able to change border security.”

Independent Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona blamed Republicans for not giving the bill a chance.

“Finally, it seemed, we had the opportunity to solve the nightmare my state has lived for over 40 years,” she said.

Four Republicans voted to move forward with the legislation and six Democrats voted against it, some of whom said the border compromise went too far.

It is unclear if enough Republicans will vote to move ahead with the standalone legislation for the wartime aid, which also would need 60 votes in the 51-49 Senate. If it did pass, it would still take days for the Senate to reach a final vote.

As some Republicans have grown skeptical of sending money to Ukraine in its war with Russia, Schumer said that “history will cast a permanent and shameful shadow” on those who attempt to block it.

“Will the Senate stand up to brutish thugs like Vladimir Putin and reassure our friends abroad that America will never abandon them in the hour of need?” Schumer asked as he opened the Senate.

The roughly $60 billion in Ukraine aid has been stalled in Congress for months because of growing&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-congress-border-immigration-china-31075fce7dfcb3aaa6d3eb595e62ed09">opposition from hardline conservatives</a>&nbsp;in the House and Senate who criticize it as wasteful and demand an exit strategy for the war.

“We still need to secure America’s borders before sending another dime overseas,” Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah wrote in a post on X.

The impasse means that the U.S. has halted arms shipments to Kyiv at a crucial point in the nearly two-year-old conflict, leaving Ukrainian soldiers without ample ammunition and missiles as Russian President Putin has mounted relentless attacks.

Ukraine's cause still enjoys support from many Senate Republicans, including GOP leader Mitch McConnell, but the question vexing lawmakers has always been how to craft a package that could clear the Republican-controlled House.

A pairing of border policies and aid for allies — first proposed by Republicans — was intended to help squeeze the package through the House where archconservatives hold control. But GOP senators —&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-border-security-ukraine-15e2e3fac2b29b5b4bbe1eae8eb1c924">some within minutes of the bill's release Sunday</a>&nbsp;— rejected the compromise as&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-border-security-trump-biden-2d2f804057a77bfaa41e64ab601f9b0e">election-year politics</a>.

The wartime funding also would invest in domestic defense manufacturing, send funding to allies in Asia, and provide $10 billion for humanitarian efforts in Ukraine, Israel, Gaza and other places.

Schumer said the revamped package would include legislation to authorize sanctions and anti-money laundering tools against criminal enterprises that traffic fentanyl into the U.S. A separate section of the compromise border legislation that would have provided a long-awaited&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/afghan-allies-kabul-congress-taliban-8ffcd4df9398194f1ed2b5369ba33f6a">pathway to residency for tens of thousands of Afghan refugees</a>&nbsp;was dropped in the slimmed-down bill.

It was not clear whether the new plan, even if it passed the Senate, would gain support from House Speaker Mike Johnson. House Republicans are still insisting on a border plan, even though they rejected the deal negotiated in the Senate as insufficient.

“We'll see what the Senate does,” Johnson told reporters Wednesday morning. “We're going to allow the process to play out.”

Some were skeptical that a standalone aid package would be viable in the House.

“I don’t see how that moves in this chamber. I don’t know how the speaker puts that on the floor,” House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Ala., said, adding that he still wanted tougher border policies attached.

After Donald Trump, the likely Republican presidential nominee, eviscerated the Senate's bipartisan border proposal, Johnson quickly rejected it. Trump has also led many Republicans to question supporting Ukraine, suggesting he could negotiate an end to the war and&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/zelenskyy-russia-ukraine-trump-war-130e617cfebebeeba61044a0cb68a933">lavishing praise</a>&nbsp;on Russian President&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/russia-vladimir-putin-donald-trump-dc89488c40360150afeeb25941bd44fc">Vladimir Putin</a>, including after Moscow’s February 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

Johnson said this week he wanted to handle wartime aid for Israel and Ukraine in separate packages, but a bill he advanced that only included funds for Israel failed on the House floor Tuesday night.

House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said Wednesday that the “only path forward” is a comprehensive approach that includes funding for U.S. allies around the world, as well as humanitarian support for civilians caught in conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine.

The White House said that Biden believes there should be new border policy but would also support moving the aid for Ukraine and Israel alone, as he has from the start.

“We support this bill which would protect America’s national security interests by stopping Putin’s onslaught in Ukraine before he turns to other countries, helping Israel defend itself against Hamas terrorists and delivering live-saving humanitarian aid to innocent Palestinian civilians," said White House spokesman Andrew Bates.

“Even if some congressional Republicans’ commitment to border security hinges on politics, President Biden’s does not.”

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/2/1707338543070.png" alt="Members of the U.S. Senate during the Wednesday afternoon vote count -image courtesy CSPAN" />
 <figcaption>Members of the U.S. Senate during the Wednesday afternoon vote count -image courtesy CSPAN</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Republicans blocked a bipartisan border package Wednesday, scuttling months of negotiations with Democrats on legislation intended to cut back record numbers of illegal border crossings.Many Republicans said the election-year compromise&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-border-security-bill-ukraine-b386eae0c4947497da931870dbcb28a0">wasn't enough</a>, even as supporters of the bill insisted it was the best possible in divided government.<div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">The Ukraine-border bill sends $60B in new money to Ukraine and provides $0 in new money for infrastructure for our own border. If you wanted to know the Swamp&#39;s priorities, it has always been Ukraine first.&mdash; Dr. Roger Marshall (@RogerMarshallMD) <a href="https://twitter.com/RogerMarshallMD/status/1755344794291732664?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 7, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>The 49-50 vote, far short of the 60 ayes needed to take up the bill, came after most Republicans said they&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-border-security-ukraine-a39e188fa2c6a563203d2c69eaabdc6d">would vote against the legislation,</a>&nbsp;which also includes $60 billion in wartime aid to Ukraine and $14 billion for Israel and was backed by President Joe Biden. GOP lawmakers had insisted that the money for conflicts abroad be paired with help for the U.S. border. Kansas U.S. Senators Jerry Moran and Roger Marshall voted with the majority. Senator Susan Collins of Maine, James Lankford of Oklahoma, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Mitt Romney of Utah were the only Republicans who voted to advance.Forcing the showdown with Republicans, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said earlier that he would try to salvage the wartime funding, and would next push ahead on a crucial test vote for tens of billions of dollars for Kyiv, Israel and other U.S. allies — a modified package with the border portion stripped out.The bipartisan group of senators who negotiated the compromise for the last four months said it was a missed opportunity to try and make some progress toward one of the most intractable issues in American politics.In a speech on the Senate floor just before the vote, Republican Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma said that it was a chance for the Senate to decide “if we’re going to do nothing, or something.”“It’s an issue that’s bedevilled, quite frankly, this body for decades,” Lankford said. “It’s been three decades since we’ve passed anything into law to be able to change border security.”Independent Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona blamed Republicans for not giving the bill a chance.“Finally, it seemed, we had the opportunity to solve the nightmare my state has lived for over 40 years,” she said.Four Republicans voted to move forward with the legislation and six Democrats voted against it, some of whom said the border compromise went too far.It is unclear if enough Republicans will vote to move ahead with the standalone legislation for the wartime aid, which also would need 60 votes in the 51-49 Senate. If it did pass, it would still take days for the Senate to reach a final vote.As some Republicans have grown skeptical of sending money to Ukraine in its war with Russia, Schumer said that “history will cast a permanent and shameful shadow” on those who attempt to block it.“Will the Senate stand up to brutish thugs like Vladimir Putin and reassure our friends abroad that America will never abandon them in the hour of need?” Schumer asked as he opened the Senate.The roughly $60 billion in Ukraine aid has been stalled in Congress for months because of growing&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-congress-border-immigration-china-31075fce7dfcb3aaa6d3eb595e62ed09">opposition from hardline conservatives</a>&nbsp;in the House and Senate who criticize it as wasteful and demand an exit strategy for the war.“We still need to secure America’s borders before sending another dime overseas,” Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah wrote in a post on X.The impasse means that the U.S. has halted arms shipments to Kyiv at a crucial point in the nearly two-year-old conflict, leaving Ukrainian soldiers without ample ammunition and missiles as Russian President Putin has mounted relentless attacks.Ukraine's cause still enjoys support from many Senate Republicans, including GOP leader Mitch McConnell, but the question vexing lawmakers has always been how to craft a package that could clear the Republican-controlled House.A pairing of border policies and aid for allies — first proposed by Republicans — was intended to help squeeze the package through the House where archconservatives hold control. But GOP senators —&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-border-security-ukraine-15e2e3fac2b29b5b4bbe1eae8eb1c924">some within minutes of the bill's release Sunday</a>&nbsp;— rejected the compromise as&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-border-security-trump-biden-2d2f804057a77bfaa41e64ab601f9b0e">election-year politics</a>.The wartime funding also would invest in domestic defense manufacturing, send funding to allies in Asia, and provide $10 billion for humanitarian efforts in Ukraine, Israel, Gaza and other places.Schumer said the revamped package would include legislation to authorize sanctions and anti-money laundering tools against criminal enterprises that traffic fentanyl into the U.S. A separate section of the compromise border legislation that would have provided a long-awaited&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/afghan-allies-kabul-congress-taliban-8ffcd4df9398194f1ed2b5369ba33f6a">pathway to residency for tens of thousands of Afghan refugees</a>&nbsp;was dropped in the slimmed-down bill.It was not clear whether the new plan, even if it passed the Senate, would gain support from House Speaker Mike Johnson. House Republicans are still insisting on a border plan, even though they rejected the deal negotiated in the Senate as insufficient.“We'll see what the Senate does,” Johnson told reporters Wednesday morning. “We're going to allow the process to play out.”Some were skeptical that a standalone aid package would be viable in the House.“I don’t see how that moves in this chamber. I don’t know how the speaker puts that on the floor,” House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Ala., said, adding that he still wanted tougher border policies attached.After Donald Trump, the likely Republican presidential nominee, eviscerated the Senate's bipartisan border proposal, Johnson quickly rejected it. Trump has also led many Republicans to question supporting Ukraine, suggesting he could negotiate an end to the war and&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/zelenskyy-russia-ukraine-trump-war-130e617cfebebeeba61044a0cb68a933">lavishing praise</a>&nbsp;on Russian President&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/russia-vladimir-putin-donald-trump-dc89488c40360150afeeb25941bd44fc">Vladimir Putin</a>, including after Moscow’s February 2022 invasion of Ukraine.Johnson said this week he wanted to handle wartime aid for Israel and Ukraine in separate packages, but a bill he advanced that only included funds for Israel failed on the House floor Tuesday night.House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said Wednesday that the “only path forward” is a comprehensive approach that includes funding for U.S. allies around the world, as well as humanitarian support for civilians caught in conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine.The White House said that Biden believes there should be new border policy but would also support moving the aid for Ukraine and Israel alone, as he has from the start.“We support this bill which would protect America’s national security interests by stopping Putin’s onslaught in Ukraine before he turns to other countries, helping Israel defend itself against Hamas terrorists and delivering live-saving humanitarian aid to innocent Palestinian civilians," said White House spokesman Andrew Bates.“Even if some congressional Republicans’ commitment to border security hinges on politics, President Biden’s does not.”__

Moran, Marshall help Senate Republicans block $118B border deal

BAGHDAD (AP) — A U.S. drone strike hit a car in the Iraqi capital Wednesday night, killing three members of the powerful Kataib Hezbollah militia, including a high-ranking commander, officials said.

The strike came on a main thoroughfare in the Mashtal neighborhood in eastern Baghdad. A crowd gathered as emergency response teams picked through the wreckage. Security forces closed off the heavily guarded Green Zone, where a number of diplomatic compounds are located, amid calls for protesters to storm the U.S. embassy.

Two U.S. officials familiar with the matter said that a senior Kataib Hezbollah commander was targeted in a U.S. strike on Wednesday in Iraq. They were not authorized to comment publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.

Two officials with Iran-backed militias in Iraq said that one of the three killed was Wissam Mohammed “Abu Bakr” al-Saadi, the commander in charge of Kataib Hezbollah’s operations in Syria. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to speak to journalists.

The strike came amid roiling tensions in the region and days after the U.S. military launched an air assault on dozens of sites in Iraq and Syria used by&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/hamas-hezbollah-houthis-iran-militant-groups-745bfc36e23997ee3f0bc499a9f5c16d">Iranian-backed militias</a>&nbsp;and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard in retaliation for a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-american-service-members-killed-jordan-iran-5cb774fd835a558d840ae91263037489">drone strike that killed three U.S. troops</a>&nbsp;in Jordan in late January.

The U.S. has blamed the Islamic Resistance in Iraq, a broad coalition of Iran-backed militias, for the attack in Jordan, and officials have said they suspect Kataib Hezbollah in particular of leading it.

The Islamic Resistance in Iraq has regularly claimed strikes on bases housing U.S. troops in Iraq and Syria against the backdrop of the ongoing&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/israel-hamas-war">Israel-Hamas war</a>, saying that they are in retaliation for Washington's support of Israel in its war in Gaza that has killed 27,707 Palestinians, according to&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-gaza-health-ministry-health-death-toll-59470820308b31f1faf73c703400b033">the Health Ministry in the Hamas-run territory</a>.

Kataib Hezbollah had said in a statement that it was suspending attacks on American troops to avoid “embarrassing the Iraqi government” after the strike in Jordan, but others have vowed to continue fighting.

On Sunday, the Islamic Resistance in Iraq&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/syria-iraq-sdf-islamic-resistance-us-c621972db21d6b3db7ca1bccd50ce6ef?utm_source=twitter&amp;utm_medium=share">claimed a drone attack</a>&nbsp;on a base housing U.S. troops in eastern Syria killed six fighters from the Syrian Democratic Forces, a Kurdish-led group allied with the United States.

The latest surge in the regional conflict came shortly after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Wednesday&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-news-02-07-2024-6ceffca2970243cd039e90268c32c617">rejected terms proposed by Hamas</a>&nbsp;for a hostage-release agreement that would lead to a permanent cease-fire, vowing to continue the war until “absolute victory.”

Also on Wednesday, the media office of the Houthi rebels in Yemen reported two airstrikes in Ras Issa area in Salif district in Hodeida province.

BAGHDAD (AP) — A U.S. drone strike hit a car in the Iraqi capital Wednesday night, killing three members of the powerful Kataib Hezbollah militia, including a high-ranking commander, officials said.The strike came on a main thoroughfare in the Mashtal neighborhood in eastern Baghdad. A crowd gathered as emergency response teams picked through the wreckage. Security forces closed off the heavily guarded Green Zone, where a number of diplomatic compounds are located, amid calls for protesters to storm the U.S. embassy.Two U.S. officials familiar with the matter said that a senior Kataib Hezbollah commander was targeted in a U.S. strike on Wednesday in Iraq. They were not authorized to comment publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.Two officials with Iran-backed militias in Iraq said that one of the three killed was Wissam Mohammed “Abu Bakr” al-Saadi, the commander in charge of Kataib Hezbollah’s operations in Syria. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to speak to journalists.The strike came amid roiling tensions in the region and days after the U.S. military launched an air assault on dozens of sites in Iraq and Syria used by&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/hamas-hezbollah-houthis-iran-militant-groups-745bfc36e23997ee3f0bc499a9f5c16d">Iranian-backed militias</a>&nbsp;and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard in retaliation for a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-american-service-members-killed-jordan-iran-5cb774fd835a558d840ae91263037489">drone strike that killed three U.S. troops</a>&nbsp;in Jordan in late January.The U.S. has blamed the Islamic Resistance in Iraq, a broad coalition of Iran-backed militias, for the attack in Jordan, and officials have said they suspect Kataib Hezbollah in particular of leading it.The Islamic Resistance in Iraq has regularly claimed strikes on bases housing U.S. troops in Iraq and Syria against the backdrop of the ongoing&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/israel-hamas-war">Israel-Hamas war</a>, saying that they are in retaliation for Washington's support of Israel in its war in Gaza that has killed 27,707 Palestinians, according to&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-gaza-health-ministry-health-death-toll-59470820308b31f1faf73c703400b033">the Health Ministry in the Hamas-run territory</a>.Kataib Hezbollah had said in a statement that it was suspending attacks on American troops to avoid “embarrassing the Iraqi government” after the strike in Jordan, but others have vowed to continue fighting.On Sunday, the Islamic Resistance in Iraq&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/syria-iraq-sdf-islamic-resistance-us-c621972db21d6b3db7ca1bccd50ce6ef?utm_source=twitter&amp;utm_medium=share">claimed a drone attack</a>&nbsp;on a base housing U.S. troops in eastern Syria killed six fighters from the Syrian Democratic Forces, a Kurdish-led group allied with the United States.The latest surge in the regional conflict came shortly after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Wednesday&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-news-02-07-2024-6ceffca2970243cd039e90268c32c617">rejected terms proposed by Hamas</a>&nbsp;for a hostage-release agreement that would lead to a permanent cease-fire, vowing to continue the war until “absolute victory.”Also on Wednesday, the media office of the Houthi rebels in Yemen reported two airstrikes in Ras Issa area in Salif district in Hodeida province.

U.S. drone strike in Baghdad kills high-ranking militia commander

WASHINGTON (AP) — The fate of former President Donald Trump’s attempt to return to the White House is in the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-trump-insurrection-2024-election-0baac5ba0c1868e437e365af17eeab24">hands of the U.S. Supreme Court</a>.

On Thursday,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-trump-election-insurrection-719eac1b23ee7103c5d84914156e4236">the justices will hear arguments</a>&nbsp;in&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-insurrection-trump-ballot-disqualification-5ba83d718b97150447acf15cee75c7a3">Trump’s appeal</a>&nbsp;of a Colorado Supreme Court&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-2024-colorado-d16dd8f354eeaf450558378c65fd79a2">ruling</a>&nbsp;that he is not eligible to run again for president because he violated a provision in the 14th Amendment preventing those who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office.

Many legal observers expect the nation’s highest court will reverse the Colorado ruling rather than remove the leading contender for the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/elections">Republican presidential nomination</a>&nbsp;from the ballot. But it’s always tricky to try to predict a Supreme Court ruling, and the case against Trump has already broken new legal ground.

Some of the main issues involved in the 14th Amendment case:

It’s called&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-14th-amendment-insurrection-2024-election-ballot-9c5f79203109ba221b35a48e708ad725">Section 3</a>&nbsp;and it’s pretty brief. It reads:

“No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two thirds of each House, remove such disability.”

Trump’s lawyers say this part of the Constitution wasn’t meant to apply to the president. Notice how it specifically mentions electors, senators and representatives, but not the presidency.

It also says those who take an oath to “support” the United States, but the presidential oath doesn’t use that word. Instead, the Constitution requires presidents to say they will “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution. And finally, Section 3 talks about any other “officer” of the United States, but Trump’s lawyers argue that language is meant to apply to presidential appointees, not the president.

That was enough to convince the Colorado district court judge who initially heard the case. She found that Trump had engaged in insurrection,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-amendment-2024-ballot-colorado-5b6e40f069abc1b8604ec37c46621055">but also agreed</a>&nbsp;that it wasn’t clear that Section 3 applied to the president. That part of her decision was reversed by the Colorado Supreme Court.

The majority of the state’s highest court wrote: “President Trump asks us to hold that Section 3 disqualifies every oath-breaking insurrectionist except the most powerful one and that it bars oath-breakers from virtually every office, both state and federal, except the highest one in the land.”

Trump's lawyers contend that the question of who is covered by a rarely used, once obscure clause should be decided by Congress, not unelected judges. They contend that the Jan. 6, 2021,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-confirm-joe-biden-78104aea082995bbd7412a6e6cd13818">attack on the U.S. Capitol</a>&nbsp;wasn’t&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-2024-election-64ea3e076af335a3e1bce6d7620d58a3">an insurrection</a>. They say the attack wasn’t widespread, didn’t involve large amounts of firearms or include other markers of sedition. They say Trump&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-ballot-14th-amendment-colorado-6a8528813e29c9f45a0bb4972369e97e">didn’t “engage”</a>&nbsp;in anything that day other than in exercising his&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-speech-colorado-9626b6ae8479e6a4ce34c3391f207426">protected free speech rights</a>.

Others who have been skeptical of applying Section 3 to Trump have made an argument that the dissenting Colorado Supreme Court justices also found persuasive: The way the court went about finding that Trump violated Section 3 violated the former president’s&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-2024-14th-amendment-insurrection-colorado-280bc28e57a965a8d6e4d3329dc6aa07">due process rights</a>. They contend he was entitled to a structured legal process rather than a court in Colorado trying to figure out if the Constitution applied to him.

That gets at the unprecedented nature of the cases. Section 3 has&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/election-trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-ballot-ca5a632f46066bc31349849fe60a781a">rarely been used</a>&nbsp;after an 1872 congressional amnesty excluded most former Confederates from it. The U.S. Supreme Court has never heard such a case.

Arguments about legal precedents go back to a lone 1869 opinion from Chief Justice Salmon Chase, who was hearing an appeal as a circuit judge rather than for the high court.

The Trump&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-14th-amendment-insurrection-supreme-court-colorado-2b9d5b628cb2779fc84212cdc651e4e7">case is historic</a>&nbsp;and is expected to create new law.

Not really. A lot of Democrats are rooting for Trump to get kicked off the ballot and a lot of Republicans are angry about the campaign against him. The case was filed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a left-leaning group.

But some of the most vocal proponents of removing Trump from the ballot are conservative legal scholars who believe in following the strict words of the Constitution. There’s no way around the insurrection disqualification for Trump, they argue, adding it's there in the plain text and was intended by the authors. The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-2024-colorado-79373b5043976588b599fc00ede049e8">plaintiffs in Colorado</a>&nbsp;are all Republicans or unaffiliated voters.

All seven of the justices on Colorado’s Supreme Court were appointed by Democrats. But they split 4-3 on the decision, a stark demonstration that this case doesn’t divide neatly along partisan lines.

The majority quoted a ruling from Neil Gorsuch, one of Trump’s conservative Supreme Court nominees, from when he was a federal judge in Colorado. He ruled then that the state properly kept a naturalized citizen born in Guyana off the presidential ballot because the he didn’t meet the constitutional qualifications.

In Maine, the Democratic secretary of state also&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/maine-trump-presidential-ballot-election-insurrection-081fd38ce1f20be9b8423cb2f8c66dee">removed Trump</a>&nbsp;from the ballot. But in&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-14th-amendment-insurrection-ballot-illinois-8709a8dbf12f845ed30fce22c9bff469">Illinois</a>, a Republican retired judge serving as a hearing officer for the state Board of Election suggested keeping Trump on, but only because he thought courts should decide on eligibility. The retired judge found it was likely Trump was disqualified due to Section 3, making him a notable Republican to side with those trying to remove the former president.

The U.S. Supreme Court is comprised of six justices nominating by&nbsp;<a href="https://www.huffpost.com/news/topic/republican-party">Republican presidents</a>, including three by Trump. Partly because this is completely new legal ground, it’s hard to predict how individual justices will rule based on their ideology.

Several outcomes are possible but they generally fall into three areas.

The first is the court could uphold Colorado’s ruling. That would require wins for the plaintiffs on the whole array of Trump's defenses.

The second is the court could rule that Trump cannot be disqualified under Section 3, period. There are a lot of ways the court could do this, but the result would be to end the case against him, as well as dozens of&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-ballot-michigan-b2a870f98a60dffbe4c9566cfe97457c">similar challenges</a>&nbsp;filed across the country.

The third possibility unnerves a lot of legal experts. The court could effectively punt and not make a final decision on whether Trump is qualified to serve as president. That could kick the question down the road to Jan. 6, 2025, if he wins the election and&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-house-speaker-2024-election-certification-8cd7c5a9e6ae69635bbb4624cc78e5c5#:~:text=Mike%20Johnson%2C%20the%20Louisiana%20congressman,Biden's%202020%20presidential%20election%20win">Congress has to decide</a>&nbsp;whether to certify his victory.

It also would keep alive many of the challenges across the country. A number of them are on hold because state courts are waiting to see what the U.S. Supreme Court will do. Places where a Trump challenge could be rekindled if the high court doesn’t squelch it include&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-14th-amendment-insurrection-ballot-illinois-8709a8dbf12f845ed30fce22c9bff469">Illinois</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-election-president-f6b72c94bb351c1b870d4884e54f6a75">Minnesota</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-oregon-14th-amendment-supreme-court-f9e80393633c3f232c2225b91928e75a">Oregon</a>. It could add further pressure to challenge Trump’s position on the ballot in other Democratic strongholds such as California and New York, where there have been pushes to invalidate his candidacy that have been comparatively muted.

While the Trump campaign says more than 60 Section 3 cases have been filed nationally, most are by low-profile figures and have generally been dismissed for procedural issues. Uncertainty from the nation's highest court could encourage a new wave of cases in those states, too.

The lack of a clear ruling also could create counter-challenges. Republicans have warned that Section 3 also can be applied to Democrats.

Some already have proposed filing against Biden under the theory that his inability to stem the flow of migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border amounts to providing “aid and comfort” to the country’s enemies. Vice President Kamala Harris also could be targeted under the theory that her raising bail money for people arrested during the protests over George Floyd’s 2020 murder by Minneapolis police amounts to “engaging in insurrection.”

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/1/1706097331546.png" alt="File -Trump celebrating his primary election victory i New Hampshire last month-photo courtesy CSPAN" />
 <figcaption>File -Trump celebrating his primary election victory i New Hampshire last month-photo courtesy CSPAN</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — The fate of former President Donald Trump’s attempt to return to the White House is in the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-trump-insurrection-2024-election-0baac5ba0c1868e437e365af17eeab24">hands of the U.S. Supreme Court</a>.On Thursday,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-trump-election-insurrection-719eac1b23ee7103c5d84914156e4236">the justices will hear arguments</a>&nbsp;in&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-insurrection-trump-ballot-disqualification-5ba83d718b97150447acf15cee75c7a3">Trump’s appeal</a>&nbsp;of a Colorado Supreme Court&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-2024-colorado-d16dd8f354eeaf450558378c65fd79a2">ruling</a>&nbsp;that he is not eligible to run again for president because he violated a provision in the 14th Amendment preventing those who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office.Many legal observers expect the nation’s highest court will reverse the Colorado ruling rather than remove the leading contender for the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/elections">Republican presidential nomination</a>&nbsp;from the ballot. But it’s always tricky to try to predict a Supreme Court ruling, and the case against Trump has already broken new legal ground.Some of the main issues involved in the 14th Amendment case:WHAT DID TRUMP POTENTIALLY VIOLATE?It’s called&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-14th-amendment-insurrection-2024-election-ballot-9c5f79203109ba221b35a48e708ad725">Section 3</a>&nbsp;and it’s pretty brief. It reads:“No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two thirds of each House, remove such disability.”Nice and simple, right?Not so fast, Trump’s lawyers say.TRUMP’S DEFENSETrump’s lawyers say this part of the Constitution wasn’t meant to apply to the president. Notice how it specifically mentions electors, senators and representatives, but not the presidency.It also says those who take an oath to “support” the United States, but the presidential oath doesn’t use that word. Instead, the Constitution requires presidents to say they will “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution. And finally, Section 3 talks about any other “officer” of the United States, but Trump’s lawyers argue that language is meant to apply to presidential appointees, not the president.That was enough to convince the Colorado district court judge who initially heard the case. She found that Trump had engaged in insurrection,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-amendment-2024-ballot-colorado-5b6e40f069abc1b8604ec37c46621055">but also agreed</a>&nbsp;that it wasn’t clear that Section 3 applied to the president. That part of her decision was reversed by the Colorado Supreme Court.The majority of the state’s highest court wrote: “President Trump asks us to hold that Section 3 disqualifies every oath-breaking insurrectionist except the most powerful one and that it bars oath-breakers from virtually every office, both state and federal, except the highest one in the land.”OTHER TRUMP ARGUMENTSTrump's lawyers contend that the question of who is covered by a rarely used, once obscure clause should be decided by Congress, not unelected judges. They contend that the Jan. 6, 2021,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-confirm-joe-biden-78104aea082995bbd7412a6e6cd13818">attack on the U.S. Capitol</a>&nbsp;wasn’t&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-2024-election-64ea3e076af335a3e1bce6d7620d58a3">an insurrection</a>. They say the attack wasn’t widespread, didn’t involve large amounts of firearms or include other markers of sedition. They say Trump&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-ballot-14th-amendment-colorado-6a8528813e29c9f45a0bb4972369e97e">didn’t “engage”</a>&nbsp;in anything that day other than in exercising his&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-speech-colorado-9626b6ae8479e6a4ce34c3391f207426">protected free speech rights</a>.Others who have been skeptical of applying Section 3 to Trump have made an argument that the dissenting Colorado Supreme Court justices also found persuasive: The way the court went about finding that Trump violated Section 3 violated the former president’s&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-2024-14th-amendment-insurrection-colorado-280bc28e57a965a8d6e4d3329dc6aa07">due process rights</a>. They contend he was entitled to a structured legal process rather than a court in Colorado trying to figure out if the Constitution applied to him.That gets at the unprecedented nature of the cases. Section 3 has&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/election-trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-ballot-ca5a632f46066bc31349849fe60a781a">rarely been used</a>&nbsp;after an 1872 congressional amnesty excluded most former Confederates from it. The U.S. Supreme Court has never heard such a case.Arguments about legal precedents go back to a lone 1869 opinion from Chief Justice Salmon Chase, who was hearing an appeal as a circuit judge rather than for the high court.The Trump&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-14th-amendment-insurrection-supreme-court-colorado-2b9d5b628cb2779fc84212cdc651e4e7">case is historic</a>&nbsp;and is expected to create new law.ISN’T THIS JUST A PARTISAN CASE?Not really. A lot of Democrats are rooting for Trump to get kicked off the ballot and a lot of Republicans are angry about the campaign against him. The case was filed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a left-leaning group.But some of the most vocal proponents of removing Trump from the ballot are conservative legal scholars who believe in following the strict words of the Constitution. There’s no way around the insurrection disqualification for Trump, they argue, adding it's there in the plain text and was intended by the authors. The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-2024-colorado-79373b5043976588b599fc00ede049e8">plaintiffs in Colorado</a>&nbsp;are all Republicans or unaffiliated voters.All seven of the justices on Colorado’s Supreme Court were appointed by Democrats. But they split 4-3 on the decision, a stark demonstration that this case doesn’t divide neatly along partisan lines.The majority quoted a ruling from Neil Gorsuch, one of Trump’s conservative Supreme Court nominees, from when he was a federal judge in Colorado. He ruled then that the state properly kept a naturalized citizen born in Guyana off the presidential ballot because the he didn’t meet the constitutional qualifications.In Maine, the Democratic secretary of state also&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/maine-trump-presidential-ballot-election-insurrection-081fd38ce1f20be9b8423cb2f8c66dee">removed Trump</a>&nbsp;from the ballot. But in&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-14th-amendment-insurrection-ballot-illinois-8709a8dbf12f845ed30fce22c9bff469">Illinois</a>, a Republican retired judge serving as a hearing officer for the state Board of Election suggested keeping Trump on, but only because he thought courts should decide on eligibility. The retired judge found it was likely Trump was disqualified due to Section 3, making him a notable Republican to side with those trying to remove the former president.The U.S. Supreme Court is comprised of six justices nominating by&nbsp;<a href="https://www.huffpost.com/news/topic/republican-party">Republican presidents</a>, including three by Trump. Partly because this is completely new legal ground, it’s hard to predict how individual justices will rule based on their ideology.WHAT COULD THE COURT DO?Several outcomes are possible but they generally fall into three areas.The first is the court could uphold Colorado’s ruling. That would require wins for the plaintiffs on the whole array of Trump's defenses.The second is the court could rule that Trump cannot be disqualified under Section 3, period. There are a lot of ways the court could do this, but the result would be to end the case against him, as well as dozens of&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-ballot-michigan-b2a870f98a60dffbe4c9566cfe97457c">similar challenges</a>&nbsp;filed across the country.The third possibility unnerves a lot of legal experts. The court could effectively punt and not make a final decision on whether Trump is qualified to serve as president. That could kick the question down the road to Jan. 6, 2025, if he wins the election and&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-house-speaker-2024-election-certification-8cd7c5a9e6ae69635bbb4624cc78e5c5#:~:text=Mike%20Johnson%2C%20the%20Louisiana%20congressman,Biden's%202020%20presidential%20election%20win">Congress has to decide</a>&nbsp;whether to certify his victory.It also would keep alive many of the challenges across the country. A number of them are on hold because state courts are waiting to see what the U.S. Supreme Court will do. Places where a Trump challenge could be rekindled if the high court doesn’t squelch it include&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-14th-amendment-insurrection-ballot-illinois-8709a8dbf12f845ed30fce22c9bff469">Illinois</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-election-president-f6b72c94bb351c1b870d4884e54f6a75">Minnesota</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-oregon-14th-amendment-supreme-court-f9e80393633c3f232c2225b91928e75a">Oregon</a>. It could add further pressure to challenge Trump’s position on the ballot in other Democratic strongholds such as California and New York, where there have been pushes to invalidate his candidacy that have been comparatively muted.While the Trump campaign says more than 60 Section 3 cases have been filed nationally, most are by low-profile figures and have generally been dismissed for procedural issues. Uncertainty from the nation's highest court could encourage a new wave of cases in those states, too.The lack of a clear ruling also could create counter-challenges. Republicans have warned that Section 3 also can be applied to Democrats.Some already have proposed filing against Biden under the theory that his inability to stem the flow of migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border amounts to providing “aid and comfort” to the country’s enemies. Vice President Kamala Harris also could be targeted under the theory that her raising bail money for people arrested during the protests over George Floyd’s 2020 murder by Minneapolis police amounts to “engaging in insurrection.”

Trump's presidential ballot future set for Supreme Court hearing 

Nonbinding measure praises Texas governor’s defiant answer to immigrant ‘invasion’

BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/tim-carpenter/">TIM CARPENTER</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/">Kansas Reflector</a>

TOPEKA — The Kansas House struggled through lengthy debate on illegal immigration mired in issues of fentanyl poisoning, Marxist journalists, Texas’ governor, state sovereignty, razor wire, federal judicial power, the United Nations, the role of law enforcement, the Kansas National Guard, the presidential race and human trafficking.

When dust settled on the partisan back-and-forth a majority registered support for House Resolution 6035, which characterized influx of migrants across the U.S.-Mexico border as an “invasion” and encouraged Gov. Laura Kelly to offer “support and solidarity” with Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s defiance of Biden administration directives and a U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

Rep. Pat Proctor, a Leavenworth Republican, said the resolution sponsored by more than 60 House members made clear the federal government failed to protect southern border states in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

“Let us make no mistake, the state of Texas and all the states on our southern border with Mexico are being invaded,” Proctor said. “It’s not just those from Mexico looking for a better life. It’s people from all over the world, including military-age males from China and the Middle East.”

He said the incursion had a component of “chemical warfare” due to trafficking of chemicals from China used to manufacture fentanyl, a powerful drug flooding U.S. cities and killing about 100,000 people annually.

The resolution urged Kelly to give Abbott support from Kansas, including deployment to Texas of Kansas National Guard troops and Kansas law enforcement agents. The resolution also sought a formal Kansas-Texas agreement of “solidarity against future lawlessness by illegal immigrants and the detrimental actions or nonactions of the federal government.”

Rep. John Carmichael, D-Wichita, said the resolution was unnecessary because the U.S. Senate was working on a bipartisan bill to increase border security. The legislation, endorsed by President Joe Biden and opposed by former President Donald Trump, authorized the executive branch to close the border if the flow of migrants exceeded certain levels, to hire more border agents and to reform the process of handling asylum claims.

“We do not need to pass this resolution because it is the responsibility of the United States Congress and the president to protect our borders,” Carmichael said. “We waste our time, the citizens’ time today with one more meaningless resolution expressing some member’s indignation at something that is, frankly, none of the Kansas Legislature’s concern.”

At that moment, Rep. Stephen Owens, R-Hesston, accused Carmichael of attacking motives of Proctor or other sponsors of the measure.

Democratic Rep. Ford Carr of Wichita made a motion to send the resolution to a House committee for standard vetting, public hearings and possible amendment.

“I would oppose this motion,” said Proctor, the lead sponsor. “We’re not going to get any more substantive discussion from a committee of a dozen people than we will from a committee of 125. It’s just a delay tactic.”

A majority of House members voted against shelving the resolution by sending it to the House Federal and State Affairs Committee.

House Minority Leader Vic Miller of Topeka said urgency displayed by Proctor and others seeking passage of the resolution one day after it was introduced should be remembered when amendments offered by Democrats on the House floor were deflected because they hadn’t be considered by a House committee. While engaged in the question-and-answer debate with Proctor, Miller pivoted to confront Wichita GOP Rep. Patrick Penn, who Miller said was offering commentary from his desk seat on the House floor.

“Sir, if you’d like to talk to me you can come down here and do so,” Miller said. “You don’t need to sit at your desk and scream things at me and point at me.”

In midst of the debate, House Rules Committee members sorted out whether Miller had violated tradition, rules or protocol by holding a piece of paper — a copy of the immigration resolution — so it could be used as a visual aid when addressing the full House. Rep. Susan Humphries, R-Wichita, said Miller’s decision to hold a copy of the resolution was improper because custom defined the document as a prop while in Miller’s hand.

“The item itself, for instance a bill, is not necessarily a prop, but may be used as a prop,” she said. “Is a bill a prop? Not necessarily. The difference is how it is used.”

Miller asked Humphries whether the large button she was displaying on her jacket supporting the GOP’s flat-tax bill should be considered a prop under her interpretation of House rules. She didn’t fully answer his query.

“Did I use it as a prop? That is the question. How is it used? Did I call attention to it? What did I do with it? Did I hold it up?” Humphries said.

Fort Scott Republican Rep. Trevor Jacobs said states had the right to “shield by shield, sword by sword” self-defense against invaders and that constitutional right extended to consequences of so many undocumented people entering the United States. He expressed gratitude that Kansas House Republican leadership warmed to the threat posed by open borders months after he sounded an alarm.

“There is evidence of the UN being involved in this, bringing individuals over here,” Jacobs said. “The world is organizing an army against the United States of America. Once they get their green light, it’s going to be devastating.”

Jacobs said illegal immigrants were stealing U.S. tax dollars. The elderly and veterans were being kicked out of nursing homes to make room for undocumented migrants, he said. Organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood, Boko Haram, Hezbollah and Hamas were a threat to this country, he said. Illegal immigrants committed crimes, got a slap on the hand and paraded in front of the “Marxist media” to celebrate, he said.

“They’ve come not to embrace but to exploit our nation,” Jacobs said. “This federal government has completely failed the American people. I also think we need to address the president of the United States’ total negligence of our border. This is happening. Treason. When it comes down to it, we’re all border states. It’s coming. The flood is coming.”

Rep. Eric Smith, R-Burlington, also supported the resolution. He said the trafficking of fentanyl from Mexico into the United States had to be stopped because it could become the most deadly drug encountered by domestic law enforcement.

“We’re talking about things that are ending up right on our streets in our kids’ parties. We need to go to the source,” he said.&nbsp; “We have a security issue right here in the state that can be fought at that border.”

Democratic Rep. Angela Martinez, a third-generation Mexican-American from Wichita, said she was the product of the American dream as experienced by her immigrant grandfather during World War II.

“But, frankly, I’m appalled at some of the political games that we play with people’s lives,” she said. “I agree that we need to protect our borders. But we also need effective immigration. We can’t do that here in the Statehouse.”

Rep. Rui Xu, a Democrat from Mission Hills, said he was a first-generation immigrant. Arguing a resolution was useful to rebut the surge in fentanyl poisonings was disingenuous because a majority of the drug was brought into the United States by American citizens, he said.

“This resolution, let’s not kid ourselves, has nothing to do with fentanyl. It’s not going to do anything. Legal immigration has almost nothing to do with fentanyl,” Xu said.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/2/1707322902659.png" alt=" Rep. Pat Proctor, R-Leavenworth, successfully carried a nonbinding resolution asking Gov. Laura Kelly to consider deploying Kansas National Guard troops and Kansas law enforcement officers to the U.S.-Mexico border to show solidarity with Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s fight with the Biden administration to secure the border. (Tim Carpenter/Kansas Reflector)" />
 <figcaption> Rep. Pat Proctor, R-Leavenworth, successfully carried a nonbinding resolution asking Gov. Laura Kelly to consider deploying Kansas National Guard troops and Kansas law enforcement officers to the U.S.-Mexico border to show solidarity with Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s fight with the Biden administration to secure the border. (Tim Carpenter/Kansas Reflector)</figcaption>
 </figure><h2>Nonbinding measure praises Texas governor’s defiant answer to immigrant ‘invasion’</h2>BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/tim-carpenter/">TIM CARPENTER</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/">Kansas Reflector</a>TOPEKA — The Kansas House struggled through lengthy debate on illegal immigration mired in issues of fentanyl poisoning, Marxist journalists, Texas’ governor, state sovereignty, razor wire, federal judicial power, the United Nations, the role of law enforcement, the Kansas National Guard, the presidential race and human trafficking.When dust settled on the partisan back-and-forth a majority registered support for House Resolution 6035, which characterized influx of migrants across the U.S.-Mexico border as an “invasion” and encouraged Gov. Laura Kelly to offer “support and solidarity” with Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s defiance of Biden administration directives and a U.S. Supreme Court ruling.Rep. Pat Proctor, a Leavenworth Republican, said the resolution sponsored by more than 60 House members made clear the federal government failed to protect southern border states in violation of the U.S. Constitution.“Let us make no mistake, the state of Texas and all the states on our southern border with Mexico are being invaded,” Proctor said. “It’s not just those from Mexico looking for a better life. It’s people from all over the world, including military-age males from China and the Middle East.”He said the incursion had a component of “chemical warfare” due to trafficking of chemicals from China used to manufacture fentanyl, a powerful drug flooding U.S. cities and killing about 100,000 people annually.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/2/1707322845123.png" alt=" Rep. John Carmichael, a Wichita Democrat, said House Resolution 6035 expressing support for Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s border standoff with immigrants was a waste of the Kansas Legislature’s time. The resolution passed on a voice vote. (Tim Carpenter/Kansas Reflector)" />
 <figcaption> Rep. John Carmichael, a Wichita Democrat, said House Resolution 6035 expressing support for Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s border standoff with immigrants was a waste of the Kansas Legislature’s time. The resolution passed on a voice vote. (Tim Carpenter/Kansas Reflector)</figcaption>
 </figure><h2>‘Waste our time’</h2>The resolution urged Kelly to give Abbott support from Kansas, including deployment to Texas of Kansas National Guard troops and Kansas law enforcement agents. The resolution also sought a formal Kansas-Texas agreement of “solidarity against future lawlessness by illegal immigrants and the detrimental actions or nonactions of the federal government.”Rep. John Carmichael, D-Wichita, said the resolution was unnecessary because the U.S. Senate was working on a bipartisan bill to increase border security. The legislation, endorsed by President Joe Biden and opposed by former President Donald Trump, authorized the executive branch to close the border if the flow of migrants exceeded certain levels, to hire more border agents and to reform the process of handling asylum claims.“We do not need to pass this resolution because it is the responsibility of the United States Congress and the president to protect our borders,” Carmichael said. “We waste our time, the citizens’ time today with one more meaningless resolution expressing some member’s indignation at something that is, frankly, none of the Kansas Legislature’s concern.”At that moment, Rep. Stephen Owens, R-Hesston, accused Carmichael of attacking motives of Proctor or other sponsors of the measure.Democratic Rep. Ford Carr of Wichita made a motion to send the resolution to a House committee for standard vetting, public hearings and possible amendment.“I would oppose this motion,” said Proctor, the lead sponsor. “We’re not going to get any more substantive discussion from a committee of a dozen people than we will from a committee of 125. It’s just a delay tactic.”A majority of House members voted against shelving the resolution by sending it to the House Federal and State Affairs Committee.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/2/1707322796026.png" alt=" House Minority Leader Vic Miller of Topeka said Wichita GOP Rep. Patrick Penn, seated, offered audible commentary from his seat in the House while Miller discussed a resolution asking Gov. Laura Kelly to send Kansas National Guard troops to Texas. (Tim Carpenter/Kansas Reflector)" />
 <figcaption> House Minority Leader Vic Miller of Topeka said Wichita GOP Rep. Patrick Penn, seated, offered audible commentary from his seat in the House while Miller discussed a resolution asking Gov. Laura Kelly to send Kansas National Guard troops to Texas. (Tim Carpenter/Kansas Reflector)</figcaption>
 </figure><h2>What is a prop?</h2>House Minority Leader Vic Miller of Topeka said urgency displayed by Proctor and others seeking passage of the resolution one day after it was introduced should be remembered when amendments offered by Democrats on the House floor were deflected because they hadn’t be considered by a House committee. While engaged in the question-and-answer debate with Proctor, Miller pivoted to confront Wichita GOP Rep. Patrick Penn, who Miller said was offering commentary from his desk seat on the House floor.“Sir, if you’d like to talk to me you can come down here and do so,” Miller said. “You don’t need to sit at your desk and scream things at me and point at me.”In midst of the debate, House Rules Committee members sorted out whether Miller had violated tradition, rules or protocol by holding a piece of paper — a copy of the immigration resolution — so it could be used as a visual aid when addressing the full House. Rep. Susan Humphries, R-Wichita, said Miller’s decision to hold a copy of the resolution was improper because custom defined the document as a prop while in Miller’s hand.“The item itself, for instance a bill, is not necessarily a prop, but may be used as a prop,” she said. “Is a bill a prop? Not necessarily. The difference is how it is used.”Miller asked Humphries whether the large button she was displaying on her jacket supporting the GOP’s flat-tax bill should be considered a prop under her interpretation of House rules. She didn’t fully answer his query.“Did I use it as a prop? That is the question. How is it used? Did I call attention to it? What did I do with it? Did I hold it up?” Humphries said.“I love this place,” Miller said.<h2>‘Sword by sword’</h2>Fort Scott Republican Rep. Trevor Jacobs said states had the right to “shield by shield, sword by sword” self-defense against invaders and that constitutional right extended to consequences of so many undocumented people entering the United States. He expressed gratitude that Kansas House Republican leadership warmed to the threat posed by open borders months after he sounded an alarm.“There is evidence of the UN being involved in this, bringing individuals over here,” Jacobs said. “The world is organizing an army against the United States of America. Once they get their green light, it’s going to be devastating.”Jacobs said illegal immigrants were stealing U.S. tax dollars. The elderly and veterans were being kicked out of nursing homes to make room for undocumented migrants, he said. Organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood, Boko Haram, Hezbollah and Hamas were a threat to this country, he said. Illegal immigrants committed crimes, got a slap on the hand and paraded in front of the “Marxist media” to celebrate, he said.“They’ve come not to embrace but to exploit our nation,” Jacobs said. “This federal government has completely failed the American people. I also think we need to address the president of the United States’ total negligence of our border. This is happening. Treason. When it comes down to it, we’re all border states. It’s coming. The flood is coming.”Rep. Eric Smith, R-Burlington, also supported the resolution. He said the trafficking of fentanyl from Mexico into the United States had to be stopped because it could become the most deadly drug encountered by domestic law enforcement.“We’re talking about things that are ending up right on our streets in our kids’ parties. We need to go to the source,” he said.&nbsp; “We have a security issue right here in the state that can be fought at that border.”<h2>‘Political games’</h2>Democratic Rep. Angela Martinez, a third-generation Mexican-American from Wichita, said she was the product of the American dream as experienced by her immigrant grandfather during World War II.“But, frankly, I’m appalled at some of the political games that we play with people’s lives,” she said. “I agree that we need to protect our borders. But we also need effective immigration. We can’t do that here in the Statehouse.”Rep. Rui Xu, a Democrat from Mission Hills, said he was a first-generation immigrant. Arguing a resolution was useful to rebut the surge in fentanyl poisonings was disingenuous because a majority of the drug was brought into the United States by American citizens, he said.“This resolution, let’s not kid ourselves, has nothing to do with fentanyl. It’s not going to do anything. Legal immigration has almost nothing to do with fentanyl,” Xu said.

Kan. House adopts resolution asking Kelly to send National Guard to Texas border

KANSAS CITY —Authorities are working to determine the cause of a fire at the historic Warwick Theater in Kansas City.

Jusst before 5a.m., crew&nbsp;responded to the fire at 3927 Main Street, according to Battalion Chief Michael Hopkins.

First responders reported fire and smoke from the rear of the structure and after several minutes, due to conditions and type of roof, fire command made the decision to evacuate the building and went into defensive operations. 

The Warwick opened in 1912, according to the theater website. It closed in 1953 and is currently undergoing renovations and <a href="https://www.warwickkc.org/?fbclid=IwAR1_pfxPE82z2-zU_LCViOisax5-rFi2KbPA1a5IQvJ0fvBMweubzSldjUo">is home to</a> the&nbsp;the <a href="https://www.facebook.com/metkc.org/about">Metropolitan Ensemble Theatre</a> founded in 2005.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/2/1707313891150.png" alt="Photo courtesy KCTV" />
 <figcaption>Photo courtesy KCTV</figcaption>
 </figure>KANSAS CITY —Authorities are working to determine the cause of a fire at the historic Warwick Theater in Kansas City.Jusst before 5a.m., crew&nbsp;responded to the fire at 3927 Main Street, according to Battalion Chief Michael Hopkins.First responders reported fire and smoke from the rear of the structure and after several minutes, due to conditions and type of roof, fire command made the decision to evacuate the building and went into defensive operations. There are no injuries reported.The Warwick opened in 1912, according to the theater website. It closed in 1953 and is currently undergoing renovations and <a href="https://www.warwickkc.org/?fbclid=IwAR1_pfxPE82z2-zU_LCViOisax5-rFi2KbPA1a5IQvJ0fvBMweubzSldjUo">is home to</a> the&nbsp;the <a href="https://www.facebook.com/metkc.org/about">Metropolitan Ensemble Theatre</a> founded in 2005.

Fire damages historic Kansas City theater

WASHINGTON (AP) — In a dramatic setback, House Republicans failed Tuesday to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, forced to shelve a high-profile priority — for now — after a few GOP lawmakers refused to go along with the party's plan.

The GOP members of the Kansas delegation voted for impeachment. Four Republicans did join Democrats in voting against the resolution to impeach.

On his social media account, Kansas U.S. Senator Roger Marshall, a longtime critic of Mayorkas, commented on outcome of the vote,&nbsp; "Disappointed in the House's showing tonight. However, the final vote belongs to the American people in November."

The stunning roll call fell just a single vote short of impeaching Mayorkas, stalling the Republicans' drive to punish the Biden administration over its handling of the U.S-Mexico border. With Democrats united against the charges, the Republicans needed almost every vote from their slim majority to approve the articles of impeachment.

A noisy, rowdy scene erupted on the House floor as the vote was tied for several tense minutes, 215-215. Several Republican lawmakers — led by the impeachment's chief sponsor, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia — surrounded one of the holdouts, Wisconsin Republican Mike Gallagher, who refused to change his vote.

With the tally stuck, Democrats shouted for the gavel to close out the vote.

"Frustrated," said Rep. Mark Green, R-Tenn., the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, "but we'll see it back again."

House Speaker Mike Johnson's spokesman Raj Shah said they "fully intend" to reconsider the articles of impeachment against Mayorkas "when we have the votes for passage."

But next steps are uncertain. In the end, three Republicans opposed the impeachment, and a fourth Republican switched his vote so the measure could be revisited. The final tally was 214-216.

The outcome was another dismal result for the House Republicans who have repeatedly been unable to use their majority power to accomplish political goals, or even to keep up with the basics of governing.

Johnson, who could afford only a few defections from his ranks, had said earlier he had personally spoken to Gallagher and another GOP holdout, acknowledging the "heavy, heavy" vote as he sought their support.

"It's an extreme measure," said Johnson, R-La. "But extreme times call for extreme measures."

Not since 1876 has a Cabinet secretary faced impeachment charges and it's the first time a sitting secretary is being impeached — 148 years ago, Secretary of War William Belknap resigned just before the vote.

The impeachment charges against Mayorkas come as border security is fast becoming a top political issue in the 2024 election, a particularly potent line of attack being leveled at President Joe Biden by Republicans, led by the party's front-runner for the presidential nomination, Donald Trump.

Record numbers of people have been arriving at the southern border, many fleeing countries around the world, in what Mayorkas calls an era of global migration. Many migrants are claiming asylum and being conditionally released into the U.S., arriving in cities that are underequipped to provide housing and other aid while they await judicial proceedings which can take years to determine whether they may remain.

The House Democrats united against the two articles of impeachment against Mayorkas, calling the proceedings a sham designed to please Trump, charges that do not rise to the Constitution's bar of treason, bribery or "high crimes and misdemeanors."

"A bunch of garbage," said Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass. He called Mayorkas "a good man, a decent man," who is simply trying to do his job.

Even if Republicans are able to impeach Mayorkas, he is not expected to be convicted in a Senate trial since Republican senators have been cool to the effort. The Senate could simply refer the matter to a committee for its own investigation, delaying immediate action.

"This baseless impeachment should never have moved forward," said Mia Ehrenberg, a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security.

If House Republicans are "serious about border security, they should abandon these political games," she said.

The impeachment of Mayorkas landed quickly onto the House agenda after Republican efforts to impeach Biden over the business dealings of his son, Hunter Biden, hit a lull, and the investigation into the Biden family dragged.

The Committee on Homeland Security under Chairman Green had been investigating the secretary for much of the past year, including probing the flow of deadly fentanyl into the U.S. But a resolution from Georgia Rep. Greene pushed it to the fore. The panel swiftly held a pair of hearings in January before announcing the two articles of impeachment against Mayorkas.

Unlike other moments in impeachment history, the afternoon's debate played out to an almost empty chamber, without the fervor or solemnity of past proceedings.

Greene, who was named to be one of the impeachment managers if there is a Senate trial, rose to blame Mayorkas for the "invasion" of migrants coming to the U.S.

Republican Rep. Eli Crane of Arizona said Mayorkas had committed a "dereliction of duty."

Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said the Mayorkas impeachment vote was a stunt designed by Republicans to sow "chaos and confusion" and appease Trump — rather than to govern.

"No reasonable American can conclude that you're making life better for them by this sham impeachment," Jeffries said.

It was only as the roll call came to a standstill that the chamber burst into an angry, boisterous scene as tempers flared and the vote failed.

The three Republicans opposing impeachment were Gallagher, Rep. Ken Buck of Colorado and Tom McClintock of California. Republican Rep. Blake Moore of Utah was the Republican who switched his vote on procedural grounds.

At one point, Democratic Rep. Al Green of Texas, who had missed votes earlier in the day, arrived from the hospital to cast his vote against the impeachment. Green told NBC News that he had gone to the emergency room and had surgery.

McClintock, in a memo, said the charges "fail to identify an impeachable crime that Mayorkas has committed." He said the articles of impeachment from the committee explain the problems at the border under Biden's watch. But, he said, "they stretch and distort the Constitution."

Tuesday's vote arrived at a politically odd juncture for Mayorkas, who has been negotiating a bipartisan border security package in the Senate, earning high marks from a group of senators involved.

But that legislation, which emerged Sunday as one of the most ambitious immigration overhauls in years, collapsed Tuesday as Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell acknowledged that the deal was dead.. Trump had sharply criticized the bipartisan effort and Speaker Johnson said it was "dead on arrival."

Impeachment, once rare in the U.S., has been used as both a constitutional check on the executive and increasingly as a political weapon.

Experts have argued that Mayorkas has simply been snared in a policy dispute with Republicans who disapprove of the Biden administration's approach to the border situation.

Three former secretaries of the Department of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, Janet Napolitano and Jeh Johnson, said in a letter Tuesday that impeaching the Cabinet official over policy disputes would "jeopardize our national security."

Trump as president was twice impeached — first in 2019 on abuse of power over his phone call with the Ukrainian president seeking a favor to dig up dirt on then-rival Biden, and later on the charge of inciting the Jan. 6, 2021 insurrection at the Capitol. He was acquitted on both impeachments in the Senate.

Associated Press writers Kevin Freking, Farnoush Amiri, Mary Clare Jalonick and Rebecca Santana contributed to this story.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/2/1707265437141.png" alt="House Speaker Mike Johnson announcing the final vote totals -image courtesy CSPAN" />
 <figcaption>House Speaker Mike Johnson announcing the final vote totals -image courtesy CSPAN</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — In a dramatic setback, House Republicans failed Tuesday to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, forced to shelve a high-profile priority — for now — after a few GOP lawmakers refused to go along with the party's plan.The GOP members of the Kansas delegation voted for impeachment. Four Republicans did join Democrats in voting against the resolution to impeach.On his social media account, Kansas U.S. Senator Roger Marshall, a longtime critic of Mayorkas, commented on outcome of the vote,&nbsp; "Disappointed in the House's showing tonight. However, the final vote belongs to the American people in November."<div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Joe Biden has the powers to secure the border, but instead he has decided to break the law and allow for an INVASION into our country. If he will not protect Americans, each state must be allowed to take matters into their own hands. <a href="https://t.co/EetbRGlxQY">pic.twitter.com/EetbRGlxQY</a>&mdash; Dr. Roger Marshall (@RogerMarshallMD) <a href="https://twitter.com/RogerMarshallMD/status/1755000980662313052?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 6, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>The stunning roll call fell just a single vote short of impeaching Mayorkas, stalling the Republicans' drive to punish the Biden administration over its handling of the U.S-Mexico border. With Democrats united against the charges, the Republicans needed almost every vote from their slim majority to approve the articles of impeachment.A noisy, rowdy scene erupted on the House floor as the vote was tied for several tense minutes, 215-215. Several Republican lawmakers — led by the impeachment's chief sponsor, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia — surrounded one of the holdouts, Wisconsin Republican Mike Gallagher, who refused to change his vote.With the tally stuck, Democrats shouted for the gavel to close out the vote."Frustrated," said Rep. Mark Green, R-Tenn., the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, "but we'll see it back again."House Speaker Mike Johnson's spokesman Raj Shah said they "fully intend" to reconsider the articles of impeachment against Mayorkas "when we have the votes for passage."<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2023/10/1698796524154.png" alt="File-Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas-image courtesy CSPAN" />
 <figcaption>File-Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas-image courtesy CSPAN</figcaption>
 </figure>But next steps are uncertain. In the end, three Republicans opposed the impeachment, and a fourth Republican switched his vote so the measure could be revisited. The final tally was 214-216.The outcome was another dismal result for the House Republicans who have repeatedly been unable to use their majority power to accomplish political goals, or even to keep up with the basics of governing.Johnson, who could afford only a few defections from his ranks, had said earlier he had personally spoken to Gallagher and another GOP holdout, acknowledging the "heavy, heavy" vote as he sought their support."It's an extreme measure," said Johnson, R-La. "But extreme times call for extreme measures."Not since 1876 has a Cabinet secretary faced impeachment charges and it's the first time a sitting secretary is being impeached — 148 years ago, Secretary of War William Belknap resigned just before the vote.The impeachment charges against Mayorkas come as border security is fast becoming a top political issue in the 2024 election, a particularly potent line of attack being leveled at President Joe Biden by Republicans, led by the party's front-runner for the presidential nomination, Donald Trump.Record numbers of people have been arriving at the southern border, many fleeing countries around the world, in what Mayorkas calls an era of global migration. Many migrants are claiming asylum and being conditionally released into the U.S., arriving in cities that are underequipped to provide housing and other aid while they await judicial proceedings which can take years to determine whether they may remain.The House Democrats united against the two articles of impeachment against Mayorkas, calling the proceedings a sham designed to please Trump, charges that do not rise to the Constitution's bar of treason, bribery or "high crimes and misdemeanors.""A bunch of garbage," said Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass. He called Mayorkas "a good man, a decent man," who is simply trying to do his job.Even if Republicans are able to impeach Mayorkas, he is not expected to be convicted in a Senate trial since Republican senators have been cool to the effort. The Senate could simply refer the matter to a committee for its own investigation, delaying immediate action."This baseless impeachment should never have moved forward," said Mia Ehrenberg, a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security.If House Republicans are "serious about border security, they should abandon these political games," she said.The impeachment of Mayorkas landed quickly onto the House agenda after Republican efforts to impeach Biden over the business dealings of his son, Hunter Biden, hit a lull, and the investigation into the Biden family dragged.The Committee on Homeland Security under Chairman Green had been investigating the secretary for much of the past year, including probing the flow of deadly fentanyl into the U.S. But a resolution from Georgia Rep. Greene pushed it to the fore. The panel swiftly held a pair of hearings in January before announcing the two articles of impeachment against Mayorkas.Unlike other moments in impeachment history, the afternoon's debate played out to an almost empty chamber, without the fervor or solemnity of past proceedings.Greene, who was named to be one of the impeachment managers if there is a Senate trial, rose to blame Mayorkas for the "invasion" of migrants coming to the U.S.Republican Rep. Eli Crane of Arizona said Mayorkas had committed a "dereliction of duty."Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said the Mayorkas impeachment vote was a stunt designed by Republicans to sow "chaos and confusion" and appease Trump — rather than to govern."No reasonable American can conclude that you're making life better for them by this sham impeachment," Jeffries said.It was only as the roll call came to a standstill that the chamber burst into an angry, boisterous scene as tempers flared and the vote failed.The three Republicans opposing impeachment were Gallagher, Rep. Ken Buck of Colorado and Tom McClintock of California. Republican Rep. Blake Moore of Utah was the Republican who switched his vote on procedural grounds.At one point, Democratic Rep. Al Green of Texas, who had missed votes earlier in the day, arrived from the hospital to cast his vote against the impeachment. Green told NBC News that he had gone to the emergency room and had surgery.McClintock, in a memo, said the charges "fail to identify an impeachable crime that Mayorkas has committed." He said the articles of impeachment from the committee explain the problems at the border under Biden's watch. But, he said, "they stretch and distort the Constitution."Tuesday's vote arrived at a politically odd juncture for Mayorkas, who has been negotiating a bipartisan border security package in the Senate, earning high marks from a group of senators involved.But that legislation, which emerged Sunday as one of the most ambitious immigration overhauls in years, collapsed Tuesday as Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell acknowledged that the deal was dead.. Trump had sharply criticized the bipartisan effort and Speaker Johnson said it was "dead on arrival."Impeachment, once rare in the U.S., has been used as both a constitutional check on the executive and increasingly as a political weapon.Experts have argued that Mayorkas has simply been snared in a policy dispute with Republicans who disapprove of the Biden administration's approach to the border situation.Three former secretaries of the Department of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, Janet Napolitano and Jeh Johnson, said in a letter Tuesday that impeaching the Cabinet official over policy disputes would "jeopardize our national security."Trump as president was twice impeached — first in 2019 on abuse of power over his phone call with the Ukrainian president seeking a favor to dig up dirt on then-rival Biden, and later on the charge of inciting the Jan. 6, 2021 insurrection at the Capitol. He was acquitted on both impeachments in the Senate.___Associated Press writers Kevin Freking, Farnoush Amiri, Mary Clare Jalonick and Rebecca Santana contributed to this story.

Kan. U.S. Senator: Final vote on Mayorkas impeachment in November

KANSAS CITY — A high school student has been charged as a result of an altercation that injured a school resource officer, according to Jackson County Prosecutor Jean Peters Baker announced today.

Tre'viar Lowe faces a count of Assault 3rd Degree Special Victim.

According to court records filed Tuesday, officers with the Kansas City (MO) Police Department who are assigned to Southeast High School,&nbsp;3500 E Meyer Boulevard in Kansas CIty, as school resource officers, observed on Monday an altercation involving students at the school. 

They responded and an officer was kicked several times by a student while the officer was escorting a female student to school administrators. 

Lowe jumped into the scuffle and had a headlock on the officer for 10 seconds before he was pulled away. The officer complained of a sore throat, had labored breathing and is currently in the hospital.

KANSAS CITY — A high school student has been charged as a result of an altercation that injured a school resource officer, according to Jackson County Prosecutor Jean Peters Baker announced today.Tre'viar Lowe faces a count of Assault 3rd Degree Special Victim.According to court records filed Tuesday, officers with the Kansas City (MO) Police Department who are assigned to Southeast High School,&nbsp;3500 E Meyer Boulevard in Kansas CIty, as school resource officers, observed on Monday an altercation involving students at the school. They responded and an officer was kicked several times by a student while the officer was escorting a female student to school administrators. Lowe jumped into the scuffle and had a headlock on the officer for 10 seconds before he was pulled away. The officer complained of a sore throat, had labored breathing and is currently in the hospital.

Student put KC school resource officer in a headlock during fight

State’s GOP attorney general requested the justices release grip on Gannon decision

BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/tim-carpenter/">TIM CARPENTER</a>&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/">Kansas Reflector</a>

TOPEKA — The Kansas Supreme Court issued a two-page order Tuesday releasing jurisdiction of the Gannon v. State school finance case after concluding the Legislature complied with mandates to resolve violations of the Kansas Constitution by suitably funding public education.

The Supreme Court issued the Gannon decision in 2019, but retained a grip on that case pending enactment of incremental increases in state aid to K-12 schools across Kansas. In a previous school funding case, the Legislature faltered on delivery of anticipated investment in schools and triggered litigation leading to Gannon.

Attorney General Kris Kobach requested the justices issue the order given funding adjustments were completed in the 2022-2023 school year.

“The Legislature must not take this ruling as license to cut funding from our public schools and crush an entire generation of Kansas students,” said Gov. Laura Kelly, a Democrat. “Our schools have made so much progress over the past five years because we’ve fully funded K-12 education. Our students can’t afford to turn back the clock.”

Kelly said nearly 500,000 public school students shouldn’t bear the brunt of risky state tax experiments capable of draining the state treasury and leading to school budget cuts, four-day academic weeks and costly litigation.

“I am committed to standing against any and all attempts to strip our schools of the funding they need to prepare our students for success,” the governor said.

The order signed by Chief Justice Marla Luckert said Gannon plaintiff school districts acknowledged the Legislature had appropriated funding for the current and upcoming school years based on the approved formula, but the plaintiffs also raised concern “no one can know whether these amounts are sufficient” to meet needs.

“Given the court’s stated purpose was to retain jurisdiction to ensure implementation of the phased-in amounts and that has occurred, a majority of the court grants the (Kobach) motion,” the Supreme Court said.

Justice Eric Rosen, an appointee of Democratic Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, dissented from the majority. The order said Rosen would have denied the attorney general’s request and preserved the court’s control of the case given “legislative history of school funding” in Kansas.

Justice Caleb Stegall, an appointee of Republican Gov. Sam Brownback, didn’t participate in the court’s decision.

<h2>State’s GOP attorney general requested the justices release grip on Gannon decision</h2><figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2023/1/1672955037881.png" alt="The Kansas Supreme Court issued an order signed by Chief Justice Marla Luckert releasing after five years the court’s jurisdiction of Gannon v. State given the&nbsp; Legislature’s appropriation of funding to deal with school funding violations of the Kansas Constitution.&nbsp;" />
 <figcaption>The Kansas Supreme Court issued an order signed by Chief Justice Marla Luckert releasing after five years the court’s jurisdiction of Gannon v. State given the&nbsp; Legislature’s appropriation of funding to deal with school funding violations of the Kansas Constitution.&nbsp;</figcaption>
 </figure>BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/tim-carpenter/">TIM CARPENTER</a>&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/">Kansas Reflector</a>TOPEKA — The Kansas Supreme Court issued a two-page order Tuesday releasing jurisdiction of the Gannon v. State school finance case after concluding the Legislature complied with mandates to resolve violations of the Kansas Constitution by suitably funding public education.The Supreme Court issued the Gannon decision in 2019, but retained a grip on that case pending enactment of incremental increases in state aid to K-12 schools across Kansas. In a previous school funding case, the Legislature faltered on delivery of anticipated investment in schools and triggered litigation leading to Gannon.Attorney General Kris Kobach requested the justices issue the order given funding adjustments were completed in the 2022-2023 school year.“The Legislature must not take this ruling as license to cut funding from our public schools and crush an entire generation of Kansas students,” said Gov. Laura Kelly, a Democrat. “Our schools have made so much progress over the past five years because we’ve fully funded K-12 education. Our students can’t afford to turn back the clock.”Kelly said nearly 500,000 public school students shouldn’t bear the brunt of risky state tax experiments capable of draining the state treasury and leading to school budget cuts, four-day academic weeks and costly litigation.“I am committed to standing against any and all attempts to strip our schools of the funding they need to prepare our students for success,” the governor said.The order signed by Chief Justice Marla Luckert said Gannon plaintiff school districts acknowledged the Legislature had appropriated funding for the current and upcoming school years based on the approved formula, but the plaintiffs also raised concern “no one can know whether these amounts are sufficient” to meet needs.“Given the court’s stated purpose was to retain jurisdiction to ensure implementation of the phased-in amounts and that has occurred, a majority of the court grants the (Kobach) motion,” the Supreme Court said.Justice Eric Rosen, an appointee of Democratic Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, dissented from the majority. The order said Rosen would have denied the attorney general’s request and preserved the court’s control of the case given “legislative history of school funding” in Kansas.Justice Caleb Stegall, an appointee of Republican Gov. Sam Brownback, didn’t participate in the court’s decision.

Kan. Supreme Court ends 5-year hold on jurisdiction of public school funding case

BARTON COUNTY —Law enforcement authorities are investigating a suspect on drug allegations after a traffic stop.

Just after 2 a.m. Tuesday, p0lice conducted a traffic stop on a vehicle in the 900 block of Farmer's Plaza Lane in Great Bend for a moving infraction, according to a media release.

Officer's asked for consent to search the vehicle and the driver identified as 25-year-old Maddison Crawford granted permission and told officers there were drugs in the vehicle.

While searching the vehicle, Officers located a white crystal-like substance consistent with methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia inside of the vehicle. Police placed Crawford under arrest and booked him into the Barton County jail on requested charges of possession of methamphetamine, possession of drug paraphernalia, no tax stamp and illegal window tint. He is being held in lieu of a $10,000 bond.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/2/1707255085033.jpeg" alt="Crawford photo Barton Co." />
 <figcaption>Crawford photo Barton Co.</figcaption>
 </figure>BARTON COUNTY —Law enforcement authorities are investigating a suspect on drug allegations after a traffic stop.Just after 2 a.m. Tuesday, p0lice conducted a traffic stop on a vehicle in the 900 block of Farmer's Plaza Lane in Great Bend for a moving infraction, according to a media release.Officer's asked for consent to search the vehicle and the driver identified as 25-year-old Maddison Crawford granted permission and told officers there were drugs in the vehicle.While searching the vehicle, Officers located a white crystal-like substance consistent with methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia inside of the vehicle. Police placed Crawford under arrest and booked him into the Barton County jail on requested charges of possession of methamphetamine, possession of drug paraphernalia, no tax stamp and illegal window tint. He is being held in lieu of a $10,000 bond.

Driver told Kansas officers of meth in his vehicle

TEL AVIV, Israel (AP) — Two ships traveling in Middle East waters were targeted by&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/us-houthis-red-sea-jake-sullivan-yemen-ff507d06a7a44d6f3644f128e7766b3d">Yemen Houthi rebel</a>&nbsp;ballistic missile fire early Tuesday, authorities said, in the latest assaults in the Iranian-backed fighters' campaign of targeting vessels over Israel's war on Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

The first attack happened in the southern part of the Red Sea, west of the Yemeni port of Hodeida, with the projectile causing “slight damage” to the Barbados-flagged, United Kingdom-owned cargo ship Morning Tide's bridge windows, the British military's United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations said. A small vessel had been nearby the ship before the attack, it added.

The Houthis carried out the attack using three anti-ship ballistic missiles, the United States military's Central Command said early Wednesday.

The Morning Tide’s owner, British firm Furadino Shipping, told The Associated Press no one was hurt in the attack and the ship was continuing onward to Singapore.

A second ship, the Marshall Islands-flagged, Greek-owned bulk carrier Star Nasia, also came under fire from three Houthi ballistic missiles, Central Command said. The USS Laboon, an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, shot down one missile, the military said. An explosion from one of the missiles caused “minor damage but no injuries” on the Star Narsia, the Central Command said.

A military spokesperson of the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels, Brig. Gen. Yahya Saree, claimed both attacks in a statement.

Since November, the rebels have repeatedly targeted ships in the Red Sea over&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/israel-hamas-war">Israel’s offensive in Gaza</a>. But they have frequently targeted vessels with tenuous or no clear links to Israel, imperiling shipping in a key route for trade among Asia, the Mideast and Europe.

In recent weeks, the United States and the United Kingdom, backed by other allies, have launched airstrikes targeting Houthi missile arsenals and launch sites for its attacks.

The U.S. and Britain struck 36 Houthi targets in Yemen on Saturday. An air assault Friday in Iraq and Syria targeted&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/hamas-hezbollah-houthis-iran-militant-groups-745bfc36e23997ee3f0bc499a9f5c16d">other Iranian-backed militias</a>&nbsp;and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard in retaliation for a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-american-service-members-killed-jordan-iran-5cb774fd835a558d840ae91263037489">drone strike that killed three U.S. troops</a>&nbsp;in Jordan.

Central Command also acknowledged an attack Monday on the Houthis, in which they attacked what they described as two Houthi drone boats loaded with explosives.

American forces “determined they presented an imminent threat to U.S. Navy ships and merchant vessels in the region,” the military said. “These actions will protect freedom of navigation and make international waters safer and more secure for U.S. Navy vessels and merchant vessels.”

Separately, the White House on Tuesday walked back an earlier statement that it had alerted the Iraqi government prior to carrying out Friday's Iraq and Syria strikes. National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby told reporters shortly after the strikes that Iraqi official were given advance warning about the U.S.-led operation. He said the assertion was based on information that was provided to him by U.S. officials.

“Turns out that information was incorrect,” said Kirby. He added that he regretted the error.

Kirby’s initial comments generated controversy in Iraq and vehement denials by officials in Baghdad. Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani has sought to walk a delicate line between the U.S. and Iran-backed armed groups in his country, many of which have associated political parties in the coalition that brought his government to power.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/2/1707001115180.png" alt="Image from video of launches from US. Warships supporting strikes on Iranian-backed Houthi targets over the weekend-U.S. Central CommandU.S. Central Command" />
 <figcaption>Image from video of launches from US. Warships supporting strikes on Iranian-backed Houthi targets over the weekend-U.S. Central CommandU.S. Central Command</figcaption>
 </figure>TEL AVIV, Israel (AP) — Two ships traveling in Middle East waters were targeted by&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/us-houthis-red-sea-jake-sullivan-yemen-ff507d06a7a44d6f3644f128e7766b3d">Yemen Houthi rebel</a>&nbsp;ballistic missile fire early Tuesday, authorities said, in the latest assaults in the Iranian-backed fighters' campaign of targeting vessels over Israel's war on Hamas in the Gaza Strip.The first attack happened in the southern part of the Red Sea, west of the Yemeni port of Hodeida, with the projectile causing “slight damage” to the Barbados-flagged, United Kingdom-owned cargo ship Morning Tide's bridge windows, the British military's United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations said. A small vessel had been nearby the ship before the attack, it added.The Houthis carried out the attack using three anti-ship ballistic missiles, the United States military's Central Command said early Wednesday.The Morning Tide’s owner, British firm Furadino Shipping, told The Associated Press no one was hurt in the attack and the ship was continuing onward to Singapore.A second ship, the Marshall Islands-flagged, Greek-owned bulk carrier Star Nasia, also came under fire from three Houthi ballistic missiles, Central Command said. The USS Laboon, an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, shot down one missile, the military said. An explosion from one of the missiles caused “minor damage but no injuries” on the Star Narsia, the Central Command said.A military spokesperson of the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels, Brig. Gen. Yahya Saree, claimed both attacks in a statement.Since November, the rebels have repeatedly targeted ships in the Red Sea over&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/israel-hamas-war">Israel’s offensive in Gaza</a>. But they have frequently targeted vessels with tenuous or no clear links to Israel, imperiling shipping in a key route for trade among Asia, the Mideast and Europe.In recent weeks, the United States and the United Kingdom, backed by other allies, have launched airstrikes targeting Houthi missile arsenals and launch sites for its attacks.The U.S. and Britain struck 36 Houthi targets in Yemen on Saturday. An air assault Friday in Iraq and Syria targeted&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/hamas-hezbollah-houthis-iran-militant-groups-745bfc36e23997ee3f0bc499a9f5c16d">other Iranian-backed militias</a>&nbsp;and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard in retaliation for a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-american-service-members-killed-jordan-iran-5cb774fd835a558d840ae91263037489">drone strike that killed three U.S. troops</a>&nbsp;in Jordan.Central Command also acknowledged an attack Monday on the Houthis, in which they attacked what they described as two Houthi drone boats loaded with explosives.American forces “determined they presented an imminent threat to U.S. Navy ships and merchant vessels in the region,” the military said. “These actions will protect freedom of navigation and make international waters safer and more secure for U.S. Navy vessels and merchant vessels.”Separately, the White House on Tuesday walked back an earlier statement that it had alerted the Iraqi government prior to carrying out Friday's Iraq and Syria strikes. National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby told reporters shortly after the strikes that Iraqi official were given advance warning about the U.S.-led operation. He said the assertion was based on information that was provided to him by U.S. officials.“Turns out that information was incorrect,” said Kirby. He added that he regretted the error.Kirby’s initial comments generated controversy in Iraq and vehement denials by officials in Baghdad. Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani has sought to walk a delicate line between the U.S. and Iran-backed armed groups in his country, many of which have associated political parties in the coalition that brought his government to power.Sudani has condemned attacks on American troops, but has also pushed back against&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-jordan-dignified-transfer-dover-140000aa392fee8175616d8af813c0eb">U.S. retaliatory strikes</a>. Some of those strikes have hit facilities connected to the Popular Mobilization Forces, a coalition of mostly Shiite, Iran-backed militias that was officially made part of the Iraqi military after joining the fight against the Islamic State in 2014 — although in practice, the militias continue to operate largely outside of state control.Sudani has also called for an end to a U.S.-led coalition formed to fight IS. Some 2,500 U.S. troops are stationed in Iraq as part of the mission. In late January, Iraqi and U.S. military officials launched a series of formal discussions on winding down the coalition’s presence. The talks were then suspended after the Jan. 28 strike in Jordan that killed three U.S. troops, but are expected to resume again in the coming weeks.Iraq’s representative to the United Nations, Abbas Kadhim Obaid, speaking Tuesday as the U.N. Security Council met, condemned the U.S. strikes, as well as recent strikes launched by Turkey and Iran on Iraqi turf, as a breach of the country’s sovereignty.