Luck? I don't need luck....I spent three years at Stetson College of Law, as well as an additional four years at the University of Tampa studying Political Science; plus an additional fifteen years practicing these skills; all aiding me in my quest to fathom and understand how and why our Constitutional system works.
The bottom line? Whether you deem something "Unconstitutional" has no bearing unless a Court with standing in the United States mandates it as such. On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 1:14 PM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > That is a good start ... > > Note it says "foregoing" and "vested". > > > *[AIS8C18 is another LIMITATION] *NOW you need to find that power that > would be the BASIS. > > Good Luck! > > > Regard$, > --MJ > > "The point is that republican government is premised on the idea of > consent. The people consented to the interpretation of the Constitution > that was presented to them in the ratifying conventions. If in the interim > no formal change in the Constitution has been forthcoming from the people, > then the understanding that was presented at the ratifying conventions must > be presumed to stand. Otherwise, professors at Georgetown University could > impose their own preferences on the public instead." -- Tom Woods > > > > > > At 01:07 PM 3/1/2015, you wrote: > > Here ya go Michael: > > > > *The Congress shall have the power: To make all laws which shall be > necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and > all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the > United States, or in any department or officer thereof.* > > > > > * https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section1 > <https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section1> * > On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 11:20 AM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > Opinion? Really? > > Here is the Constitution: > http://www.constitution.org/cons/constitu.txt > > Can you locate the BASIS for this legislation? > [Hint: it simply is NOT there] > > Are you content with worshipping *whatever* an ever-changing majority of > Justices decree? > > If one actually READS the Constitution, one discovers that it is > GOVERNMENT that is prohibited from "discrimination". > > Additionally, Amendment XIII SPECIFICALLY prohibits "involuntary > servitude". > > Regard$, > --MJ > > "Has anyone noticed that Gruber's approach to selling Obamacare has been > liberals' approach to the Constitution since the Revolution of 1937? "We'll > just say that it means what we want it to mean, whatever the issue and > despite over 100 years of its meaning the opposite, every single time, > because average Americans are too dumb to know we're lying." The only thing > unusual about Gruber is that he was perfectly candid about having lied; in > law schools, this is called "constitutional theory." > "This reminds me of one of my mentors at UVA, the leading historian of > 19th-century American politics (now retired). "Kevin," he once said to me, > "there's one theme that runs through American political history: although I > don't always think much of their opponents, I hate the Democrats."" -- > Kevin Gutzman > > > > > At 10:35 AM 3/1/2015, you wrote: > > Title VII is unconstitutional, "In Your Opinion"......Obviously the > Supremes and the Twelve Circuit Courts around the United States don't feel > that way. > > On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 2:45 PM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > The entire thing is nonsense. Title VII is unconstitutional. The CRA of > 64 is unconstitutional. > Regard$, --MJ > "The bottom line is that the true test of one's commitment to freedom of > association doesn't come when he allows people to associate in ways he > approves. The true test of that commitment comes when he allows people to > be free to voluntarily associate in ways he deems despicable. Forced > association is not freedom of association." -- Walter Williams > > > > At 11:02 AM 2/28/2015, you wrote: > > According to the 10th Circuit, (as Travis's article points out)  > > "Title VII requires that employers have explicit, verbal notice of a job > applicant’s s religious needs that may conflict with company > policy.‚ Such direct notice is required, the appeals court decided, > so that the employer has “particularized, actual knowledgeÃe†that > hat the applicant follows a specific faith practice and will need an > accommodation for it. Because Elauf did not provvide that in her > crucial job interview, the appeals court ruled, there was no Title VII > violation in the refusal to hire her." In other words, if XYZ Temps knew > that John's religious convictions would be in conflict with its workplace > dress code, then then XYZ Temps had no obligation to hire John.  > > > http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/02/argument-preview-faith-and-a-workplace-dress-code/ > On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 8:28 AM, plainolamerican < > [email protected]> wrote: Jon, a clerical worker who is an > observant Jew, wears tzitzit (ritual knotted garment fringes at the four > corners of his shirt) and a yarmulke (or skull cap) in conformance with his > Jewish beliefs. XYZ Temps places Jon in a long-term assignment with one of > its client companies. The client asks XYZ to notify Jon that he must remove > his yarmulke and his tzitzit while working at the front desk, or assign > another person to Jon's position. According to the client, Jon's religious > attire presents the "wrong image" and also violates its dress code > prohibiting any headgear and requiring "appropriate business attire." XYZ > Temps may not comply with this client request without violating Title VII. > > The client also would violate Title VII if it changed Jon's duties to > keep him out of public view, or if it required him not to wear his yarmulke > or his tzitzit when interacting with customers. Assigning Jon to a position > out of public view is segregation in violation of Title VII. Moreover, > because notions about customer preference (real or perceived) do not > establish undue hardship, the client must make an exception to its dress > code to let Jon wear his religious garb during front desk duty as a > religious accommodation. XYZ should strongly advise its client that the EEO > laws require allowing Jon to wear this religious garb at work and that, if > the client does not withdraw its request, XYZ will place Jon in another > assignment at the same rate of pay and decline to assign another worker to > the client.[9] 1. What is the federal law relating to religious dress and > grooming in the workplace? Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 > U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., as amended ("Title VII"),prohibits employers > with at least 15 employees (including private sector, state, and local > government employers), as well as employment agencies, unions, and federal > government agencies, from discriminating in employment based on race, > color, religion, sex, or national origin. It also prohibits retaliation > against persons who complain of discrimination or participate in an EEO > investigation. With respect to religion, Title VII prohibits among other > things: disparate treatment based on religion in recruitment, hiring, > promotion, benefits, training, job duties, termination, or any other aspect > of employment (except that "religious organizations" as defined under Title > VII are permitted to prefer members of their own religion in deciding whom > to employ); denial of reasonable accommodation for sincerely held > religious practices, unless the accommodation would cause an undue hardship > for the employer; workplace or job segregation based on religion; workplace > harassment based on religion; retaliation for requesting an accommodation > (whether or not granted), for filing a discrimination charge with the EEOC, > for testifying, assisting, or participating in any manner in an EEOC > investigation or EEO proceeding, or for opposing discrimination. There > may be state or local laws in your jurisdiction that have protections that > are parallel to or broader than those in Title VII. 2. Does Title VII > apply to all aspects of religious practice or belief? Yes. Title VII > protects all aspects of religious observance, practice, and belief, and > defines religion very broadly to include not only traditional, organized > religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and > Sikhism, but also religious beliefs that are new, uncommon, not part of a > formal church or sect, only subscribed to by a small number of people, or > may seem illogical or unreasonable to others. > > Religious practices may be based on theistic beliefs or non-theistic > moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right or wrong that are sincerely > held with the strength of traditional religious views. Religious > observances or practices include, for example, attending worship services, > praying, wearing religious garb or symbols, displaying religious objects, > adhering to certain dietary rules, proselytizing or other forms of > religious expression, or refraining from certain activities. Moreover, an > employee's belief or practice can be "religious" under Title VII even if it > is not followed by others in the same religious sect, denomination, or > congregation, or even if the employee is unaffiliated with a formal > religious organization.[1] The law's protections also extend to those who > are discriminated against or need accommodation because they profess no > religious beliefs. For example, an employer that is not a religious > organization (as legally defined under Title VII) cannot make employees > wear religious garb or articles (such as a cross) if they object on grounds > of non-belief. > Because this definition is so broad, whether or not a practice or belief > is religious typically is not disputed in Title VII religious > discrimination cases. 3. Does the law apply to dress or grooming > practices that are religious for an applicant or employee, even if other > people engage in the same practice for non-religious reasons? > > Yes. Title VII applies to any practice that is motivated by a religious > belief, even if other people may engage in the same practice for secular > reasons.[2] However, if a dress or grooming practice is a personal > preference, for example, where it is worn for fashion rather than for > religious reasons, it does not come under Title VII's religion protections. 4. > What if an employer questions whether the applicant's or employee's > asserted religious practice is sincerely held? Title VII's accommodation > requirement only applies to religious beliefs that are "sincerely held." > However, just because an individual's religious practices may deviate from > commonly-followed tenets of the religion, the employer should not > automatically assume that his or her religious observance is not sincere. > Moreover, an individual's religious beliefs - or degree of adherence - may > change over time, yet may nevertheless be sincerely held. Therefore, like > the "religious" nature of a belief or practice, the "sincerity" of an > employee's stated religious belief is usually not in dispute in religious > discrimination cases. However, if an employer has a legitimate reason for > questioning the sincerity or even the religious nature of a particular > belief or practice for which accommodation has been requested, it may ask > an applicant or employee for information reasonably needed to evaluate the > request. > > On Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 8:02:09 PM UTC-6, Bill wrote: While > they are at it, I hope the Supreme Court will make decisions regarding > dress codes for work, school and home......after all they don't have > important issues to deal with!  In a message dated 2/26/2015 5:36:56 > A.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected] <http://??> writes: > > > > BareNakedIslam posted: "Supremacist Muslim women, encouraged by > designated terrorist group CAIR, have been engaging in a sneaky scheme to > go on job interviews without wearing a bag on their head, only to start > wearing it at work AFTER they have been hired. If the company fires t" > > > *New post on BARE NAKED ISLAM* > > > > > > > * Can you believe the U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether employers > have the right to fire Muslim women who decide to defy the > company’s s dress code after being hired? > <http://www.barenakedislam.com/2015/02/25/can-you-believe-the-u-s-supreme-court-will-consider-whether-employers-have-the-right-to-fire-muslim-women-who-decide-to-defy-the-companys-dress-code-after-being-hired/>* > > > > > > by BareNakedIslam <http://www.barenakedislam.com/?author=1> > Supremacist Muslim women, encouraged by designated terrorist group CAIR, > have been engaging in a sneaky scheme to go on job interviews without > wearing a bag on their head, only to start wearing it at work AFTER they > have been hired. If the company fires them, they take the company to court. > A business has the […] > > Read more of this post > <http://www.barenakedislam.com/2015/02/25/can-you-believe-the-u-s-supreme-court-will-consider-whether-employers-have-the-right-to-fire-muslim-women-who-decide-to-defy-the-companys-dress-code-after-being-hired/> > BareNakedIslam <http://www.barenakedislam.com/?author=1> | February 25, > 2015 at 4:38 pm | Categories: EnemyWithin-America > <http://www.barenakedislam.com/?taxonomy=category&term=enemywithin-america> > | URL: http://wp.me/p276zM-1cf4 > > Comment > <http://www.barenakedislam.com/2015/02/25/can-you-believe-the-u-s-supreme-court-will-consider-whether-employers-have-the-right-to-fire-muslim-women-who-decide-to-defy-the-companys-dress-code-after-being-hired/#respond> >    ‚ See all comments > <http://www.barenakedislam.com/2015/02/25/can-you-believe-the-u-s-supreme-court-will-consider-whether-employers-have-the-right-to-fire-muslim-women-who-decide-to-defy-the-companys-dress-code-after-being-hired/#comments> > Unsubscribe > <https://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=eaced905935c28c895fe4e47a2730614&email=bovinescatologists%40gmail.com&b=LLV%26%5Bh1%263RKK8ZmsWEM%25L%26i.nOxKfqimvY%5DVB%2BceJCVX42TPCkU> > to no longer receive posts from BARE NAKED ISLAM. > Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions > <https://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=eaced905935c28c895fe4e47a2730614&email=bovinescatologists%40gmail.com>. > > Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: > > http://www.barenakedislam.com/2015/02/25/can-you-believe-the-u-s-supreme-court-will-consider-whether-employers-have-the-right-to-fire-muslim-women-who-decide-to-defy-the-companys-dress-code-after-being-hired/ > > > > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >  > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > <http://www.politicalforum.com/> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected] <http://??>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >  > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >  > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >  > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >  > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >  > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
