Well said.....
On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 10:20 PM, THE ANNOINTED ONE <[email protected]> wrote: > Not only must the court have standing but the person or entity that brings > the case must as well. And Michael, I also have degrees in the law. Keiths > interpretation is not only correct in the US but in the 30 or so nations I > have practiced as well as in the World Court. The definition of "foregoing" > is simple.... it means Congress has the power to make laws that enable the > government in anything and everything mentioned prior in the Constitution > that is not explicitly denied to Congress. It is not Rocket Science. The > problem comes into it when idiots try to redefine words or the words that > are in a definition to meet their personal agenda. > > > On Sunday, March 1, 2015 at 12:18:33 PM UTC-6, KeithInTampa wrote: >> >> 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. > -- -- 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.
