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 ---
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] <javascript:>> > 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$, >> --MJ >> >> "The point is that republican government is premised on the idea of >> consent. The people consented to the interpretation of the Constitution >> that was presented to them in the ratifying conventions. If in the interim >> no formal change in the Constitution has been forthcoming from the people, >> then the understanding that was presented at the ratifying conventions must >> be presumed to stand. Otherwise, professors at Georgetown University could >> impose their own preferences on the public instead." -- Tom Woods >> >> >> >> >> >> At 01:07 PM 3/1/2015, you wrote: >> >> Here ya go Michael: >> >> >> >> *The Congress shall have the power: To make all laws which shall be >> necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and >> all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the >> United States, or in any department or officer thereof.* >> >> >> >> >> * https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section1 >> <https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section1> * >> On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 11:20 AM, MJ <[email protected] <javascript:>> >> wrote: >> >> Opinion? Really? >> >> Here is the Constitution: >> http://www.constitution.org/cons/constitu.txt >> >> Can you locate the BASIS for this legislation? >> [Hint: it simply is NOT there] >> >> Are you content with worshipping *whatever* an ever-changing majority of >> Justices decree? >> >> If one actually READS the Constitution, one discovers that it is >> GOVERNMENT that is prohibited from "discrimination". >> >> Additionally, Amendment XIII SPECIFICALLY prohibits "involuntary >> servitude". >> >> Regard$, >> --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] <javascript:>> >> 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] >> <javascript:>> 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] <javascript:>. >> 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] <javascript:>. >> 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] <javascript:>. >> 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] <javascript:>. >> 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] <javascript:>. >> 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] <javascript:>. >> 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] <javascript:>. >> 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.
