MJ wrote: As I already noted, CRA of 64 is unconstitutional. The Congress had ZERO authority regarding their whole cloth invention "public accommodation". Additionally, it violates Amendments IX, X and XIII.
According to who? You? That would make it, "Your Opinion". On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:15 AM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > As was obvious, I am well aware of the meanings of FOREGOING & VESTED. > Projection? Really? > There is no FOREGOING power from which to derive a necessary and proper > law NOR is one otherwise VESTED in regards to Title VII or CRA 64. > The failure on the part of those claiming such a power exists to identify > it speaks volumes. > Furthermore, Title VII and CRA of 64 violate Amendments IX, X and XIII. > > Perhaps an example will aid you: > A bill is offered to purchase boats for the Navy. > One READILY notes that there is no Power to 'buy boats for the Navy'. > One does note AIS8C18 allowing for "Laws which shall be necessary and > proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers" > AIS8C13 provides a Power To 'provide and maintain a Navy'. > Certainly it is necessary and proper to 'buy boats' in order to execute > THAT power. > > I merely ASKED for the power related to THIS effort. > All sorts of irrelevance was spewed, of course, but NO POWER was provided. > > Not only does your redefining of constitutional put the Constitution on > its head as there is no possible LIMITATION had, but it allows the > Judiciary to simply WISH anything contested away. > > The difficulty you worshippers are having is explained here: *"As Justice > William Brennan, the closest thing to a 20th-century Marshall, would say, > with five votes, a justice can do anything. This "Rule of Five" was not > enunciated in those terms before Brennan, but it might as well have been. > Republicanism – rule via elected officials; federalism – the division of > powers between the state and federal governments; and limited government > have been the perennial victims of judicial misconstruction of the > Constitution. The case names and subjects under dispute have changed, but > the tendency has been the same: a persistent power grab by the federal > government, in the persons of federal judges. Over time, the arrogation has > been increasingly bald-faced. **"Suppose that a federal judge opposed > this tendency of "constitutional law" to distort the constitutional system; > might he not counteract it? The form of legal education in American law > schools today makes that exceedingly unlikely. **"Since the beginning of > the 20th century, legal education has been dominated by the "case method" > of instruction, which substitutes reading of judicial opinions for > historical study. Thus, "Constitutional Law" classes feature a heaping > helping of the opinions of John Marshall, William Brennan, and their ilk, > and no consideration at all of the debates in the ratification conventions > in which Federalists authoritatively told the American people how the > Constitution would work. Only the mischaracterizations, in other words, and > not the truth. * > > *"Lawyers-in-training are never told that Marshall’s opinions came out > exactly, precisely, completely, perfectly opposite where he and his fellow > Virginia Ratification Convention Federalists explicitly and vociferously > said they would, or that William Brennan’s account of the Fourteenth > Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause has no relationship to that provision’s > intended meaning. Even "originalist" judges, then, are unlikely to be very > originalist."* As I noted, the CONSTITUTION -- not the Constitutional Law > substitution -- does not provide for Title VII NOR the CRA of 64. > > Regard$, > --MJ > > "You seem ... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all > Constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which > would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as > honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same > passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. ... Their > power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not > responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The > Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever > hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would > become despots. -- Thomas Jefferson > > > > > > At 10:20 PM 3/1/2015, you 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 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 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 l > knowledgeÃe†that hat the applicant follows a specific faith > practice and will need an accommodation for it. Becaucause 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 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> >   Ã‒‚ ‚ 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. > -- -- 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.
