Boy risks suspension to join Girl's Bowling Team

I have another interesting read for you:

 

I'm not a lawyer. Apparently, you are. I question why they even bother teaching the Constitution in law school, since it's essentially ignored anyway.

Just because the Federal Government chooses to ignore the Constitution when it's not convienent for them to follow it doesn't mean it's right, or legal - at least in my opinion.

Just like, at least in my opinion, Justice Stone's Fourth Footnote is wrong by establishing a presumption of Constitutionality for Federal Legislation and places the burden of proof on normal citizens to disprove the Constitutionality of legislation, rather than the government having the burden to prove that their restriction of liberty is constitutional.

I also disagree with his assertion that judicial review is limited to amendments 1-10 and 14.

Especially nowadays, since over the past 80 or so years, the Federal government has essentially completely ignored the limits set forth in Article I, Section 8 - which are essentially made solid limits by the 10th Amendment - I feel that we need Judicial Review applied to the WHOLE Constitution, not just the parts that politicians can manipulate to get more votes.

What's the point of the 10th Amendment when the Federal government essentially does whatever the hell it wants, even things not outlined in Article I Section 8 as their reserved powers (which, due to the 10th Amendment, are the ONLY things they are allowed to do?

As if all this is not bad enough, they've essentially taken to currently completely ignoring Amendments I, IV, V (recent eminent domain decision)... just to start.

So, no, I don't think that law is necessary.

What does the 14th Amendment say? This should be covered under that.

Oh, that's right, the Supreme Court (for some reason) has seen it fit to limit the application of this Amendment - again, I guess it's only good to enforce liberties that will make you popular or consolidate the power of your political party of choice, ignoring the fact that the Constitution is there to protect people like you and I.

Hm, because the 14th amendment couldn't possibly apply to, I do not know, gay marriage or anything, right? No, we only use it to defend minorities... I mean... racial minorities.... or sexual minorities (except gays, of course) that we feel bad about mistreating in the past.

And you know, why would we use the 9th amendment to invalidate a law. Pesky liberty, always keeping us from, oh, I do not know, getting warrants after the fact, or wiretapping phones, any of that other stuff. You know, because there's not already amendments against that stuff, that are further reinforced by the 9th amendment....

But, you know, again, that damned Constitution, protecting people from tyranny and stuff.

Not to mention things like the FAA, FCC, FDA, CIA, FBI, etc, so on and so forth.

Not that I disagree with the usefulness of the central management of some duties these organizations perform... but... you know.... that pesky Constitution again. Much better to blackmail states into ignoring their Constitutionally protected rights.

Because it's OK when the Federal Government uses blackmail..... but for everyone else, it's a crime.

Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I did take 16 years of English lessons, so I think I can read, and I do have a grasp of the English language, so I think, you know, I can comprehend...

Not to mention the fact that unlike the members of the SCOTUS, I can apparently research documents authored by the people who were involved in the creation of our nation to establish... mmm.. intent... instead of just pulling shit out of my nice person because I'm more concerned with forwarding my own agenda or that of the political affiliation I have then upholding my oath... you know.

I'm sure I've made an nice person out of myself somewhere in the above rant, because again, you are a lawyer, I am not, but please feel free to impart any knowledge you have to offer. I'm very interested in discussing this with someone who is a lawyer - I think I could certainly learn a thing or two, and maybe expand your perspective, too.

Modified: Correction of various errors due to writing while tired.

 

I don't understand your motivation against "testing the waters". The fact is that if something is unconstitutional, it should be fought, regardless if you personally have been hurt by it (or, if apparently in your opinion, their level of injury isn't high enough).

 

Not to mention the fact that he has a perfectly valid point.

Last time I checked, challenges against the Constitutionality weren't limited to people who only have motivations that are acceptable to Schmika or people like him.

Why do people insist on injecting their own spin into the Constitution and what it says? I'd rather have car bombs going off in shopping malls every day then live under tyranny and repression! Why can't we give people freedom and punsh those who abuse it? Why do people think that we need to be treated like children by our own government, that it needs to protect us from ourselves, or restrict liberty in some misguided attempt to protect us from each other?

Laws against murder, rape, etc have been around for ages. People still do it. Laws are only deterrents against law abiding citizens. Criminals, by definition, don't give a shit. The only thing you accomplish by nanny governmenting is restricting the freedom our forefathers fought and died for... and that we, for some reason, see fit to try and force it upon the rest of the world.

I'm amazed the founding fathers' corpses haven't appeared above ground yet, they must be spinning in their graves so fast.

Can someone please explain this mindset to me?? Why do people look for ways to restrict freedom every chance they get? Who are you to tell me how much freedom I deserve? The Constitution is plain as day, especially if read with a full historical background in terms of language, culture, and with supporting documents - just like the Bible doesn't always MEAN what it says in translation... without contextualization (both historical and cultural) it can easily be interpreted to mean things it doesn't.

 

I direct you again to Title 29, so generously provided by tag:

The point is that this law only providing protection to an "underpriviliged" class of people is unconstitutional and therefore illegal.

You can't force integration one way and not the other.

What if I said that there was a white and a black bowling team, and black folks were allowed onto white teams, but white people couldn't go onto black teams.

Does that make it more relevant to you?

And anyway, as I see it, Constitutionally, no matter how you look at it.... if you argue Amendment X and Section I Article VIII, the Feds don't have any authority to make this law anyway. In conjunction with Amendment IX, just because the right to integration of sports teams isn't specifically in the Constitution doesn't mean that right doesn't exist and isn't reserved to the people. Adding more fun to the pot is that Amendment XIV says quite plainly "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I think that covers it.

Not to mention the fact that the Illinois State Constitution says this:

Article I, Section XVII: The equal protection of the laws shall not be denied or
abridged on account of sex by the State or its units of lo-
cal government and school districts.

Article I, Section XIV: The enumeration in this Constitution of certain rights shall
not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
individual citizens of the State.

So they're managing to violate two Constitutions at once.

If you argue that Amendment IX doesn't apply to states (which I think is a specious argument... the people have rights retained from both the states and the Federal government... I think it applies to both), then Amendment X with Section I Article VIII and Amendment XIV make the argument extremely well, even without Amendment IX.

 

Unfortunately, I think you're absolutely right that it's an uphill battle. Congress has taken it upon itself over the past 80 years to make a huge power grab (and the Supreme Court hasn't been helping much)....

Not to mention that I think the "unrestricted power" that Congress believes it is given in Article I, Section VIII, Clause I is a load of bull. It very clearly says

.

It doesn't say ANYTHING similar to: "Note: This clause may be used to enact otherwise completely and utterly unconstitutional legislation and force it upon states and the citizens thereof who otherwise you have no authority over by reading some wacky bullshit into this clause that isn't actually there and completely violates the common sense and logic present in teh rest of the constitution... not to mention completely contradictory to the spirit of the rest of the constitution, and not supported by any historical documents written by the authors of the Constitution."

Just like the Commerce Clause doesn't come with anything like: "Note: This clause may be used to force multiple states to follow regulations and legislation that they otherwise wouldn't be subject to, but because of Roosevelt's shenanigans with Court Packing in the 30s, the SCOTUS somehow lost its SCROTUM and now pretty much has totally bitched out and lets the other branches do pretty much whatever the hell they want unless it's really, really, really blatent, or if some political wag gets appointed and decides that instead of paying attention his oath, he's going to pull a ruling out of his nice person, because he's decided to become a legislator and/or a party and/or corporate bitch."

But, just because it's an uphill battle doesn't mean we shouldn't try.