Mom who lied about son’s ethnicity on college apps gets 3 weeks in jail

The college admissions scandal mom who falsely claimed her son was African-American and Hispanic to increase his chances of getting into a top college was sentenced to three weeks in prison on Wednesday.

Marjorie Klapper, 51, copped to paying $15,000 to fudge her son’s ACT exam score in May as part of the nationwide scandal.

She also agreed to portray him as a racial minority and a first-generation student on his applications — though both she and her husband graduated from college, prosecutors said.

Prosecutors had sought four months behind bars and a fine of $20,000 for Klapper, arguing that lying about her son’s race “increased the likelihood that her fraud would come at the expense of an actual minority candidate.”

“Ms. Klapper thereby not only corrupted the standardized testing system, but also specifically victimized the real minority applicants already fighting for admission to elite schools,” US Attorney Andrew E. Lelling said in a statement.

In addition to jail time, she was ordered to pay a $9,500 fine and complete 250 hours of community service.

Klapper’s lawyers said crooked college prep adviser William “Rick” Singer passed off the boy as a racial minority without his mom’s knowledge.

Thank you for referencing that article karpov. Please note that the following critique is directed at the article and not at you.

"Mom who lied about son’s ethnicity on college apps gets 3 weeks in jail"

FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument

Regarding the issue presented in the article, it is a great example of major problems with unconstitutionally big federal government imo.

More specifically, the states have never expressly constitutionally given the feds the specific power to dictate policy, tax and spend in the name of INTRAstate schooling, nor to protect against race discrimination for issues outside the scope of constitutionally enumerated voting rights.

Let's examine unconstitutional federal government involvement in intrastate schooling, first considering basic constitutional limits on the fed's powers clarified by the Supreme Court.

“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.

Also, consider that President Thomas Jefferson had officially indicated, in a State of the Union address, that the states would first need to appropriately amend the Constitution before Congress could stick its big nose (my wording) into the affairs of intrastate schools, something that the states have never done.

On a few articles of more general and necessary use, the suppression in due season will doubtless be right, but the great mass of the articles on which impost is paid is foreign luxuries, purchased by those only who are rich enough to afford themselves the use of them. Their patriotism would certainly prefer its continuance and application to the great purposes of the public education, roads, rivers, canals, and such other objects of public improvement as it may be thought proper to add to the constitutional enumeration of federal powers [emphases added].”—Thomas Jefferson : Sixth Annual Message to Congress

Justice Joseph Story had likewise indicated that the feds have no express constitutional power to dictate policy for intrastate schools.

"The power to regulate manufactures, not having been confided to congress, they have no more right to act upon it, than they have to interfere with the systems of education, the poor laws, or the road laws, of the states [emphases added]. Congress is empowered to lay taxes for revenue, it is true; but there is no power to encourage, protect, or meddle with manufactures." —Joseph Story, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, Commentaries on the Constitution 2.

Additionally, note that the congressional record shows that that Rep. John Bingham, a constitutional lawmaker, had clarified that the Founding States never gave the feds the specific power to make peacetime penal laws, not even for murder.

"Our Constitution never conferred upon the Congress of the United States the power - sacred as life is, first as it is before all other rights which pertain to man on this side of the grave - to protect it in time of peace by the terrors of the penal code within organized states; and Congress has never attempted to do it. There never was a law upon the United States statute-book to punish the murderer for taking away in time of peace the life of the noblest, and the most unoffending, as well, of your citizens, within the limits of any State of the Union, The protection of the citizen in that respect was left to the respective States, and there the power is to-day [emphases added].” —Rep. John Bingham, Congressional Globe. (See bottom half of third column.)

So what happened to 10th Amendment (10A)-protected state sovereignty, including the power of the states to run their schools as voters see fit, powers that Thomas Jefferson and Joseph Story had indicated that they have?

Using inappropriate words like “concept” and “implicit,” the excerpt below from Wickard v. Filburn shows what was left of the defense of 10A-protected state sovereignty by the last of state sovereignty-respecting majority justices in United States v. Butler, FDR’s state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices later blatantly ignoring the reasonable Butler interpretation of 10A when they scandalously decided Wickard v. Filburn in Congress’s favor imo.

"10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
"In discussion and decision, the point of reference, instead of being what was "necessary and proper" to the exercise by Congress of its granted power, was often some concept [???] of sovereignty thought to be implicit [??? emphases added] in the status of statehood." —Wickard v. Filburn, 1942.

Next, regarding unconstitutional race and sex-related federal civil rights laws, consider this. Career Democrats and RINOs during the lawless Johnson Administration wrongly based the politically correct, vote-winning Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its subsequent titles on the scandalous, politically correct repeal of the 10th Amendment by FDR's activist justices, corrupt Congress wrongly ignoring that it first needed to successfully petition the states for new powers constitutionally express powers to protect race and sex-based civil rights issues outside the scope of the 15th and 19th voting rights Amendments.

"15th Amendment:
Section 1: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2: The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation [emphasis added].”
19th Amendment:
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation [emphasis added]."
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.

So Marjorie Klapper is arguably going to federal prison for breaking politically correct, constitutionally indefensible, Democratic and RINO vote-winning civil rights laws that the states have never expressly constitutionally given the post-17th Amendment ratification feds the specific powers to make.

Patriots need to support PDJT in working with USAG William Barr and the post-2020 elections patriot Congress to first audit federal law books for the purpose of removing constitutionally indefensible federal laws, and then decide the fate of people who are in prison for violating a federal law that the feds never had the express constitutional power to make.

Remember in November 2020!

MAGA! Now KAG! (Keep America Great!)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.