US House passes CROWN Act that would ban race-based hair discrimination

And when drinking Granny’s love potion, Jethro and Ellemae would recite the words “...come a-swoopin’ like a dove”
Parenthetically, wild doves are not white. They’re brick red on top, with a motley of white and green on the bottom. White makes for lousy camouflage, except in arctic regions.

Perhaps the wild doves are Irish then. On that blessing, I'll continue on in love...

Crown Day was set for July 3rd, the day ahead of America's independence from royalty and royal titles, of the kings and queens who are in the mold of the other nations.

When hair becomes a superficiality of Supreme edict-worthy attention in the same neighborhoods known for high crime rates, it's bound to get caught up in the machinery. Hair-gate.

Nothing you wouldn't already know:

hair: שֵׂעַר
gate: שַׁעַר

(570)

Thus there's the word play on the city gates -- sha'arei ha-ir שערי העיר , a building on the hill at the entrance to Jerusalem (Jaffa St. 216). Shem ha-Mephorash, if anyone is interested.

ESTHER <---> THREES

There's help in that very building, because after all, what's in a name? They were even keen to format the specific place in bold.

Nice touch with the acronym. A קלע was David's weapon of choice. Put to good use I might add, because "there shall be hangings..", and "Strong's Number H7050... occurs 22 times in 22 verses in the WLC Hebrew.". 70 is the new 50 as they say. It's the conversion from decimal [עֶשֶׂר] to bais... base 14 [דוד].

Which integrates nicely with the postal code. Who wouldn't remember 94383, as it's the House of YHVH (438) within ha-Megillah (93).

>>>

Loopholes, measure for measure:

White makes for great camouflage, especially in the place of the dove, "Columbia."

This CROWN legislation is just another addition to the metaphor standing tall in Washington DC at the vanishing point of the Reflecting Pool. The WAMO is a visual representation of the gallows that Haman & Sons built for Mordecai -- a ginormous stack of laws and edicts, innumerable reams of paper piled high in order to hang the innocent while protecting the guilty through all of the complexities and obscure loopholes.

Delaware, the "First State" to sign on the dotted line, is well known as America's corporate tax haven. (Someone forgot an "e" ("☰"). That oversight will cost them.)

JO☰, from Delaware..

On December 7, 1787, Delaware became the first state to ratify the Constitution of the United States, and has since been known as The First State. Since the turn of the 20th century, Delaware is also a de facto onshore corporate haven, in which by virtue of its corporate laws, the state is the domicile of over half of all NYSE-listed business and over three-fifths of the Fortune 500.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delaware

over 3/5ths of the Fortune 500

biparti-sons:

Esther 9
12. And the king said to Esther the queen, The Jews have slain and destroyed 500 men in Shushan the capital, and the ten sons of Haman; what have they done in the rest of the king's provinces? now what is your petition? and it shall be granted you; or what is your request further? and it shall be done:
13. Then said Esther, If it please the king, let it be granted to the Jews who are in Shushan to do tomorrow also according to this day's decree, and let Haman's ten sons be hanged upon the gallows:

***

Casting lots:

Crown Day: July 3rd, ahead of
Independence Day: July 4th.
Oops:

July 2, 1776 is the day that the Continental Congress actually voted for independence. John Adams, in his writings, even noted that July 2 would be remembered in the annals of American history and would be marked with fireworks and celebrations.
https://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/2005/nr05-83.html

They should name a high mountain apart for our second president.

The Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool at sunset (August 2015)

And what a mess of swampy "restoration" disasters, beginning with

funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009...

(but of course)

The last update on that page:

The Reflecting Pool was completely drained in June 2017 to control a parasitical outbreak. The parasite, which causes swimmer's itch, infects snails which inhabit the pool. More than 80 ducks and ducklings have died at the pool due to parasitical infection since May 20. Park Service workers said the work and refilling of the pool would take 10 days.

That's our president! (highly integrated information therein)

The second (and last) time I was in DC was in mid October, 2003. Spent that week there on the way to somewhere distant. The pool had been drained so we walked right down the center on dry land, going west from the WAMO toward the Lincoln Memorial. A strange and marvelous experience, but not great for photographs. I hadn't realized how shallow it is. Doubters might say,"Pics or it didn't happen", when everything above is a treasure trove of images. :)

The 216 colors formed by a 6�6�6 color cube are sometimes known as the "web-safe color palette".
https://www.virtuescience.com/216.html

Be funny if Gabriel shows up, needing a new job, sporting a ginger Jew-fro just like in some of the artistic representations.

That'll teach 'em. No discrimination!

“The 14th Amendment only granted Congress power to respect federal civil rights that State Actors had to honor. There has been no enumeration of a power to Congress to respect federal civil rights that private person or private entities need honor them. It is the lawlessness of the Court — which plays no role in the amendment process — that pull such powers out of their asses.”

You’re rambling. First you claimed that, “Almost all current federal civil rights laws are unconstitutional.” When I cited 3 Constitutional amendments, you switched to attacking the courts while simultaneously pointing that the courts don’t make amendments. In 1883, the Supreme Court held that Congress did not have the power under the Fourteenth Amendment to prohibit discrimination practiced by private parties.

From 1937 to 1995, the Supreme Court gave Congress almost unlimited powers under the Commerce Clause. You might reasonably argue that the courts erred. In 1995, in United States v. Lopez, the Supreme Court struck down a law that made it a federal crime to have a gun within 1000 feet of a public school. That was the first time since 1937 that the Supreme Court limited the previously broad scope of interstate commerce.

“Federal civil rights laws as they are made to apply to ordinary persons are all unconstitutional.”

That depends. If you are an “ordinary person” who does business with the federal government or who is engaged in interstate commerce, the laws can and do Constitutionally apply to you. This does NOT mean the laws are necessarily good, right, or wise. But they are Constitutional.

In Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), the Supreme Court extended “sex discrimination” rights to LGBT members for employment. I don’t think it extends to housing discrimination, but Congress seems to be trying to extend this to other areas with the so-called “Equality Act”, but it might get filibustered in the Senate. Even Mitt Romney said he does not support it without religious exemptions and protections. Needless to say, this represents another nail in the coffin when it comes to the moral decency of our nation.

Civil rights matters are a big mess in our county. Laws, public opinion, the actions of certain groups, court rulings, and the way laws are enforced, are all problematic. You chose to make the weakest possible argument to fix these issues by claiming, “Almost all current federal civil rights laws are unconstitutional.” That’s not true, and it does not provide the hint of a solution.

I suggest you rethink and restate this losing proposition. Most people will otherwise dismiss anything else you say on the subject out of hand, without giving you the benefit of the doubt. You appear to be on the correct side of the issue, but you need to refine your arguments if you want to be heard or have an influence.

No, I’m not rambling.

I’ve specified that the federal has no enumerated power to require non-State Actors to respect federal civil rights … and they do not.

The 13th Amendment did NOT enumerate any such power to Congress which would affect how freemen might treat other freemen or freedmen, and only eliminated slavery in general or enforced servitude by the States except that there was due process given for crimes convicted of.

The 14th Amendment specifies that the States are not to disparage federal civil rights. Indeed the whole purpose for the “privileges or immunities” clause is that Congress did try to enact a civil rights act but they realized that they had no enumerated power to even require State Actors to obey such a law and so, after the adoption of the language, they again passed the CRA with lawful power to do so. And private individuals do not owe other individuals due process as if they were enforcing laws in their daily doings, not even in private regulations they may set for their own property, so the due process clause has no bearing.

The 14th ONLY affects State Actors, not private persons or privately held entities.

It is an absurdity to maintain as some have (not saying you do, only some have) that the federal needed a specific amendment to let it require State Actors to honor their statutes of that character but never needed an amendment to let it lord it over ordinary persons. But “absurdity” accurately describes much of the doings of the lawless modern Court.

And finally the 15th Amendment again is focused on State Actors and only with respect to voting … no other activity is addressed.

With no enumerated power to require private persons to honor federal civil rights then all federal civil rights laws that pretend to do so are and will always be unconstitutional.

Now, you also mention the perversion of the commerce clause that transpired under FDR … an entirely improper thing for the Court to do and the embodiment of their faithlessness and highhanded lawlessness.

The intent of the commerce clause was to allow the federal to prevent States from abusing their regulatory powers to create sweet heart deals for their own citizens at the expense of the citizens of other States who were trying to engage in commerce therein … not to allow the Congress to fuss over what private citizens do when they elect to engage in commerce.

Moreover, things which AFFECT commerce but are not commerce would still be beyond any claim for power by the federal because no power has been given the federal to regulate things which affect commerce.

Finally, it is improper to claim a power of wider scope on account of a power of narrower scope, the lesser does not justify the greater, for it is fundamentally unlawful for the federal to assert authority over intrastate commerce or employment practices (representing a far more comprehensive scope of power than simply between the States) because of a power to prevent States from abusing their powers.

And just because some are federal contractors does that give the federal power to tell others what to do and how to live?

No, I’m quite correct.

FDR and company kicked the Constitution to the curb. They were despicable scum one and all. Those who have walked in their footsteps seeking to expand their lawlessness are likewise dishonorable and faithless, even if they may not recognize it living in the backwash of earlier progressive filth and arrogation of the Law as they may be doing.

I simply hate progressivism, from the earliest days when they simply wanted a government more like that of the French Republic’s, through the misbegotten efforts of CC Langdell and his peers, to finally ending governance by constitutional means under FDR, to the perverted anti-Americans of the present … they’ve only gotten worse and worse. Despicable people pushing lawlessness and not JUST terrible ideas.

I do not care what such persons think of me. They are my enemy and I’m theirs. Without apology. Without regret.

“With no enumerated power to require private persons to honor federal civil rights then all federal civil rights laws that pretend to do so are and will always be unconstitutional.”

While I agree generally with your full post, there are a couple of issues. First, the main point of the early, reconstruction-era civil rights acts were efforts to right ongoing wrongs in the treatment of former black slaves who had been freed as the result of the Civil War.

Second, you provide no specific example of “all [of the] federal civil rights laws” that try to dictate to “private persons” how they must or must not behave.

While your argument here is much more cogent, I return to my original objection, which remains unanswered: You said, “Almost all current federal civil rights laws are unconstitutional.” I asserted that this is wrong.

Further, to the average listener, your initial statement would easily be understood to mean you oppose the reconstruction-era laws that give blacks the right to vote, etc. To many it would be taken to mean that you think the Civil War was pointless and returning to how thing were done before the war would be a good idea, which might mean enslaving blacks is not so bad. I doubt you mean that. I hope you don’t mean that. But you should understand that MANY people would take your position on Civil Rights as meaning that. And those who don’t infer this would at least assume you to be extremely ignorant on the subject, even though this is clearly not the case.

So, I recommend that you completely abandon the position that, “Almost all current federal civil rights laws are unconstitutional.” Or, if you insist, at least make your case with greater specificity. The problem isn’t with the Constitutionality of the major Civil Rights laws. It is how they’ve been applied and expanded.

And, I’d go further. Constitutionality is not the ultimate test of right or wrong. We are nearing a point where the majority of the populace, due to shifting public opinions, could elect enough bad lawmakers so as to amend the Constitution “legitimately” (lawfully), but in a bad way. In such a case, even the Constitution itself could become a corrupted document. Our rights to autonomy, self defense, freedom of opinion, speech, and association are all intrinsic and inalienable, even if a Constitutional amendment says otherwise.

The function of the early reconstruction era civil rights laws were to restrict how State Actors could use their own police powers in ways as proscribed by them.

Those early statutes used one level of government to restrain another level of government.

You can do that without growing overall government. Indeed it limits, not grows.

But to require private individuals or privately held entities to respect federal civil rights inherently adds police powers not lawful to the federal government, it inherently grows the applied powers of government.

Modern civil rights statutes are inherently different in their character than were reconstruction era laws.

You can effectively restrain governments from abusing their police powers without growing government overall.

You cannot try to restrain how persons treat each other without growing government and its police powers in spectacular ways.

Do you really need specific examples? The federal has no enumerated power to regulate employment practices (aside from forbidding actual slavery) among the several States, nor to regulate housing, nor to require federal business licenses for starters, just to name three.

It has no lawful police powers and no power of the purse for these ends (appropriations being limited only to the enumerated powers).

The function of A1:S8:C1 is to enumerate a specific ability to tax which is justified by further justifying clauses which themselves give no power to spend. All Powers to spend are only found in the subsequent clauses. It is the taxation clause, not the spending clause. People tend to forget that this was perchance the biggest legal novelty in the Constitution relative to the Articles of Confederation.

The imposition of a tax does not enoble the reason for which it is imposed making the associated spending lawful. Taxation is not an amendment to the Constitution to permit novel forms of spending. Rather, if the spending is inappropriate then any tax levied to support it should be seen as inappropriate.

So all federal civil rights laws restricting private regulations, managing employment practices among the several States, placing any demand on the owner of a property as to the use, maintenance or disposal of his property and estate … all these and any associated funding of agencies associated with them are unlawful.

Progressivism is pretty much unlawful at the federal level.

Are you familiar with what Marbury v Madison actually says and how it is structured and not how it has been willfully and maliciously misrepresented by the modern Court?

A short, short version starts with the simple observation that Marshall was himself the Secretary of State who properly processed the appointments of the group including William Marbury. This dramatically affected the structure of the ruling.

First Marshall takes great pains to demonstrate that the idea of review of statutes to see if they were in accord with more fundamental Law was already an accepted doctrine having been previously acknowledged in an affair arising from war pensions, or more specifically from their management. He then lays out — apparently to show that he is a proper unbiased judge no matter any role he played in events — the laws and the Law as they then existed covering Marbury’s appointment and only THEN does he ask the question on which the decision actually rose or fell: if granting the petition was something the Court could do (with original jurisdiction)?

Marbury was not this great judicial review ruling, but Marshall was rather concerned with the proper methodology for any review of laws and I will point out that he did not address it as if a sole power of the courts.

Rather, having laid out the requirement for fidelity to the character of the Law as Ratified (what those who Ratified can be said to have agreed to is what that comes down to) imposed by their very oaths of office he wrote that to require them to take such an oath and yet also require them to turn a blind eye to the Law they swore to uphold and only see statute would be worse than a solemn mockery.

There are a number of observations I might make but I will limit these to just two for consideration:

An obligation of reviewing statutes is only destructive towards novelties issuing from the other branches of government, not one usable constructively to approve of novelties and hew out new federal powers without amendments. Another way to say that is a power to be faithless cannot be justified by an obligation to be faithful.

But more telling is that having labored to justify a methodology for review only arising because of a demand for faithfulness to the character of the Law they swear to uphold … Marshall notes that those in other departments also take such oaths.

So ponder this: if it is worse than a solemn mockery to require justices to turn a blind eye to the Law and only see statutes (or executive orders) then what is it to require other in other branches to close their eye to the Law and only see the opinions, the margin scribbles of the Court?

The whole of the modern Court is built on lies and misrepresentation. Instead of building a tower of jurisprudence they’ve cobbled together a shanty bridge dangling precariously over the abyss. And the nation falls into the abyss with the shanty bridge.

And that ruling so long of no interest to the progressives because it would bind them to honor a Law they hated from the start only became important to them when they figured out how to lie about it and make their lies appear to stick.

“Do you really need specific examples? The federal has no enumerated power to regulate employment practices (aside from forbidding actual slavery) among the several States, nor to regulate housing, nor to require federal business licenses for starters, just to name three...
It has no lawful police powers and no power of the purse for these ends (appropriations being limited only to the enumerated powers)...
So all federal civil rights laws restricting private regulations, managing employment practices among the several States, placing any demand on the owner of a property as to the use, maintenance or disposal of his property and estate … all these and any associated funding of agencies associated with them are unlawful.”

We have to talk about the state of which things are, not as we wish they were. It appears that your reason for not being very specific is that you would like to wipe the slate clean and start over because our system has become so corrupted. That is a reasonable argument. But even the founders did not throw out British common law. They modified it with surgical precision. Otherwise, you would have a lawless society and anarchy. Sometimes I wonder whether it might be better than what we currently have. But then I catch myself because anarchy is just a temporary power vacuum to be replaced by authoritarianism. This is why I think we must be specific. We must find exactly where the law has broken down and become corrupt in order to have a chance to fix it.

As it stands, civil rights laws and the case laws supporting them, give to the federal government nearly unlimited regulatory power. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 claimed the authority to regulate public accommodations and federally funded programs. The Supreme Court upheld this on the basis of interstate commerce in Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States.

“Are you familiar with what Marbury v Madison actually says and how it is structured and not how it has been willfully and maliciously misrepresented by the modern Court?... An obligation of reviewing statutes is only destructive towards novelties issuing from the other branches of government, not one usable constructively to approve of novelties and hew out new federal powers without amendments.”

That the courts have abused their power of review is unquestionable. Right now we have a liberal left that uses any means necessary to get their way. They’ll write ambiguous laws, selectively enforce existing laws, weaponize government agencies against their political opponents, assert authority where it does not exist, and embed operatives into every institution who may swear allegiance to the Constitution and our nation, but in practice they are only devoted to their political ideology. And this includes, also without question, our courts, and the Supreme Court particularly.

To be clear, there is no law or Constitutional amendment that is able to fix this particular problem.

“The whole of the modern Court is built on lies and misrepresentation. Instead of building a tower of jurisprudence they’ve cobbled together a shanty bridge dangling precariously over the abyss. And the nation falls into the abyss with the shanty bridge.”

And this probably will not be fixed without CW2, Revolution2, or America 2.0. In the meantime, we all must live within this bizarro world of conflicting legislation and case law. Would you argue with a robber with a gun pointed to your head that he cannot do what he is doing because it is unlawful? How much more futile is it to argue that the full force of the federal government’s authority is being used unlawfully? How many in the halls of power care?

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.