I Was Kicked Off Stage by College Students. Did I Deserve It?

There are state actors all over the place with Columbia. Public partnerships, public funding for students, government grants, and so on."

Thanks for reply.

OP indicates student organizers.

"It was because three student organizers came onstage and politely told me they were going in a different direction with the next 30 minutes of my remaining time after deciding my material was offensive."

If student organizers are on state payroll for example, or somehow acting under state gov. authority when they stopped the speaker, and I doubt this for private college, then there are 14A problems.

> If student organizers are on state payroll for example, or somehow acting under state gov. authority when they stopped the speaker, and I doubt this for private college, then there are 14A problems.

ANY federal dollars touching the university is enough. Grants, loans, whatever - and there’s no way that the Columbia student body doesn’t have tons of federal loans and grants.

The student organizers, organizing under the umbrella of the university, are acting on delegated university authority. And the university is subject to civil rights lawsuits appropriate for public institutions based on its acceptance of federal dollars.

The reason why this is the case is that if it weren’t, the federal government could violate any restriction simply by farming out the job to an allegedly private institution. Institutions cease to be strictly private the moment a single government penny enters their coffers.

"There are state actors all over the place with Columbia. Public partnerships, public funding for students, government grants, and so on."

Regarding federal government funding and grants, please note the following.

Since the states have never expressly constitutionally delegated to the unconstitutionally big federal government the specific power to tax and spend for INTRAstate educational purposes, other than for military training purposes, federal funding for students, research is unconstitutional imo.

In fact, Pres. Thomas Jefferson and Justice Joseph Story had indicated that until states amend Constitution for federal involvement in intrastate schools, something that the states have never done, intrastate schools are hands off to the feds.

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
"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. 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

Any federal funding has to be reasonably justifiable under Congress’s constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers.

"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.

Schools can still get the funding that they want for students and research projects imo. However, such funding cannot be based on federal taxes unless states appropriately amend Constitution.

In other words, the federal government is an unconstitutional middleman for such funding.

"ANY federal dollars touching the university is enough. Grants, loans, whatever - and there’s no way that the Columbia student body doesn’t have tons of federal loans and grants."

Thank you for your patience with this discussion.

Again, military training aside, the states have never given the feds the specific power to regulate, tax and spend in the name of INTRAstate schools.

Neither do the feds have the power to make race and sex-related civil rights laws outside the scope of voting issues, evidenced by the clear language 15th and 19th voting rights amendments to the Constitution.

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.

In other words, not only do corrupt career fed lawmakers win votes on promises of unconstitutional federal funding and likewise unconstitutional federal civil rights, but they turn around and threaten loss of unconstitutional funding for violating unconstitutional federal civil rights.

Are we having fun yet? :^P

What a scam!

But arguably the most important point is that the Supreme Court clarified in United States v. Cruikshank that only states and feds, not private entities like Columbia University and Christian bakers, have to respect constitutionally enumerated rights.

"I would love it if that argument would hold up in court, but I’m pretty sure it has been rejected soundly and repeatedly [??? emphasis added]."

With all due respect, I don’t see you also referencing the Constitution and Supreme Court case opinions.

As far as today’s very corrupt, post-FDR era courts are concerned, the Constitution was ratified when FDR’s state sovereignty-ignoring justices wrongly decided Wickard v. Filburn in 1942 in Congress’s favor imo, not in 1788.

"The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.” —Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819.
"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure." —Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823."

Consider, as a consequence of growing up with a very corrupt, post-17th Amendment ratification, post-FDR federal government, everybody thinks that everything the feds do is constitutional.

> With all due respect, I don’t see you also referencing the Constitution and Supreme Court case opinions.

That’s because this is kind of casual conversation, and I’m talking about what happens in practice rather than what the ignored law is.

In practice, the feds control much of the flow of education money, regardless of how unconstitutional it may be. That’s the reality. Suing them within that reality for civil rights violations is far more feasible than arguing in court that the feds can’t touch it.

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.