To: fqued
I have one question .. isn't the USC an indicator that the statute is federal .. and therefore might only apply to federal agencies .. not state agencies. And .. is there a comparable state statute which might also apply ..??
154 posted on
01/27/2004 11:23:48 AM PST by
CyberAnt
("America is the GREATEST NATION on the face of the earth")
To: CyberAnt
Quite the contrary. The Civil Rights Act of 1871 (codified as Title 42 U.S.C. 1981
et seq.) was enacted because states were not protecting the constitutional rights of some of their citizens.
there may be state statutes that cover the same rights, but a state can only broaden the rights of its citzens; not limit them more than the federal law.
165 posted on
01/27/2004 12:28:29 PM PST by
connectthedots
(John Calvin WAS NOT a Calvinist.)
To: CyberAnt
Sec. 1983. - Civil action for deprivation of rights
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia
206 posted on
01/27/2004 3:58:28 PM PST by
fqued
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson