Posted on 01/27/2004 11:15:07 AM PST by Moleman
Edited on 05/07/2004 7:09:44 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
A lawsuit was filed Monday in an attempt to block a state petition drive that aims to outlaw affirmative action in government and in college admissions.
Attorneys Godfrey Dillard and Milton Henry, who prevailed before the U.S. Supreme Court in defending affirmative action policies at the University of Michigan, sued Monday in Wayne County Circuit Court to halt the petition drive, called the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative.
(Excerpt) Read more at detnews.com ...
Allowed but not required. No reason that citizens cannot use the petition process to outlaw it. This lawsuit is headed nowhere.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. 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.
Apparently, denying a White person a job, a place in a prestigious law school, or a government contract in favor of a less-qualified Black person, doesn't circumvent the Constitution. Thanks to Sandra Day O'Connor, and the four other nitwits that brought this travesty upon us.
What is the purpose of the "per se" added to this sentence?
"per se" - alone, intrinsically, in and of itself.
The Constitution....that's cute....you think they refer to the Constitution...how quaint...
I've got MCRI ballots in my hot little hands and am working on getting them filled out and returned ASAP.
They just can't STAND it when free speech applies to anybody but racists like these two buggers.
I feel your pain. However, they did refer to it:
“This referendum is a direct attack on racial preferences, and racial preferences are not unconstitutional and do not per se violate the rights of whites...”
Of course, liberals only refer to the parts of the Constitution that they like, like the parts about abortion. (I've read the document a thousand times--I still can't find the Constitutional right to abortion so often cited. I must be blind.) The part about citizens bearing arms, they don't like much. Now that the Supreme Court has made these patently anti-Constitutional rulings on affirmative action, the left will be citing their Constitutional rights to special treatment for privileged gruops, ad nauseum.
What is the purpose of the "per se" added to this sentence?
"per se" - alone, intrinsically, in and of itself.
In law, it is used when to describe actions that are illegal by themselves, eithout necessitating further evidence. For instance, in regard to Blood Alcohol Concentration for drivers:
"A per se statute defines the BAC at which it is presumed that all drivers are intoxicated and cannot drive safely, regardless of actual motor vehicle operation."
So, if your state considers it a crime to drive a vehicle while your BAC is over .08%, you may not argue that you are an experienced race car driver and could demonstrate that you have the ability to operate a vehicle safely despite your blood alcohol level, whereas an inexperienced driver might not be able to do as well while at .07%, or even dead sober. Indeed, even if your driving were perfectly within all legal parameters, the BAC level alone would be enough for conviction.
The law stands on its own, and may be applied irrespective of circumstances. What the civil rights shysters are saying about racial preferences is that, despite the obvious contradiction to the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, favoring one group over another is not a per se violation, meaning it is not an automatic violation. Unlike having a BAC over .08% and driving a car, using racial preferences does not automatically create a violation. Other factors may be brought in. What the idiotic ruling by O'Connor and the Four Morons allowed to be brought in was the great need for (the great God) diversity in these situations, which, apparently trumps the Constitution.
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.