Posted on 04/09/2017 8:03:25 AM PDT by reaganaut1
The Obama administration’s disdain for the rule of law continues to reverberate. One way is its Title IX madness, which has caught numerous colleges and universities in its web. Among them is Amherst College, which now faces a lawsuit brought by a student who makes a compelling case that he was wrongfully expelled.
The facts revolve around a drunken hookup between two students and the woman’s subsequent efforts at covering up her more than willing participation by blaming the male student and accusing him of assault. Amherst’s administration was equally complicit, however, pronouncing the man guilty on flimsy and incomplete evidence, then refusing to reconsider once evidence that the woman had fabricated her story came to light.
And the dark force driving the school to make an example of the student was the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR).
On the night of February 4-5, 2012, John Doe (as he is called in the court documents) was so drunk that he “blacked out” and couldn’t remember much about the night, including even his interaction with Sandra Jones (again a pseudonym). The two were making out in a dormitory common area when another student said that they ought to go somewhere private. Jones led Doe to her room, where she performed oral sex on him. Her room was available because her roommate—Doe’s girlfriend—was away.
Doe thought little more about that drunken night with Jones until he was dumbfounded to receive a notice from Amherst in December of 2013 that he had been charged with rape. He would have to appear at a hearing in ten days.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
They’re talking about Doe here, so leave Fawn out of it.
Seattle. The Fruit and Nut center of the Northwest.
”One way is its Title IX madness, …"
"… the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR)."
To the best of my understanding of the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers, the states have never expressly constitutionally delegated to the corrupt feds the specific power to make either Title IX, or to establish the Education Department, corrections, insights welcome.
”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.
I surmise that corrupt career politicians must support Title IX and the Education Department to win votes from low-information citizens who have never been taught the fed’s constitutionally limited powers.
Also consider that the low-information administrators and faculty who run probably most the nation’s schools must be scared of being threatened with the loss of unaccountable, unconstitutional federal funding if they do not comply with the fed’s unconstitutional policies.
“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.
Regarding Title IX, the only forms of discrimination that the states have amended the Constitution to expressly protect all deal with voting rights, evidenced by the 15th, 19th and 26th Amendments. But since the issue of this thread addresses discrimination issues that are clearly outside the scope of voting rights, the feds have no constitutional authority to get involved in this INTRAstate schooling issues imo.
Regarding the Education Department, note that President Thomas Jefferson had indicated that the states would need to appropriately amend the Constitution in order for the feds to regulate, make policy, tax and spend in the name of INTRAstate schooling issues. But it remains that the states have never amended the Constitution for federal involvement in intrastate education.
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
Drain the swamp! Drain the swamp!
Remember in November ’18 !
Since Trump entered the ’16 presidential race too late for patriots to make sure that there were state sovereignty-respecting candidates on the primary ballots, patriots need make sure that such candidates are on the ’18 primary ballots so that they can be elected to support Trump in draining the unconstitutionally big federal government swamp.
Such a Congress will also be able to finish draining the swamp with respect to getting the remaining state sovereignty-ignoring, activist Supreme Court justices off of the bench.
In fact, if Justice Gorsuch is approved but turns out to be a liberal Trojan Horse then we will need 67 patriot senators to remove a House-impeached Gorsuch from office.
Noting that the primaries start in Iowa and New Hampshire in February ‘18, patriots need to challenge candidates for federal office in the following way.
While I Googled the primary information above concerning Iowa and New Hampshire, FReeper iowamark brought to my attention that the February primaries for these states apply only to presidential election years. And after doing some more scratching, since primary dates for most states for 2018 elections probably haven’t been uploaded at this time (March 14, 2017), FReepers will need to find out primary dates from sources and / or websites in their own states.
Patriots need to qualify candidates by asking them why the Founding States made the Constitution’s Section 8 of Article I; to limit (cripple) the federal government’s powers.
Patriots also need to find candidates that are knowledgeable of the Supreme Court's clarifications of the federal government’s limited powers listed above.
I visited Amherst College in Mass. as a very young guy back in the 1970’s.
It was moonbat central even back in those days.
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.