Criminal is not a protected class

Today I wanted to address the bogus claims of discrimination made by illegal immigrants. The basic concept is this: "criminal" is not a protected class.

Many illegal immigrants gather and protest, often claiming discrimination. They usually claim discrimination based on "national origin" or "race." However, the issue here is not the immigrant's national origin or race, but his status as a criminal. The fact that the person is a criminal supersedes his national origin or his race.

Legally, civil rights discrimination applies only certain classes, such as race, sex, and national origin. Note that "criminal" is not on this list.

Categories such as race, sex, and national origin are what you are born with; you had no choice. These are protected classes under discrimination laws.

In contrast, criminal activity is a personal choice. The person can choose to obey the law or to break the law. Thus, if you break the law, that was your personal choice. Therefore you are no longer protected by civil rights discrimination laws.

Therefore, an illegal immigrant cannot claim discrimination, because his criminal activity supersedes any other factor.

Civil Rights Commissions

I have been reading the details of civil rights information provided by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the US Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR). I have also been discussing scenarios and legal facts with various people who work in these areas. Regarding criminals:

• No criminal can claim civil rights discrimination. This is because "criminal" is not a protected class.

• When a person breaks the law, that is his choice, therefore civil rights protections regarding "protected classes" do not apply.

• A criminal has no civil rights related to employment, renting, buying property, or access to public facilities.

Also note that these points apply equally to illegal immigrants as much as to any other type of criminal.

All illegal immigrants are criminals

"We are not criminals!"

I hear illegal immigrants making this statement during every protest. That statement is absurd. Every illegal immigrant is a criminal.

There are several federal laws regarding immigration. If you do not follow any one of those laws then you have committed a crime. If you habitually commit crimes, then you are a criminal.

Therefore if you continue to break the law, as is the case with an illegal immigrant being in the U.S. day after day, then you are indeed a criminal.

Note that employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants are also criminals because they break laws which prohibit this activity.

Constitution as a Contract

The US Constitution is first and foremost a contract. This is something I learned from Thomas Paine many years ago.

Now that I am an experienced paralegal, having drafted and interpreted contracts over the years, I have a much deeper understanding of what it means to say the Constitution is a contract.

There are a few main elements of contracts which apply equally to the Constitution:

1. A contract is static, it is not a living document.

2. Any contract can be amended if all parties agree.

3. The terms of a contract should be clear.

4. Clauses which are unclear can be modified.

5. Clauses can also be interpreted by a court.

Here I will discuss some of those elements.

1. A contract is static, it is not a living document

There are many people who believe that the Constitution is a living document. This is not true. There is no such thing as a living document. The terms of any contract are fixed after the document has been signed. You cannot change a clause of the document without agreement from the other parties. The same holds for the Constitution.

2. Any contract can be amended, if all parties agree

Sometimes a contract needs to be altered. This is necessary because circumstances change. The process for changing a document is easy to do, but there is a process. As long as both parties agree to the changes, then the contract can be amended at any time.

Similarly, the Constitution needs to be amended from time to time due to changing circumstances. This can be done if all the parties agree to the changes. In this case, “all parties” means the citizens, and “agreeing” means that the elected legislators of each state agree to the changes on behalf of their constituents.

3. The terms of a contract should be clear and unambiguous

I pride myself in creating contracts where all terms are clear. This is not always the case in contracts I have read. The biggest problems arising from business agreements exist because each party has a different interpretation of a clause. Does “Portland” mean Portland Maine or Portland Oregon? What qualifies as “organic” food? When terms such as these are not specified, each party assumes their own meaning. If these terms are not consistent, then problems emerge and good people become aggravated.

The same is true of the Constitution. Some of the terms in the Constitution are clear, but many are not. It is clear that a President must be 35 years old. However, what is a “well-regulated militia”? What are “cruel and unusual punishments”? Terms such as these mean different things to different people. This results in confusion for everyone: citizens, legislators, agencies, and the courts.

4. Clauses which are unclear can be modified

If the clause of a contract is unclear and causes confusion, the best thing to do is rewrite the clause. All parties can be gathered for a new discussion and the terms can be clarified. Similarly, if there is a clause in the Constitution which routinely causes confusion, that clause can be changed through an Amendment.

5. Clauses which are unclear can be interpreted

In a business contract, if the clause is ambiguous it is best if all parties meet to reword the contract. However, sometimes this is not an option. If this is not an option then one party can go to court, where a judge will decide the meaning of the clause. When deciding the meaning of a clause, the judge will usually look to the most common usage of the word in that industry, or to what a reasonable person in that location would assume.

Regarding the Constitution we cannot talk to people who wrote the document or those who ratified the document. The best we can do is read their other writings. This is followed by examining history for common word usage of the day. If necessary, we must leave it to the Supreme Court to decide exactly what those terms mean as applied to a particular situation.

Book on Federal Railroad Administration is available

My book on the Federal Railroad Administration is now available for purchase.

Buy it from Amazon by clicking here

Checking the Powers of the U.S. Supreme Court

The purpose of this Constitutional Amendment is to check the powers of the United States Supreme Court.

Whenever there is a loophole in the Constitution, the proper way to fix this loophole is through an Amendment. In this case, the loophole is that the U.S. Supreme Court has too much power. There are only seven individuals, holding office for life, who decide whether or not a law is Constitutional. Furthermore, in recent decades the Supreme Court has legislated from the bench (which is not their role), and has often ruled in ways that run contrary to the principles of the Constitution.

The following Constitutional Amendment will return the Supreme Court to their proper role as intended by the Authors of the Constitution.

The Proposed Constitutional Amendment to Check the Powers of the U.S. Supreme Court:

A. The United States Supreme Court shall not legislate from the bench. Any law created by the United States Supreme Court shall be void.

B. The United States Supreme Court shall not use any foreign source material when ruling on a case.

C. The United States Supreme Court shall adhere strictly to the 10th Amendment and to the Enumerated Powers Clause of the Constitution.

D. Any Supreme Court ruling can be overturned, upon 2/3 vote of the state legislatures. When a ruling involves multiple issues, each issue will be voted on separately and overturned separately.

E. The original Supreme Court decision will be modified with the rulings overturned by the state legislatures. Each state legislature may add a brief statement explaining its reasoning.

F. There shall be no time requirement for state legislatures to consider and vote on Supreme Court decisions.

G. The term of U.S. Supreme Court Justice shall not exceed 10 years.

H. Any Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court can be removed from office for flagrant disregard of the Constitution, as exhibited in his votes and judicial opinions. A Justice of the Supreme Court shall be removed from office by 2/3 approval of the State Legislatures. There shall be no time limit for the 2/3 removal vote to be reached.

I. This Amendment shall be enforced by the state legislatures.