Rolf has a legal question. Here is the essence of it:
Within the case West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, there is the following passage:
If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.
If I’m reading this correctly, that means that any school district or other government institution that requires you to sign or write a commitment to “diversity” is violating the law. Any legal-beagles out there who can confirm or reject my understanding?
Can anyone here enlighten him?
Diversity and Marxism are the dual religions of the State. All shall bow down before them.
You will be made to worship Moloch and Eris, or face the fiery furnace.
Unless you are armed and willing to use force to resist.
Here is the guiding principle:
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
In Catch 22, it takes Colonel Black demanding service in the cafeteria to shut down the runaway loyalty oths instituted by his underlings. “Gimme eats!”
Sorry, the character is Major _ de Coverley
I take it that the quote is not law per se. As interpreted, would it not prevent the requirement of an oath of office, or the oaths new immigrants used to take?
Anyway yes, as the other comments are dancing around it; America has placed herself under the Roman, anti-Christian system. In that system the Pontifex Maximus alone determines the meaning of law, and may reinterpret, rewrite, or dispose of it at will;
“And he shall…think to change times and laws…” Daniel 7:25
It’s a display of absolute authority, and will be done for that purpose alone if for no other.
But there is a limitation. So as to more fully understand the system that’s rising to power once again, remember also that the pontiff (considered in effect a “god-king”, also officially named Vicarius Filii Dei) is deemed infallible. One consequence of infallibility is that a subsequent pontiff will not, must not, cannot undo the infallible, or “ex cathedra“, declarations of an earlier pontiff, for doing so would undercut the very concept of infallibility. This is among the Medo-Persian contributions to the first Beast of Revelations, or the silver portion of the statue in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in the book of Daniel.
The point of course being that while you delve into the origins and meanings of U.S. law, attempting to nail it down, so to speak (to etch it in stone perhaps?), it’s being undercut, revised, nullified, ignored or overwritten faster than you and some army, together, can determine it. It’s a tactic, as well as a mere demonstration of power, you see.
It’s the nature of Man’s law that it is imperfect and always subject to revision, and it places us under other Men, whereas God’s law is perfect and never changes, and it places us under God. Once that becomes clear, it is then a matter of which side you’re on. There is one “nation” (one alliance or mindset, which is worldwide) under God, and one nation, which is also global, under that filthy whore in Rome. Choose wisely.
if the quoted language was a “holding” or “decision on the merits,” deciding the applicable question before it, and upon which it has exercised its jurisdiction, then it is binding.e
if not, it is considered “dicta,” and not particularly binding, but it can indicate the way the court is leaning on an issue when it has the matter properly before, i.e., when the court has proper jurisdiction on an issue before it.
sometimes dicta becomes law, and sometimes it never quite makes it, as the composition of the court may change, or something acts to moot the question, e.g., congress decides the issue by legislation.
so, it all depends. the entire decision must be read. period.
Who is the “you” that is being required to make the statement? An employee?
I was thinking of this in the context that many school districts now require applicants to either submit a statement on diversity, or check off as part of the application something to the effect that you agree with all their commitments to diversity, etc. Basically, it’s being used as a screening tool to only allow SJWs to apply and have any chance of being hired.
I didn’t realize this was a thing. I wonder what they’d think of requiring applicants to pledge allegiance to the flag? I think that perhaps these are propagating because people at the beginning of an academic career are afraid to make waves that might torpedo their chances elsewhere– what kind of troglodyte could be against diversity?
In my mind this is akin to a loyalty oath. There have been a lot of court action over them
In Cole v. Richardson (1972), the Court set out four conditions an oath must meet to survive constitutional muster:
It may not infringe on First or Fourteenth Amendment rights.
Employment may not be conditioned on an oath that one has not engaged in, or will not engage in, protected speech activities.
Employment may not be conditioned on an oath denying past or abjuring future associational activities protected by the Constitution.
An oath must not be so vague that persons of ordinary intelligence must guess at its meaning.