Where The College Scam Began: Supreme Court

[PoliticalChic]

The Supreme Court itself is a scam, and it caused the college pay-off scam in the news.

1. The Constitution is the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by. The Founders knew that, by man's nature, aggrandizement would always be sought; this included the courts. So, March 4, 1794, Congress passed the 11th amendment:
"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."



2. Rather than having federal courts with the power to decide any kinds of cases, the document ratified by the people, the Constitution, created a federal judiciary which left most judicial power to the state governments.

That would include flag burning, abortion, state government recognition of religion, e.g., public prayer, and homosexual marriage. State courts....not federal.
Gutzman, "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution," p.26-28.

Federalists who voted to ratify the Constitution were very clear on this issue.



3. This is key: why should the Supreme Court have the ability to tell employers what criteria they can use in hiring?
If it were not for the Griggs decision....there would not be a glut of morons with college degrees, or the recent college bribery scandal.

This decision:
"A 1971 Supreme Court decision, Griggs v. Duke Power, had a lot to do with it, by giving employers a strong incentive to use educational credentials as a proxy for aptitude testing.

Perhaps you have noticed that many jobs that require only basic skills and a cooperative attitude are now walled off to Americans who don’t possess a college degree. A recent study entitled Moving the Goalposts: How Demand for a Bachelor’s Degree is Reshaping the Workforce contains a lot of evidence on that. For example, for sales representatives and retail supervisors, 56 percent of recent job postings specify that having a college degree is a requirement.

This doesn’t mean that those jobs have such high intellectual demands that no one without a college degree could possibly do them. What it means is that these companies won’t bother with anyone with lower educational credentials.

Our mania for college credentials works strongly against upward mobility for individuals who, for whatever reason, don’t have a college degree. They are confined to the shrinking and mostly low-pay segment of the labor market where educational credentials still don’t matter. "
Thank (Or Blame) The Supreme Court For Credential Inflation


Today, college, and certainly the top colleges, serve simply as credentializations and not for learning.

 

[PoliticalChic]

 

[candycorn]

"The Supreme Court itself is a scam”

 

[rightwinger]

Now we know how PC got into Columbia

 

[PoliticalChic]

"The Supreme Court itself is a scam”

Wow....you got here just in time for a remedial education. No fear....I'm here to help.
The Supreme Court is a scam, theft of what doesn't belong to them.
That's correct: the arbiters of justice stole justice.
The courts have taken for themselves what did not belong to them: they pillaged the Constitution and the nation.


1. The Constitution is the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by. The Founders knew that, by man's nature, aggrandizement would always be sought; this included the courts. So, March 4, 1794, Congress passed the 11th amendment:
"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."

a. You see, in 1792, Virginia had refused to respond to the Court at all (Grayson, et. al. v. Virginia) (Page 26 of 44) - The Impact of State Sovereign Immunity: A Case Study authored by Shortell, Christopher.





2. Remember, the original conception for our government was federalism, "... a system of government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (such as states or provinces).
Federalism is a system based upon democratic rules and institutions in which the power to govern is shared between national and provincial/state governments,..." Federalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As they own the schools and the media, the simpleminded have been trained to foam at the mouth whenever they hear the phrase "states rights."

a. Again: the understanding of the colonies that ratified the Constitution was one in which they retained a degree of sovereignty.




3. But, in 1793, the Supreme Court claimed jurisdiction over a sovereign state (Chisholm v. Georgia).

a. The court claimed that the preamble referred to the desires "to establish justice" and "to ensure domestic tranquility," and this gave the court the right to resolve any disputes. Justice Wilson went right for the throat: "To the Constitution of the United States the term SOVEREIGN, is totally unknown."
Chisholm v. Georgia | Natural Law, Natural Rights, and American Constitutionalism

4. This was not what the Federalists had argued when the Constitution was being debated.
The agreement was that federal courts could hear such suits when they had been initiated by the states. And that is exactly what is stated in the 11th amendment: federal court's jurisdiction had to be read narrowly!

a. The 11th amendment explicitly denies the federal courts jurisdiction over lawsuits "prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."

b. The issue was about exactly how much authority had been granted to the federal courts through the Constitution. The purpose of this amendment was to limit federal courts to the strict confines of article III.
"The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution,"p.56, Kevin R. C. Gutzman





5. In 1801, John Marshall was appointed Chief Justice, and he consistently tried to reduce any limits on federal power. Case in point, in the 1821 decision in Cohens v. Virginia, he found that the 11th amendment only banned suits against states that were initiated in federal courts.

Nonsense: this was not the intent of the amendment, but rather an intent to extend the jurisdiction of the federal courts and the federal government.





See....now don't you regret not getting an education?

Poor thing.

 

[candycorn]

Poor Jumbo….

 

[PoliticalChic]

Poor Jumbo….

Once again....I've left you speechless.

Clearly one of your limited ability can't deal with education and knowledge....moi.

That's because you have no education, and eschew (better look that up) books.



Now...did you learn the lesson: the Supreme Court is a scam, and there is no reason to accept any of their decisions.



Just between the two of us….are you just a leeeeettttle disappointed at how you turned out?

 

[PoliticalChic]

If the Supreme Court had minded its own business....and not meddled in what private businesses choose to set up as requirement for employment on in their endeavors.....

...businesses would not have had to resort to college diplomas for jobs that don't require same.

A simple IQ test would suffice.
(I'd suggest the same test for posting here...but then we'd have no Liberal posters.....)



And, the dunces who majored in 'women's studies,' philology, logic, cartooning, bagpiping, etc. would probably have been involved in something more productive in terms of their earning power.


But as in so very many instances, the Supreme Court fluffs its own importance.


It should be ignored for every decision that cannot be directly shown to be a constitutional issue.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Where does the Constitution state that the Supreme Court decision must be the final word?????

It doesn't.

They give an opinion.....that's it.

Strong Presidents....on both sides of the aisle support this view.



“Jefferson: to “consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

Jackson: “The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both.”

Lincoln: “If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”

Franklin Roosevelt: Proposed speech stating that if the Supreme Court should invalidate a certain New Deal measure, he would not “stand idly by and... permit the decision of the Supreme Court to be carried through to its logical inescapable conclusion.” Quoted in Kathleen M. Sullivan et al., “Constitutional Law,” pg. 20– 24 (15 ed., 2004).



It is well past time to rein in this loose cannon.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"The current system of college admission doesn’t have many defenders at this point. Everyone knows that it corrupts us all: the high school teachers who feel obliged to inflate the talents of their ordinary students, the therapists selling their professional credentials to parents who want special-disability diagnoses for their healthy kids so that they have extra time to take their exams, the middle-class parents who have neither the funds nor the stomach to violate the law but help create the panic that is driving their kids (and their educators) out of their minds."
Vanity Fair


All of this, plus the back-breaking college loans grads carry, could have been avoided had the Supreme Court not prevented private business from using IQ and other simple testing.