Thought you would find the following interesting! John WK ACRS

 

KATHRYN WEXLER, Times Staff Writer
© St. Petersburg Times
published March 24, 2002

Big winners in disabled crusade? Lawyers

A clutch of lawyers from Miami have carved out a tidy niche for themselves, suing hotels, restaurants and businesses for not complying with the rules on access for the handicapped.

It sounds like a virtuous crusade on behalf of people who need protecting. But critics say it's a racket, that the improvements for the handicapped are often negligible -- while the lawyers rake in the bucks.

For the complete story see http://www.sptimes.com/2002/03/24/State/Big_winners_in_disabl.shtml

 

COMMENTARY ON ABOVE ARTICLE:

Something for real Americans to ponder

By:

John William Kurowski

American Constitutional Research Service

Seminole, FL.

 

 

Amazing, simply amazing, that a St. Petersburg Times Staff Writer, KATHRYN WEXLER, has unearthed something which real Americans (those who believe in and support an adherence to the principals and provisions set forth in their state and the United States Constitutions), knew long ago when the Americans With Disabilities Act [ADA] was nothing more than a proposed bill, and thoughtfully predicted the bill should have been titled the Lawyers Full Employment Act rather than the ADA.

In adopting the ADA in 1990, Congress asserted in its findings that 43,000,000 Americans have one or more physical or mental disabilities; that this number is increasing as the population as a whole is growing older; that discrimination against individuals with disabilities persists in such critical areas as employment, housing, public accommodations, education, transportation, communication, recreation, institutionalization, health services, voting, and access to public services; that it is the purpose of the Act to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities, and to invoke the sweep of congressional authority, including the power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment and to regulate commerce, in order to address the major areas of discrimination faced day-to-day by people with disabilities.

The fact is, the kind of discrimination described in the ADA is not what the People sought to address when ratifying the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and, there is not one lawyer living in Florida, nor any federal justice in the entire United States, who can successfully defend the constitutionality of the ADA if they abide by the rules which govern constitutional law . . . the most fundamental rule of constitutional law is to carry out the intentions and meaning as contemplated by those who framed and adopted the constitution or any subsequent amendment thereto.

But try to find a lawyer in Florida, or a State’s Attorney who has taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution, who is willing to challenge the constitutionality of Congress trespassing their state’s boarders to prohibit the kind of discrimination mentioned in the ADA which brings in the bucks, as correctly noted by KATHRYN WEXLER, and it becomes immediately apparent the Brotherhood of lawyers are unwilling to kill the goose which lays the golden eggs . . . regardless of how many unsuspecting small businessmen or women fall victim to the treachery and despotic nature of the ADA, and have their livelihoods and financial resources plundered by those who ought to be wearing hoods and masks rather than suits and ties.

The dishonesty in the legal profession can be found at the highest levels of our government, and is kept alive by intentional misrepresentations of our constitutional system. Example: On May 29, 2001, seven justices of the Supreme Court of the United States [Stevens, J., Rehnquist, C.J., OConnor, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ.], in delivering their ruling in the case PGA Tour, Inc., v. Martin, violated their oath to support the Constitution of the United States; engaged in a flagrant act of subjugation; ignored the intent with which the People adopted the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America; and, as Justice Scalia and Thomas noted in their dissenting opinion, “exercised a benevolent compassion”--- something which is not within the authorized powers of the Court. In this case, the above mentioned Justices ruled that the ADA requires the PGA Tour to allow Casey Martin, a professional golfer, to ride in a golf cart between shots at Tour events. Keep in mind, if the ADA does require what these Justices have stated, then the Fourteenth Amendment would have to have been intended to not only prohibit state sponsored discrimination based upon race, color or previous condition of slavery, but physical impairment as well, which simply is not the case. Unfortunately, Scalia and Thomas failed to perform their sworn duty and articulate the unconstitutionality of Congress to prohibit by legislative act, the kind of discrimination described in the ADA, and so, the Supreme Court left the door open for the Brotherhood to continue in the massive fleecing of those charged under the ADA in spite of the clear intent of the People, when adopting the 14^th Amendment, which was to prohibit state sponsored discrimination, “black code laws“, [discriminatory law based upon “race, color, or former condition of slavery] and insure that all people, regardless of race, color, or former condition of slavery, would enjoy a constitutional guarantee to make and enforce contracts, to sue, to inherit and purchase property as was then enjoyed by white citizens.

A research of the House and Senate debates which framed both the 1st Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment, which was intended to incorporate the objectives of the Civil Rights Act into the Constitution --- thereby making the first Civil Rights Act constitutional --- contains not one shred of evidence the Amendment was intended to prohibit discrimination based upon one’s disabilities, and allow Congress to enforce this prohibition by federal legislation.

As a matter of fact, there is an abundance of documented evidence the Amendment was specifically intended to apply in a very narrow area…to prohibit state authorized discrimination i.e., unequal law, based upon “race, color, or previous condition of slavery…”

As Rep. Shallabarger, a support of the Fourteenth Amendment put it::

“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery...It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality...It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race. [see Rep. Shallabarger, Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293] http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llcg/071/0300/03351293.tif

The argument that the wording in the 14th Amendment: (a)“all persons”, (b)"No State shall make any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of United States.", (c) "[N]or deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws", as being evidence the 14th Amendment was intended to be a universal rule to bar every imaginable type of discrimination, including discrimination based upon sex or physical disabilities falls flat on its face when reading the words of next Amendment to the Constitution!

This Amendment (the 15th) prohibits a new type of discrimination, apparently not covered by the 14th Amendment! It prohibits discrimination, or to be more accurate, prohibits the right of voting to be denied or abridged on account of “race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” The intent of the 15th Amendment clearly being to enlarge the prohibition on state sponsored discrimination mentioned in the 14th, and extend it to include a prohibition at the voting booth, but only to the extent that such discrimination is prohibited based upon “race, color or previous condition of servitude”…the People not yet providing such a guarantee to the female gender!

The assertion that the 14th Amendment prohibits a wide variety of discrimination such as discrimination based upon sex, [see Justice Ginsburg’s opinion in the VMI Case], is again refuted when reading the 19th Amendment which was adopted by the people to specifically forbid yet a new kind of discrimination, discrimination at the voting both based upon sex. Why adopt the 19^th Amendment forbidding the right to vote to be “denied or abridged” on account of “SEX.” if the Fourteenth Amendment already prohibits sex discrimination as claimed by Justice Ginsburg?

 

And finally, why would there have been a proposed so-call equal rights amendment offered for adoption to the Constitution of the United States to prohibit sex discrimination in the 1980’s [which was voted down by the People] if the 14th amendment already prohibited discrimination based upon sex?

The truth is, the Supreme Court, working in concert with the Brotherhood is engaging in a subjugation of our constitutional system and supplanting their personal whims and fancies as law in spite of the Constitution forbidding such law ---, such action being a blatant rebellion against our Constitution, and meeting the definition of tyranny!

For those who are freedom loving people, and believe in the rule of law as expressed in their state and federal constitutions, perhaps it is time to take a closer look at the Fourteenth Amendment, which surprisingly states in part:

“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

Note the important words “shall have engaged in…rebellion against the same” which refers specifically to a rebellion against “the Constitution of the United States” by those who have taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Consequently, these words are intentionally directed at specific individuals who have taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution, but have engaged in activity subversive of the constitution, who are forbidden by the Fourteenth Amendment to hold an office of public trust.

Having a written constitution, such as ours is, gives every American who still believes in the principals set forth in our constitution, a clear and unambiguous standard to use to identify elected and non elected public servants, who may intentionally be subverting the will of the people as expressed in the Constitution. Those public servants who have decided to rebel against our Constitution can be identified using various sources: voting records, judicial opinions, and, a willingness to publicly enforce legislative acts which are obviously not within the Constitution’s legislative intent

Identifying those in office who are in rebellion against our Constitution would seem to be an insurmountable task, because, in spite of having the above mentioned records and a written constitution to judge by, it is almost impossible to tell what is in the mind and heart of a specific public servant whose actions may unintentionally, and on occasion, be violative of the Constitution. But when a person holding a office of public trust willingly engages in multiple acts, over an extended period of time, each of which violates the provisions of our Constitution, it is not necessary to determine the spirit under which such action has occurred, but only, that said actions have been repeatedly displayed by the same person and have violated the protections and limitations enumerated in a state or the United States constitutions, and thus, presents a danger to our Republic and as such, must be remove from such office as commanded by the Constitution.

In conclusion, the coming election, for real Americans, will not be an event concerning Republican vs. Democrat, nor conservative vs. liberal___ which appears to be a media created bread and circus game to divide the people and cause their confusion___, this coming election, for those who are real Americas, will be a time to identify those holding an office of public trust who have repeatedly used their office of public trust to rebel against and subvert our Constitutional limited Republic.

John William Kurowski

American Constitutional Research Service

Seminole, FL

[Permission is hereby given to reprint this article if credit to its author and the ACRS appears in such reprint. No copyright is claimed for quotes within the article which are public domain materials.]

"As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances there is a twilight where everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air - however slight - lest we become unwitting victims of darkness."

Supreme Court Justice William Douglas