Implementing Change While Being Within The Struggle

Posted on Updated on


ban the box
From: Magana, Marisela
Date: Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 9:22 AM
Subject: Ban The Box
To: May Chandler

Greetings,

In case you have not heard, there is a meeting addressing Ban the Box which you might find instructive. Our office has pushed your concern to the Congressman’s DC office.

Best,

Marisela Magaña

Office of Congressman Mark Takano

3403 10th Street, Suite 610

Riverside, CA 92501

Phone No: (951) 204-6315
I sincerely solicit your prayer abroad in behalf of this movement to set order and opportunity in place of a broken system. Thank you for your faithfulness and support of “Fresh Oil” and this cause. We are prepared to take this wherever struggles of this type are being practiced.

Through the mid-nineteenth century, the vast majority of blacks in America were slaves, human chattel imported from Africa beginning before the United States existed. Ironically, at the time the Declaration of Independence was written–which, of course, declared all men to be created equal and inspired the American colonies to separate themselves from their oppressive English rulers–African slaves in the territory were bought and sold like property.

More than eighty years later, Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney’s infamous 1857 opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford gave judicial endorsement to what had long been practical reality: black people possessed no rights which the white man was bound to respect. They were not, and could not be, national citizens entitled to the rights and recognition accorded the title.

The Reconstruction period that followed President Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation and the end of the Civil War in 1865 seemed to mark a new era. Congressional advocates of emancipation and further reform of the South expressed a sense of legislative duty; to these representatives, the North that had freed the slaves and preserved the Union had a responsibility to ensure blacks’ legal protection through permanent, federally enforced constitutional action. Within five years of the war’s end, and less than fifteen years after Taney’s pronouncement in Dred Scott, constitutional amendments were ratified to abolish slavery, extend citizenship to all native-born blacks and voting rights to black men over the age of twenty-one, and explicitly outlaw racially discriminatory voting laws.

However, this grant of freedom and rights was not without qualification. The Thirteenth Amendment outlawed all forms of slavery and involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted. . .. Similarly, the Fourteenth Amendment declared that no state could abridge the voting rights of male citizens over age twenty-one, except [as punishment] for participation in rebellion, or other crime . . . . Later hailed as proud historical achievements that finally blanketed all the nation’s citizens in freedom and democracy, these constitutional amendments actually left–and still leave–an entire category of citizens unprotected and vulnerable.

The consequences of this incomplete grant of rights became apparent soon after the end of Reconstruction. Southern state governments fully regained control of their courts and legislatures when federal troops pulled out of the South less than fifteen years after the war’s end. The Constitution’s new promise of black political and legal equality was an obstacle to the reinstitution of the region’s traditional power structure: white supremacy. No longer able to rely on the institution of slavery to maintain the racial hierarchy, and faced with federal laws limiting preferred alternatives, creative laws were devised to ensure whites’ social, political, and economic dominance.

In this context, the constitutionally codified civil rights exception for the criminally convicted became an instruction on how to legally deprive blacks of their freedom and political rights for centuries to come. Modern prison slavery and felon disenfranchisement are lingering remnants of post-Civil War laws that deliberately manipulated the criminal law for the purpose of relegating blacks to a constitutionally permissible state of second-class citizenship.

Born of Southern efforts to reestablish white supremacy by depriving black Americans of their civil rights under the guise of criminal justice, these laws, and the criminal justice system as a whole, continue to disproportionately impact black people and other minority groups. These consequences illustrate the danger inherent in exempting–as the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments do–whole categories of individuals from the constitutional protections most needed by marginalized minorities. The resulting policies expose the ease with which these exceptions have been, and continue to be, manipulated to undermine the purported national goals of freedom, equality, and democracy.

freedomfree
On May 4, 1961, a group of 13 African-American and white civil rights activists launched the Freedom Rides, a series of bus trips through the American South to protest segregation in interstate bus terminals. The Freedom Riders, who were recruited by the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), a U.S. civil rights group, departed from Washington, D.C., and attempted to integrate facilities at bus terminals along the way into the Deep South. African-American Freedom Riders tried to use “whites-only” restrooms and lunch counters, and vice versa. The group encountered tremendous violence from white protestors along the route, but also drew international attention to their cause. Over the next few months, several hundred Freedom Riders engaged in similar actions. In September 1961, the Interstate Commerce Commission issued regulations prohibiting segregation in bus and train stations nationwide.

As these events took time to materialize Imagine how intense their waiting must have been. Uncertainty plagued peoples minds as it does ours today. My wife and I are on the move of pursuing reformation for 12 million felon’s around the world. God has blessed us with hope in that we have met with another willing vessel to help us carry our passion to the powers that be. This struggle to the disadvantaged group is no different than those aforementioned. Here is a bill constructed by my wife an “Argosy Psychology Major”.

Advocates against Felon Employment Discrimination Act
****************************************************************************** SENATE OR HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES) OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
2013 Session

Introduced by: Advocates against Felon Employment Discrimination
Primary Sponsor: Maymie Chandler-Pratt
Secondary Sponsor: Aaron D. Pratt

*****************************************************************************************
1. The purpose of this bill is to stop the employment discrimination of felons throughout the United States.

2. The (Senate or House of Representatives) of the United States of America hereby enacts as follows:

3. SECTION 1:

4. This act shall be known as the Advocates against Felon Employment Discrimination Act

5. SECTION 2:

6. Reinstate people with felonies their right to work, and modify the hiring requirements in
7. companies from the unrealistic term of 7 to 10 years to 2 to 5 years for felons who are willing 8. and able to earn an honest living wage and are skilled in those areas of work.

9. SECTION 3:

10. Require companies to hire people with felonies after a period of 2 to 5 years after said
11. person(s) have finished parole, have successfully complied with terms of release as presented 12. by the parole board; (Drug Rehabilitation, boarding house residency, random drug testing)
13. and have demonstrated a desire to work by enrolling in classes to improve their work skills 14. and moral turpitude.
15. SECTION 4:
16. Require companies to at least have bonding agents and resources within the HR department 17. which will allow companies to be compensated with tax write offs as an incentive to hire felons.

18. SECTION 5: Funding

19. The cost of the implications of this proposal should not exceed the amount of $1,000,000.00 20. dollars. Funding for this bill will come partly from the Advocates against Felon Employment
21. Discrimination Act fundraising committee and participating government programs.

22. SECTION 6: Regulations

23. The EEOC has historically taken the position that an employer’s policy or practice of
24. excluding individuals from employment because they have criminal conviction record is
25. unlawful under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 unless the policy or practice is
26. justified by a business necessity. If the information was
27. erroneous or the conviction was not job-related, employees and applicants have a right to file 28. a discrimination claim with their state equal employment opportunity agency.
29. The government will impose sanctions on companies which are offering employment that
30. have no direct correlation with the crime that was committed by person’s applying for a job if 31. they don’t hire a person with a felony on their background that is older than 2 to 5 years
32. All offenders:
33. For most offenders it is difficult to prove that a possible employer illegally discriminated 34.against them even with an expungement. In California an individual’s criminal history is never 35. erased, but rather erases the word “Conviction” and replaces it with “Dismissed in Furtherance 36. of Justice” in the disposition.
37. Constitutional issues:
38. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution explicitly permits felon 39.disenfranchisement, but it has been pointed out that constitutional approval of felons’ political 40. powerlessness is not the same as constitutional approval of government prejudice toward the 41. politically powerless. Such prejudice may violate the Equal Protection Clause, which contains 42. no provision authorizing discrimination against felons. A “discrete and insular” minority 42. 43. subject to prejudice, in particular, may be considered particularly vulnerable to oppression by 44. the majority, and thus a suspect class worthy of protection by the judiciary.
45. SECTION 7: Penalties
46. The penalties for not hiring a person with felonies older than 2 to 5 years on their background 47. and who are willing to work and are skilled in that field or position will be a fine of $5000.00 48. dollars and or if the information was erroneous or the conviction was not job-related, 49.employees and applicants information was erroneous or the conviction was not job-related, 50.employees and applicants have a right to file a discrimination claim with their state equal

51. employment opportunity agency. If a felon is bonded by a company and hired on, and is later found to not be in compliance with the bonding agreement he/she shall be terminated.

52. SECTION 8: Definitions
53. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission:

54. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is a federal law
55. enforcement agency that enforces laws against job discrimination. The EEOC investigates 56.discrimination complaints based on an individual’s race, color, national origin, religion, sex, 57. age, disability, genetic information and retaliation for reporting, participating in and/or 58.opposing a discriminatory practice. The EEOC also mediates and settles thousands of 59.discrimination complaints each year prior to their investigation. The EEOC is also 60.empowered to file discrimination suits against employers on behalf of alleged victims and to 61.adjudicate 58.claims of discrimination brought against federal agencies.
62. Moral turpitude: A legal concept in the United States that refers to “conduct that is 63.considered contrary to community standards of justice, honesty or good morals.” As of 1998, 64. seven states absolutely barred felons from public employment. Other states had more narrow 65. restrictions for instance, only covering infamous crimes or felonies involving moral turpitude.
66. Over inclusive: Relating to legislation that burdens more people than necessary to accomplish 67. the legislation’s goal. Some laws have been criticized for being over inclusive; for instance, a 68. law banning all ex-offenders from working in health care jobs could prevent a person 69.convicted of bribery or shoplifting from sweeping the halls of a hospital. The law in Texas 70. requires that employers consider things like the nature and seriousness of the crime, the 71.amount of time since the person’s committed the crime, and letters of recommendation all be 72. taken into account even when the applicant has a felony.
73. SECTION 9: Effective Date

74. This bill shall take effect approximately and at a minimum of 1 year after passage before the 75. law is implemented.

ban the box</a

From: Magana, Marisela
Date: Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 9:22 AM
Subject: Ban The Box
To: May Chandler

Greetings,

In case you have not heard, there is a meeting addressing Ban the Box which you might find instructive. Our office has pushed your concern to the Congressman’s DC office.

Best,

Marisela Magaña

Office of Congressman Mark Takano

3403 10th Street, Suite 610

Riverside, CA 92501

Phone No: (951) 204-6315
I sincerely solicit your prayer abroad in behalf of this movement to set order and opportunity in place of a broken system. Thank you for your faithfulness and support of “Fresh Oil” and this cause. We are prepared to take this wherever struggles of this type are being practiced.

Through the mid-nineteenth century, the vast majority of blacks in America were slaves, human chattel imported from Africa beginning before the United States existed. Ironically, at the time the Declaration of Independence was written–which, of course, declared all men to be created equal and inspired the American colonies to separate themselves from their oppressive English rulers–African slaves in the territory were bought and sold like property.

More than eighty years later, Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney’s infamous 1857 opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford gave judicial endorsement to what had long been practical reality: black people possessed no rights which the white man was bound to respect. They were not, and could not be, national citizens entitled to the rights and recognition accorded the title.

The Reconstruction period that followed President Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation and the end of the Civil War in 1865 seemed to mark a new era. Congressional advocates of emancipation and further reform of the South expressed a sense of legislative duty; to these representatives, the North that had freed the slaves and preserved the Union had a responsibility to ensure blacks’ legal protection through permanent, federally enforced constitutional action. Within five years of the war’s end, and less than fifteen years after Taney’s pronouncement in Dred Scott, constitutional amendments were ratified to abolish slavery, extend citizenship to all native-born blacks and voting rights to black men over the age of twenty-one, and explicitly outlaw racially discriminatory voting laws.

However, this grant of freedom and rights was not without qualification. The Thirteenth Amendment outlawed all forms of slavery and involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted. . .. Similarly, the Fourteenth Amendment declared that no state could abridge the voting rights of male citizens over age twenty-one, except [as punishment] for participation in rebellion, or other crime . . . . Later hailed as proud historical achievements that finally blanketed all the nation’s citizens in freedom and democracy, these constitutional amendments actually left–and still leave–an entire category of citizens unprotected and vulnerable.

The consequences of this incomplete grant of rights became apparent soon after the end of Reconstruction. Southern state governments fully regained control of their courts and legislatures when federal troops pulled out of the South less than fifteen years after the war’s end. The Constitution’s new promise of black political and legal equality was an obstacle to the reinstitution of the region’s traditional power structure: white supremacy. No longer able to rely on the institution of slavery to maintain the racial hierarchy, and faced with federal laws limiting preferred alternatives, creative laws were devised to ensure whites’ social, political, and economic dominance.

In this context, the constitutionally codified civil rights exception for the criminally convicted became an instruction on how to legally deprive blacks of their freedom and political rights for centuries to come. Modern prison slavery and felon disenfranchisement are lingering remnants of post-Civil War laws that deliberately manipulated the criminal law for the purpose of relegating blacks to a constitutionally permissible state of second-class citizenship.

Born of Southern efforts to reestablish white supremacy by depriving black Americans of their civil rights under the guise of criminal justice, these laws, and the criminal justice system as a whole, continue to disproportionately impact black people and other minority groups. These consequences illustrate the danger inherent in exempting–as the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments do–whole categories of individuals from the constitutional protections most needed by marginalized minorities. The resulting policies expose the ease with which these exceptions have been, and continue to be, manipulated to undermine the purported national goals of freedom, equality, and democracy.

Like my post? Please support me by clicking on the Mersi button

Mersi ME!

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s