- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Christian Students Sue Smithsonian for Kicking Them Out over Pro-Life Hats
Posted on 2/9/23 at 8:22 am to Tom Joad
Posted on 2/9/23 at 8:22 am to Tom Joad
The Smithsonian is not an executive branch agency and does not exercise regulatory powers, except over its own buildings and grounds. Thus, courts have held that the Smithsonian is not an agency or authority of the Government as those terms are used in certain laws applicable to executive branch agencies such as the Privacy Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, the Freedom of Information Act, and the Federal Advisory Committee Act. However, the U.S. Attorney General has concluded that the Smithsonian is so "closely connected" to the federal government that it shares the immunity of the United States from state and local regulation. In accordance with this doctrine, local zoning regulations, ABC licensing provisions, sales and use taxes, and real estate taxes are not applicable to the Smithsonian absent a specific federal statute. (There are several instances in which Congress has required federal entities to comply with state and local laws, so questions about the applicability of specific state and local laws to the Smithsonian should be directed to the Office of General Counsel.)
Courts have also held that the Smithsonian enjoys the immunity of the United States from lawsuits, unless such suits are authorized by Congress under specific statutes, such as the Federal Torts Claim Act (torts), the U.S. Copyright Act (copyright infringement), the Tucker Act (contracts), and Title VII the Civil Rights Act (discrimination).
Courts have also held that the Smithsonian enjoys the immunity of the United States from lawsuits, unless such suits are authorized by Congress under specific statutes, such as the Federal Torts Claim Act (torts), the U.S. Copyright Act (copyright infringement), the Tucker Act (contracts), and Title VII the Civil Rights Act (discrimination).
Posted on 2/9/23 at 9:07 am to BayouBlitz
quote:
and Title VII the Civil Rights Act (discrimination).
Well there you go.
Posted on 2/9/23 at 10:48 am to BayouBlitz
quote:
Courts have also held that the Smithsonian enjoys the immunity of the United States from lawsuits, unless such suits are authorized by Congress under specific statutes, such as the Federal Torts Claim Act (torts), the U.S. Copyright Act (copyright infringement), the Tucker Act (contracts), and Title VII the Civil Rights Act (discrimination).
Look up 42 USC 1983 and get back to us, professor.
Posted on 2/9/23 at 11:19 am to BayouBlitz
You don’t think it’s fricked up that kids got kicked out for wearing pro-life hats? You’re that dug in on a fringe issue? God you must be pathetic irl
Posted on 2/9/23 at 1:47 pm to BayouBlitz
If they take federal dollars from us taxpayer’s then they sure as hell ought to be sued. I bet if they thought they were going to loose federal funding they would act right
Edit to include I don’t care if it’s republican or Libtard’s that are treated like this it is absolutely wrong. Although I would have to give hell to someone wearing a pussy hat
Edit to include I don’t care if it’s republican or Libtard’s that are treated like this it is absolutely wrong. Although I would have to give hell to someone wearing a pussy hat
This post was edited on 2/9/23 at 1:58 pm
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News