Question not identified.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1 Do Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution and the First, Fifth an Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution foreclose the ‘ability of Congress to summarily abridge the rights of certain United States citizens to due process and equal protection under the law (both state and federal) for redress of violations of their civil rights (guarantees of equal social opportunities and protection under the law, regardless of race, religion, etc.) because they accept employment with the District of Columbia ‘Courts, or have the Courts erred in their interpretation? 2. Can the protections provided under Title VII of the Civil Rights . Act of 1964 (“Title VII’; as codified in volume 42 of the United States Code, beginning at section 2000e), which prohibits employment discrimination and retaliation based on race, color, ‘religion, sex and national origin,“be usurped and/or nullified by an employment provision that provides for termination “for any reason” during a probationary period? 3. Was the Congressional intent of the 1970 District of Columbia Court Reorganization Act (the “Court Reorganization Act”) and the 1973 District of Columbia Home Rule Act (the “Home Rule Act”) to abridge, limit, usurp and/or nullify the authority of the District of Columbia Human Rights Act (“DCHRA”) and its enforcers relative to employment discrimination covered by DCHRA, including those rights covered by Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), or any similar civil ‘vights laws? Tf so, -would that intent make the ‘Court Reorganization Act and the Home Rule Act unconstitutional? If not, would rulings interpreting the Court Reorganization Act and the Home Rule Act as abridging, limiting, usurping. and/or nullifying the authority of the DCHRA and its enforcers relative to the civil rights of D.C. Court personnel be erroneous? @