House votes to create sexual deviant rights, violates constitutional limitations

Politics
285

Your government school education is exhibiting your reading comprehension deficiency. Try reading the titled of the thread very, very slowly. HINT: had the House approved sending a constitutional amendment to the States for ratification to accomplish its stated goal, “To prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation”, there would be no problem. But instead of abiding by our Constitution and following its amendment process to have the citizens of the United States surrender an inalienable right to mutually agree in their contracts and associations, and to forbid the states to make distinctions in law based upon sex, the House has passed legislation which would assume a power not granted, and one retained by the various states under the Tenth Amendment.

Why does the House not follow our Constitution’s amendment process by once again sending the Equal Rights Amendment to the States for ratification which, if ratified, would delegate the power to Congress to “enforce, by appropriate legislation” SECTION 1 of the amendment which reads as follows?

Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

JWK

“Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.” _ Chief Justice Marshall, MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

286

Was the CRA sent to the states for ratification?

Also your thread title should change to something different if your problem is less about expanding gay rights and more about a constitutional process that you feel was subverted.

1 Like
287

That should tell him that his logic might be wrong. But it probably won’t.

288

In answer to your question, the Civil Rights Act is ordinary legislation. Ordinary legislation is not sent to the States for Ratification.

As to your suggestion that the title of the tread should be changed, it actually reflects exactly what has taken place. In fact, the “Equality Act” legislation is explicitly designed to benefit "Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (referred to as “LGBTQ”) people …" i.e., it is designed to benefit sexual deviants.

Why do you have a problem with my stating things as they are? And why have you not answered my question?

Why does the Democrat controlled House not follow our Constitution’s amendment process by once again sending the Equal Rights Amendment to the States for ratification which, if ratified, would delegate the power to Congress to “enforce, by appropriate legislation” SECTION 1 of the amendment which reads as follows?

Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

JWK

“Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.” _ Chief Justice Marshall, MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

289

The CRA was ordinary legislation too, right? No constitutional amendment necessary.

290

:roll_eyes:

I answered your question. You have yet to answer my two questions.

JWK

291

My goodness, do you not keep up with what is happening across the country? Sexual deviant so called “rights” have most certainly created problems in a number of states: LINK

JWK

The Democrat Party Leadership has been angry, stupid and obnoxious ever since the Republicans freed the democrat’s slaves. ___ Author unknown

292

I don’t think a constitutional amendment is necessary. You do.

CRA happened with no constitutional amendment. Why would this be any different? Unless you are also arguing that the CRA is unconstitutional.

293

Where in our federal Constitution has Congress been delegated a power to forbid the people within the various United States to make distinctions based upon sex in their contracts and associations? Where in the federal Constitution has Congress been delegated a power to prohibit the States to make distinctions in law based upon sex?

Are you unaware of what one of our prominent Chief Justices stated:

“The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?” ______ MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

I know this may come as a surprise to you, but Congress is not free to do for the people what the people are unwilling to do for themselves with regard to the delegation of powers.

JWK

"Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void." _ Chief Justice Marshall, MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

294

No where… where in the constitution does the same apply to race, religion, ethnicity?

And yet we have the CRA. Why is that?

295

What problems are you referring to?

All what you did was linked an article about transgender bathroom laws.

Here’s the thing: Your argument isn’t about constitutionality, your argument is why are homosexuals and transgenders being normalized. My point here is that the 64 Act and the 14th amendment protects all Americans. Treating people unequally goes against the foundation principles of our republic AND violates the 14th amendment. You had similar whining when the gay marriage supreme court case was decided.

I hate to break it to you, nothing happened.

My best advice is to go to an LGBTQ center and interview people there. I dare you to do that. Your perceptive would change.

296

[quote=“PurpnGold, post:294, topic:188446, full:true”]

No where… [/quote]

Exactly. And that is why a proposed Equal Rights Amendment was sent to the States for ratification which, if ratified, would delegate the power to Congress to “enforce, by appropriate legislation” SECTION 1 of the amendment which reads as follows:

Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

In regard to the Civil Rights Act, and those parts forbidding distinctions in law based upon sex, there is no constitutional authority, explicit or intended, to be found in our Constitution allowing Congress to legislate in this area. And that is why an Equal Rights Amendment has been advocated since 1943.

JWK

“The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?” ______ MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

297

There is nothing in there about race either… and yet the CRA still exists.

Just looking for consistency in your argument.

298

Existing does not make it constitutional in its entirety. Those parts of the Civil Rights Act under which Congress forbids the states to make distinctions in law based upon sex and meddles with the people’s inalienable right to mutually agree in their contracts and associations is likewise without Constitutionally authorized legislative power.

JWK

“The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?” ______ MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

302

You lack consistency John. Tell this black guy why you don’t think CRA (or parts of it, as you said) was constitutional?

Also you argument gets muddled when you start off your premise by calling gay people “sexual deviants”z

303

The term “sexual deviant” is a reference to a paraphila. You should choose your words more carefully next time.

Yes, the act was designed to benefit LGBTQ individuals, but it applies to all genders and all orientations. For example, a gay business owner could not fire a worker because he is straight.

Our government has every right in the world, to amend or add to previously passed laws. It’s not against the constitution, especially since we have the equal protection clause.

So again, I don’t get your point, other than you don’t like the concept that LGBTQ individuals are gaining federal protections from discrimination.

Why are you quoting an 1803 case, when the 14th amendment was passed after that? It seems quite silly.

304

Exactly, and I love how he quotes an 1802 case. So much has changed in 200 years.

If he thinks the Equality Act is unconstitutional, then he should also believe the 1964 act was too.

It’s pretty obvious that his objection is the belief that LGBTQ Americans are guilty of paraphila.

305

I have already explained that. Those parts of the Civil Rights Act under which Congress forbids the states to make distinctions in law based upon sex are without constitutional authorization. On the other hand, the Fourteenth Amendment was specifically adopted to prohibit the states to make distinctions in law based upon race, and those parts of the Civil Rights Act are therefore constitutional. To summarize the very intentions and purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment let us recall the words of one of its supporters.

“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

JWK


“If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides that such protection was afforded, [our Constitution’s Tenth Amendment] would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?”___ Justice Story

306

You seem to be on a different plane than everybody else.

Here’s what Dictionary.com says

an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1868, defining national citizenship and forbidding the states to restrict the basic rights of citizens or other persons.

The intention of the 14th amendment is to define citizenship and to stop states from trampling on the rights of individuals.

There’s no point in passing the 14th amendment, if states have the right to deny people civil rights.

The 64 act was designed to set guidelines based on race, sex, color, nationality, and religion. It’s well within the power of our congress to expand or clarify things. This is basic stuff you learned in High School and Middle School.

307

Dictionary.com is not an acceptable source to determine what the 14th Amendment’s purpose is. I suggest you take a course in constitutional construction 101.

To get you started, see 16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law

Meaning of Language

”Words or terms used in a constitution, being dependent on ratification by the people voting upon it, must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of its adoption…”__ (my emphasis)

Also see, par. 89-- The Federalist and other contemporary writings

“ Under the rule that contemporaneous construction may be referred to it is an accepted principle that in the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States recourse may be had to the Federalist since the papers included in that work were the handiwork of three eminent statesmen, two of whom had been members of the convention which framed the Constitution. Accordingly, frequent references have been made to these papers in opinions considering constitutional questions and they have sometimes been accorded considerable weight.” (numerous citations omitted )

But note that comments made after the ratification of the Constitution, including those of the founders which are not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs expressed during the framing and ratification of our Constitution, carry very little weight if any, in legal proceedings regarding the legislative intent of our Constitution.

See Par. 88–Proceedings of conventions and debates.

“Under the principle that a judicial tribunal, in interpreting ambiguous provisions, may have recourse to contemporaneous interpretations so as to determine the intention of the framers of the constitution, the rule is well established that in the construction of a constitution, recourse may be had to proceedings in the convention which drafted the instrument.” (numerous citations omitted )

Some of the acceptable sources to determine what our Constitution means are, Madison’s Notes on the Convention, Hamilton’s Notes, The Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, and Elliot’s Debates. As to the meaning and purpose of the 14th Amendment see the 39th Congressional Debates which framed the amendment.

JWK


The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS’N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)