House votes to create sexual deviant rights, violates constitutional limitations

Politics
328

You apparently have not been paying attention. The meaning of the wording “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” found in the Fourteenth Amendment has already been discussed in POST NO 280

As we can see from the language of the 14th Amendment it:

  1. Makes ”All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” … citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

The amendment then goes on to declare:

  1. “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” This wording forbids every State from abridging a United States citizen’s “privileges or immunities” which a State has adopted under law. Note that the wording does not forbid a State to deny “privileges or immunities” to “persons” who may not be “citizens of the United States”! Nor does the wording declare what “privileges or immunities” a state may or may not adopt.

The amendment then continues with:

  1. “… nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”

This wording applies to “any person” as opposed to “citizens of the United States” and It expressly forbids every State to deprive any “person [within its jurisdiction] of life, liberty, or property without due process of” a State’s laws. Due process of law refers to procedure and the administration of justice in accordance with established rules and principles.

This section of the Amendment then concludes with:

  1. ”…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

This wording simply commands that whatever a State’s laws are, a person within that State’s jurisdiction may not be denied the equal protection of those laws. Keep in mind the wording does not forbid a state to make distinctions in law, e.g., based upon sex or age, but whatever laws are adopted by a State, the State may not deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of those specific laws. The laws must be enforced equally upon all.

So, 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

329

With all due respect, you’re not paying attention. You’re doing a great dance.

The way we interpret the 14th amendment via court cases throughout American history, is what I and the other posters have been pointing out before: The states have powers, but they do not have unlimited powers and those powers cannot treat people unequally. The law has to apply to everybody.

One of the big things that the 14th amendment did was incorporate the OTHER amendments from being up to the whims of individual states.

330

I am at a lost to understand why you posted the above to me.

Nowhere have I suggesting that sexual deviants, as a general rule, should be discriminated against. In case you missed it, the subject of the thread is concerned with the Equality Act, and asserts the proposed legislation goes beyond the defined and limited powers granted to Congress.

Additionally, nowhere have I asserted the sexual proclivities of sexual deviants are associated, as a general rule, with “immorality or wickedness.”

In fact, I have pointed out that the Democratically controlled House, instead of abiding by our Constitution and proposing an amendment to our Constitution such as the Equal Rights Amendment, which would, if ratified, grant power to Congress by Section 2, "to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article " , the Democrat controlled House has decided it is above the Constitution and proposes legislation over a subject matter not delegated to it under our Constitution, notwithstanding the Fourteenth Amendment.

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)

331

I love this post! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

332

Oh really? What you said ONLY applies if sex is used to determine whether one is a citizen (male) or not (female).

333

Well, you see…the Democrats have more women and gay people and other minorities running for office but we also do not prevent white males from running also…Freedom.

2 Likes
334

Perhaps that poster’s issue is that he doesn’t believe that women are citizens therefore the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply?

1 Like
335

Yes. Indeed, we have the Americans with Disabilities Act which I pointed out when the Act was passed, that nowhere in our Constitution is Congress delegated a power to forbid distinctions being made based upon a person’s disabilities, and later pointed out, or require an individual with a disability to be entitled to a different set of rules in an athletic competition event.

But in spite of our Constitution’s defined and limited delegated powers, seven members of the Supreme Court took it upon themselves to ignore our Constitution in PGA TOUR, INC. v. MARTIN, and imposed their will as being the rule of law, and went on to require the PGA to allow Martin to ride around on a golf cart, while other athletes were not.

In fact, the seven Justices hung their decision, not on what our Constitution declares, but because the Court asserted its judgement was “decent, tolerant and progressive”.

In dissenting, Justice Scalia, with whom Justice Thomas joined, began the dissent as follows:

In my view today’s opinion exercises a benevolent compassion that the law does not place it within our power to impose. The judgment distorts the text of Title III, the structure of the ADA, and common sense. I respectfully dissent.

JWK

"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." – Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

336

Calling people something that they would not like to be called, clearly shows your hand. I honestly don’t give a ■■■■ about states having the right to allow discrimination. It’s unethical.

337

One might ask themselves what is the point of even having a legislative body in our federal government if one honestly thinks that every piece of legislation has to be passed in the form of a constitutional amendment as certain posters around here seem to think.

We’ve managed just 27 in over 200+ years. Imagine if laws couldn’t come into effect to cover the tens of thousands of situations that were thought of by the framers.

Section 1 of the 14th aptly covers pretty much any case of discrimination under the laws, but someone wants to parse it down and it doesnt despite it being litigated over and over and over that it does.

1 Like
338

It’s just games. None of them care when laws are passed that they agree with. By making everything a narrow constitutional issue, even slavery can be made to be just a matter of legal procedure and state’s rights.

1 Like
339

What do you expect in a Country run by a bunch of lawyers?

340

What I feel is what the Supreme Court has said, namely that the Tenth Amendment does not create or preserve any rights, but is a canon of interpretation. See United States v. Darby Lumber Co.

I also recognize that outside of commandeering cases, the Tenth Amendment has little effect on legislation.

I also note that the only time the Courts are supposed to consider the Tenth Amendment is where a state lacks “any right to participate” in the federal political process or was left “politically isolated and powerless” by a federal law. South Carolina v. Baker (1988)

Finally, the Courts have virtually always rejected argument that Federal action violates the 10th, except as noted above, in commandeering cases.

341

I have no idea what you mean by “Calling people something that they would not like to be called, clearly shows your hand.” I don’t think the group in question is a monolithic one, and universally cares one way or another about identifying them as I have. Aside from that, exactly what do you mean by showing my “hand”?

And in answer to the last part of your post, you seem to detest the act of discriminating, which in fact is something you, and everyone else does every day. Why is discrimination unethical?

Finally, in case you missed it, the OP is really about our federal government exercising legislative power over a subject matter not delegated to it by “We the People”. Of course, our wise founders put Article V into our Constitution to allow our Constitution to be a so-called living document, and to accommodate changing times, but only with consent of the governed as outlined in its amendment process. You seem to not care that the Equality Act goes beyond Congress’ delegated powers. Why?

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)

342

No it doesn’t. How many ways does it need to be explained to you?

343

Your unsubstantiated opinion has been repeatedly debunked, the last time being IN THIS POST, a post you have yet to refute.

:roll_eyes:

JWK
In every communist dictatorial oppressive country, like Cuba, China, and Venezuela, the people are disarmed. Forewarned is forearmed.

344

You know exactly what we’re talking about. You started off by accusing LGBTQ individuals of suffering from paraphila. You showed your hand, by stating you think these people are evil and/or mentally impaired.

Your complaint has nothing to do with constitutionality, but not agreeing with a gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender/queer’s choices in life.

We all know where you’re trying to come from. There’s no point of the 14th amendment, if states can override that amendment.

3 Likes
345

Isnt it sort of amazing to see someone be so wrong on so many things and then come back for more?

I mean how many times do discriminatory laws have to be smacked down and over turned before someone realizes it just doesnt fly?

346

A lot, apparently.

347

Years and years of it.

The latest rant about icky gays and transsexuals.