On the Basis of Sex and Ginsburg’s whims and fancies vs the rule of law


#61

You’re forgetting the fact that Masterpiece also agreed to follow the laws governing businesses in the state—which include public accommodation laws. They don’t have a right to break those laws.


#62

What I have stated, and is 100 percent accurate is, the Fourteenth Amendment, contrary to what Ginsburg indicates, does not forbid people to make distinctions based upon sex.

In fact, the American people specifically rejected a constitutional amendment, the “Equal Rights Amendment”, which would have, if adopted, forbid any State to make distinctions based upon sex. Here is the text of the ERA which was rejected by the American people:

Section 1: Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Section 2: The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3: This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

Let us, at the very least, stick to the facts.

JWK

One of mankind’s most fundamental rights is the right to mutually agree in contracts and associations, a right despised by the intolerant ACLU and those who work to destroy our free market system.


#63

And you are forgetting the inalienable rights of mankind.

JWK

One of mankind’s most fundamental rights is the right to mutually agree in contracts and associations, a right despised by the intolerant ACLU and those who work to destroy our free market system.


#64

Nah, I’m operating within the reality of society, not the fantasy world surrounded by walls of text.


#65

Well, the “reality” is, the American people specifically rejected a constitutional amendment, the “Equal Rights Amendment”, which would have, if adopted, forbid any State to make distinctions based upon sex. Here is the text of the ERA which was rejected by the American people:

Section 1: Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Section 2: The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3: This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

Let us, at the very least, stick to the facts.

JWK

One of mankind’s most fundamental rights is the right to mutually agree in contracts and associations, a right despised by the intolerant ACLU and those who work to destroy our free market system.


#66

.

Let me be very clear in this matter. I admire Ginsburg fighting for a cause she believed in prior to her being appointed to the Supreme Court. I think fighting for a cause as she did is a noble characteristic. What I find offensive and destructive to our constitutionally limited system of government is, instead of continuing to work within the framework of our constitution, its amendment process to accomplish her goal, she used her office of public trust to impose her personal whims and fancies as being the rule of law. This is not only an attack upon our constitutionally limited system of government, a system embracing the rule of law as opposed to the arbitrarily dictates and mandates of those who hold power, it is an attack upon a system of government intended to be held in check by the reason and choice of the people as expressed in a written constitution.

JWK

"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void.” ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law , 1858.


#67

Cool. I believe in a different set of inalienable rights.

Tbe ACLU is extremely good. Also, they never do any cases related to contracts,so your sentence is false.


#69

The text of the first section of the 14th Amendment has been laid out HERE

It addresses “citizens” as distinguished from “persons”. I cannot justify Ginsburg’s following comments in the VMI case which commanded the Institute to accept women by citing the 14th Amendment as forbidding sex discrimination, Ginsburg asserted a party seeking to make a distinction based upon sex must establish an "exceedingly persuasive justification" In addition, Ginsburg asserted, “The justification must be genuine, not hypothesized or invented post hoc in response to litigation. And it must not rely on overbroad generalizations about the different talents, capacities, or preferences of males and females.”

What wording is she referring to? And, if the Constitution forbids an act, the notion that it can be set aside and overlooked by the Court if an "exceedingly persuasive justification’ can be dreamed up would allow the very mandates and provisions of our Constitution to become discretionary at the courts pleasure and personal predilections, and thus, a meaningless document.

Let us recall the wisdom stated by Chief Justice John Marshall:

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)

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)


#70

Indeed, that’s why no type of speech can be abridged by the federal government. Free rein on libel and slander! That’s why no religious act can be forbidden! Have at it FLDS underage polygamy! No manner of arm can be denied either, shall not infringe on the right to bear an m240, m134, or a suitcase nuke! After all, the text doesn’t provide exceptions to any of those things, it’s quite clear. The card says Moops!


#72

In the 14th Amendment’s context the word “equal” is found in the following passage:

”…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 based upon sex, 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 law must be enforced equally upon every “person”.

And this is exactly what a Representative of the 39th Congress which framed the amendment __ one who supported it ___ indicates is the limited and intended meaning of the amendment.

“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

If Ginsburg is referring to the word “equal” as you suggest, she is then attaching her own meaning to the word and not that of those who framed and helped to ratify the amendment.

With regard to the language of the constitution see:

16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law

Meaning of Language

Ordinary meaning, generally

”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)

The Court is not free to make the words or phrases in our Constitution mean whatever they so desire, but are confined to the meaning of words as understood when the Constitution, or a particular amendment was adopted. To not follow this rule is to allow judges and Justices to defy the very reasons for which the people gave their consent when adopting the Constitution and allow judges and Justices to make the Constitution mean whatever they want it to mean. And that my friend is judicial anarchy.

JWK

Karl Marx popularized the word “capitalism” __ a word unknown to our founders’ __ to attack the free market system our founders created. Why do so many talking heads in our media refer to our system as “capitalism” rather than a free market system which our founders created?


#73

Can you quote this right from the Constitution?


#74

As I recall, there is wording in the Constitution stating its purpose is to “secure the Blessings of Liberty”. Is the freedom to mutually agree in contracts and associations not within the meaning of “liberty”?

JWK

Karl Marx popularized the word “capitalism” __ a word unknown to our founders __, to attack the free market system our founders created. Why do so many talking heads refer to our system as “capitalism” rather than a free market system which our founders created?


#75

I’ve been waiting for the pearl clutching illustrated here by the conservative republicans about this movie.


#76

What? They should do what the NRA is for? OK, if the ACLU takes up that cause, we can eliminate the NRA or merge them.


#77

So…you believe a business can ignore the tenets of their business license?


#78

Pull their business license. Problem solved.


#84

I’m just amused how liberals say “that’s what the NRA is for” and then react like the NRA is the spawn of satan.


#85

Why are those two opinions mutually exclusive?


#86

I agree liberty can contain freedom of association. Do you think that trumps public accommodation laws?


#87

:roll_eyes:

JWK
There is no surer way to weaken, subdue and then conquer a prosperous and freedom loving people than by allowing and encouraging the poverty stricken, poorly educated, low-skilled, criminal and diseased populations of other countries to invade that country, and make the country’s existing citizens tax-slaves to support the economic needs of such invaders.