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


#175

Dude, dude, to answer your question, go to the OP and read. It articulates in crystal clear language what I realize, including the Justices who took part in the opinion.

Additionally, I noticed you avoided discussing whether or not Ginsburg’s opinion is in harmony with the text and legislative intent of the 14th Amendment. Is your avoidance to discuss the majority opinion an admission that Ginsburg did impose her personal views of what the 14th Amendment should mean as the rule of law, rather than its actual meaning as understood by those who framed and helped to ratify it?

Ginsburg did allege Virginia had violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, i.e., ”…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

But this wording contained in the 14th Amendment 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 write laws which make distinctions 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”, men and women alike.

Ginsburg would have us believe the 14th Amendment was written to forbid the States from writing laws which made distinctions based upon sex, when in fact, the wording in question merely commands that whatever laws a State may write, they shall be enforce equally upon all.

And to confirm the meaning of the 14th Amendment I turn to one of its supporters present during the 39th Congress which framed and helped to ratify 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

So tell me, Calvin, contrary to Justice Ginsburg’s written opinion, is it not a fact neither the 14th Amendment’s text, or its legislative intent, forbids the States or people from making distinctions based upon sex?

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


#176

So you would advocate no govt action back in the 50s and 60s. You think the civil rights would have worked itself out over time.

Small comfort for those being discriminated against and easy to say when you aren’t in that group.


#177

I support abiding by our Constitution. I also support protecting the inalienable right of mankind being free to mutually agree in contracts and associations. Snowflakes, on the other hand, do not.

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?


#178

Yet you want people kicked out for trespassing? Who are you to impose your personal morality on others?


#179

Your post indicates you may not support enforcing rights associated with property ownership or, people being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.

JWK

[P]roperty [does not] lose its private character merely because the public is generally invited to use it for designated purposes. __ LLOYD CORP. v. TANNER, 407 U.S. 551 (1972)


#180

I’ll happily stand with the likes of MLK. You can proudly stand with Bull Connor who arrested protesters for vagrancy. All perfectly legal.


#181

So you are comfortable imposing your morality on others by force?


#182

:roll_eyes:

I’m comfortable in supporting and abiding by our Constitution. I also support protecting the inalienable right of mankind being free to mutually agree in contracts and associations. Snowflakes, on the other hand, do not. They seek to use government force to obstruct people being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.

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?


#183

Then you object to laws against fraud right, because that uses government force to obstruct people being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.


#184

:roll_eyes:

JWK


#185

Nothing you can do, Borgia. Statists gonna state. It,'s sad world they live in where they feel the need to make peaceful prospective customers leave without calling on government thugs to do the dirty work for them.


#186

John, keep in mind the person’s individual freedom to choose who they associate with is not being infringed. It is only their business.

I know you disagree but when you choose to do business publicly, there are rules you need to abide by.


#189

And then there is our Constitution, the supreme law of the land!
:roll_eyes:

But getting back to the subject of the thread, we are talking about Ginsburg’s written opinion which is not in harmony with the text and legislative intent of the 14th Amendment. Is your avoidance to discuss her written opinion an admission that Ginsburg did impose her personal views of what the 14th Amendment should mean as the rule of law, rather than its actual meaning as understood by those who framed and helped to ratify it?

Ginsburg did allege Virginia had violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, i.e., ”…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

But this wording contained in the 14th Amendment 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 write laws which make distinctions 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”, men and women alike.

Ginsburg would have us believe the 14th Amendment was written to forbid the States from writing laws which made distinctions based upon sex, when in fact, the wording in question merely commands that whatever laws a State may write, they shall be enforce equally upon all.

And to confirm the meaning of the 14th Amendment I turn to one of its supporters present during the 39th Congress which framed and helped to ratify 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

So tell me, Borgia-dude, is it not a fact that Justice Ginsburg’s written opinion is not supported by the text of the 14th Amendment, nor its expressed legislative intent?’

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)


#190

It’s sad, really. John must have very little faith in humanity if he thinks people peacefully sitting down waiting to order a meal should be violently kicked out. Good ideas shouldn’t require the use of force.


#191

Faith in what? And where have I remotely suggested the people you mention “should be violently kicked out”?

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?


#192

The founders did not create the free market system.


#193

The fact is, the word “capitalism” was unknown to our founders. In fact “capitalism” was used and popularized by Karl Marx to describe a free market system in an evil light. By contrast, our Founder’s often describe our system in a manner promoting a “free” market, “free” trade, or “free” enterprise ___ “free” being the operative word. For example see Thomas Jefferson’s : First Annual Message to Congress

”Agriculture, manufactures, commerce, and navigation, the four pillars of our prosperity, are the most thriving when left most free to individual enterprise.”

By the terms and conditions set forth in our Constitution, it seems crystal clear to me our Founders created a free market system as opposed to the much touted “capitalism” which is a mischaracterization of our Founders’ work.

I get the distinct impression those, and especially socialists, who refer to our system as “capitalism”, recoil from the phrases “free enterprise”, “free market”, “free trade”, etc., which is a reminder the people are, in general, by the terms of our Constitution, to be left free in conducting their economic interactions.

JWK

The unavoidable truth is, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s socialist plan for “free” college tuition will be paid for by taxing millions of college graduates who worked for and paid their own way through college and are now trying to finance their own economic needs.


#195

Borgia_dude,

Rules which impinge upon a fundamental right are presumptively unconstitutional.

People have an inalienable right to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.

JWK

[P]roperty [does not] lose its private character merely because the public is generally invited to use it for designated purposes. __ LLOYD CORP. v. TANNER, 407 U.S. 551 (1972)


#196

Oh, is that so, now? Like most rights, all I see here is an assertion without an argument to back it up.


#197

Could it be you do no see because you are not paying attention?

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?