Results 1 to 6 of 6
Like Tree2Likes
  • 1 Post By johnwk
  • 1 Post By johnwk

Thread: S.C. defies Constitution, mocks oath of office, creates singular rights for sexual de

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member johnwk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    1,735

    S.C. defies Constitution, mocks oath of office, creates singular rights for sexual de



    S.C. defies Constitution,mocks oath of office, creates singular rights for sexual deviants



    See:
    Supreme Court rules existing civil rights law protects LGBTQ workers

    June 15, 2020,

    “The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that existing federal law forbids job discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and transgender status, a major victory for advocates of gay rights — and a surprising one from an increasingly conservative court.

    In decisions on two separate cases, the court said Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which makes it illegal for employers to discriminate because of a person's sex, among other factors, also covers sexual orientation and transgender status.”


    What the majority members [GORSUCH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined] on our Supreme Court fail or refuse to establish is, the authority under our federal Constitution delegating power to Congress to prohibit by legislation [Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964] that a business owner is prohibited to make distinctions based upon sex, or, legislate in a manner which impinges upon the inalienable right of people being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.


    In fact, the 14the Amendment, which allegedly grants such power, turns out to be a fabrication created by those who have been unable to amend our Constitution to accommodate their desires.

    The Fourteenth Amendment reads:

    ”All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

    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:

    2. “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:

    3. “… 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:

    4. ”…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 does not apply to “identifiable groups”.

    So where in our federal Constitution has a power been delegated to authorize our federal government to prohibit a state to make distinctions in law based upon sex, or more important, to prohibit citizens to make distinctions based upon sex which would impinge on the fundamental right of people being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations?


    Is it not a fact that the 15th Amendment was adopted to prohibit a new type of discrimination? Discrimination at the voting booth ---forbidding discrimination at the voting booth to be based upon “race, color, or previous condition of servitude“, while gender, and in particularly females, were not yet included in the protection?


    The argument that the 14th Amendment prohibits state discrimination based upon gender, becomes even weaker when reading the 19th Amendment which specifically forbids a new kind of discrimination. In this Amendment, the People of America decide to forbid gender discrimination [the discrimination mentioned by Ginsburg in the infamous VMI case] but only extended the prohibition with respect to the right to vote being “denied or abridged” on account of “sex”


    If the 14th Amendment prohibited every kind of discrimination, which a majority on our Supreme Court now seems to contend, including distinctions based upon sexual deviant identifications, then why were the above mentioned amendments added to the Constitution after the adoption of the 14th Amendment?

    Finally, why would there have been a proposed and so-call equal rights amendment attempted to be added to the Constitution of the United States in the 1980’s to prohibit sex discrimination, which fell short of the required number of ratifying States, if the 14th Amendment already prohibited discrimination based upon sex as the Court’s majority now contends?

    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

    Last edited by johnwk; 06-15-2020 at 12:02 PM.

  2. #2
    Senior Member johnwk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    1,735
    From the the dissenting opinion:


    Today, many Americans know individuals who are gay, lesbian, or transgender and want them to be treated with the dignity, consideration, and fairness that everyone deserves. But the authority of this Court is limited to saying what the law is .




    • The Court itself recognizes this:*



    “The place to make new legislation . . . lies in Congress. When it comes to statutory interpretation, our role is limited to applying the law’s demands as faithfully as we can in the cases that come before us.” Ante , at 31.




    • It is easy to utter such words. If only the Court would live by them.*
    • I respectfully dissent.* ____ Justice Alito










    We have been duly warned about arbitrary acts of power:


    “When a free people submit to oppressive acts, passed in violation of their constitution, for a single day, they have thrown down the palladium of their liberty. Submit to despotism for an hour and you concede the principle. John Adams said, in 1775, Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud. It is the only thing a people determined to be free can do. Republics have often failed, and have been succeeded by the most revolting despotisms; and always it was the voice of timidity, cowardice, or false leaders counseling submission, that led to the final downfall of freedom. It was the cowardice and treachery of the Senate of Rome that allowed the usurper to gain power, inch by inch, to overthrow the Republic. The history of the downfall of Republics is the same in all ages. The first inch that is yielded to despotism __ the first blow, dealt at the Constitution, that is not resisted is the beginning of the end of the nation’s ruin.” ___The Old Guard, A MONTHLY JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF 1776 AND 1787.


    JWK

    ”The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands [our Supreme Court] . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47

  3. #3
    Senior Member johnwk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    1,735
    .
    The singular right approved of by the Court in Bostock v. Clayton County is a right to pursue court action if an employer rejects an employee based upon their sex. But the only provision in our federal Constitution forbidding distinctions based upon sex is the 19th Amendment, and it has to do with voting, not employment!


    The S.C. majority opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, violates the people’s inalienable right to mutually agree in their contracts and associations, and was intentionally embraced by the majority of the Court to give sexual deviants, as an identifiable group, easy access to initiate court action not found in the Constitution. This is an abuse of the Justices’ authority.

    JWK
    Beezer likes this.

  4. #4
    Senior Member johnwk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    1,735
    The big problem is, this unconstitutional ruling, Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, like the unconstitutional Americans with Disabilities Act , will most certainly lead to business owners paying out millions upon millions of dollars to stop frivolous court actions filed by blood-sucking shyster lawyers.
    And especially see:

    The ADA Litigation Monster | Americans with Disabilities Act



    “The notion that the ADA would not “lead endlessly to litigation” was also wrong. (See “
    The ADA Shakedown Racket, ” Winter 2004.) ADA claims against employers filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), now numbering more than 26,000 per year, have become as common as sex-discrimination claims. And the volume keeps rising, as does the number of ADA lawsuits against employers filed in federal court yearly.”



    The above is why I call the supreme court’s majority opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia , the new full employment act for lawyers.

    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
    Last edited by johnwk; 06-16-2020 at 04:23 PM.

  5. #5
    Senior Member johnwk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    1,735
    The abuse of power involved in the Court's majority opinion is, Congress is not authorized, by our Constitution, to prohibit distinctions based upon sex ___ the exception being the 19th Amendment which forbids the right to vote to be denied based upon “sex”.

    As a matter of law, neither Congress nor the Supreme Court is authorized to forbid distinctions being made based upon sex as they may relate to the various States' internal businesses.

    The 14th Amendment, alleged to grant such power, is summarized as follows during the 39th Congress which framed 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:
    Representative Shallabarger, Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293



    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 ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

  6. #6
    Senior Member johnwk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    1,735
    Senator Cruz said the following regarding the majority opinion:


    “This judicial rewriting of our laws short-circuited the legislative process and the authority of the electorate,” he said. “Six un-elected and unaccountable judges instead took it upon themselves to act as legislators, and that undermines our democratic process.”
    LINK


    JWK

    ”The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands [our Supreme Court] . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” ___ Madison,Federalist Paper No. 47
    Last edited by johnwk; 06-16-2020 at 05:15 PM.
    Beezer likes this.

Similar Threads

  1. Justice Dept. defies Court & Constitution in Obamacare c
    By johnwk in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-15-2010, 06:39 PM
  2. SCOTUS Mocks Constitution Again Re Obama Birth pdf
    By AirborneSapper7 in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-15-2008, 02:54 PM
  3. Congressional Oath of Office
    By zeezil in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-21-2007, 07:01 PM
  4. Mahony Defies Pope, US Constitution Aids Reconquesta
    By CCUSA in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 03-08-2007, 01:08 AM
  5. IN VIOLATON OF THEIR OATH OF OFFICE
    By ruthiela in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-22-2006, 11:21 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •