Thread: Does North Carolina's HB2 law violate our Constitution? A resounding NO!

In short, under the law in question, sexual deviants who believe their sex is not that which appears on their birth certificate, nor have taken surgical and legal steps to change the gender specified on their birth certificate, are not permitted under the law to use a public bathroom designated for a sex contrary to what is stated on their birth certificate. Does this violate our federal Constitution? We are told by our United States Attorney General Loretta Lynch that the law violates federal law. But our Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, and that includes the 14th Amendment which has been asserted is violated by North Carolina’s H.B.2 law. So, let us look at some irrefutable facts, as opposed to Loretta Lynch’s personal views of justice, fairness or reasonableness which she asserts is violated by North Carolina's HB 2 law.

The 14th Amendment declares in crystal clear language:

”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, 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.

Now that we have looked at the text of the 14th Amendment, exactly what was the legislative intent of the Amendment? I ask this question because our aim, in this discussion has been summarized as follows by our very own Supreme Court:


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)


So, what was the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment as stated by one of its ardent 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: Representative Shellabarger, Cong. Globe, 1866, page 1293

The very notion that the 14th Amendment prohibits distinctions in law based upon sex is an invention of Justice Ginsburg made in the Virginia Military Academy (VMI) case.

In delivering the Court’s opinion in the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) case, decided June 26, 1996, which commanded the Institute to accept women by citing the 14th Amendment as forbidding sex discrimination, Ginsburg pointed to previous Supreme Court rulings and a court invented test unknown to our founding fathers or the 39th Congress, and asserted a party seeking to uphold government action making a distinction based upon sex must establish an "exceedingly persuasive justification" In addition, Ginsburg noted, “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.”

But to this day, neither Justice Ginsburg nor any Supreme Court Justice has ever established by the text of the 14th Amendment, nor its legislative intent as expressed during the debates of the 39th Congress which framed the amendment, that its purpose was to forbid distinctions in law based upon sex.

The argument that the 14th Amendment prohibits state legislation which makes distinctions in law based upon sex is immediately exposed for the fraud that it is when reading the 19th Amendment which specifically forbids a new kind of discrimination. In this Amendment, the People of America decide to forbid sex discrimination [the discrimination mentioned by Ginsburg and Loretta Lynch] but only extend 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 as we are led to believe today, including discrimination based upon sex as Ginsburg and Lynch allege, then why was it necessary for the 15th and 19th Amendments to be added to the Constitution after the adoption of the 14th Amendment __ each of which forbids a new, but specific kind of discrimination?

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 distinctions in law based upon sex as Ginsburg and Loretta Lynch allege?

Thumbs up to the State of North Carolina and Gov. McCrory for standing up to Loretta Lynch’s attempted blackmailing. Hopefully other states will join in this suit.


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

So if someone "identifies" as a German Shepard puppy are they allowed to relieve themselves in our front yards? On the lawns in public parks? On our fire hydrants? At the doggie park?

What the hell next is going to hit the fan? We are headed down a dark, sick road.

It should be up to businesses, if they choose, to put in an "all in one" single bathroom that anyone can use including handicap, transgender, male, female, family, etc. But NOT allow men in women's rest rooms, or women in men's rest rooms.

On this one, I'm not sure what the right answer is in every situation. People who are transgender are different, they have a hard time, they dress, act and behave according to the gender they feel they are or should have been, so I don't mind someone like that using the same bathroom as I do. How would I even know the difference? I acknowledge that if for example a transgender person who thinks they are or should be a woman and dresses and acts like a woman tries to use the men's bathroom, there is a risk that they'll be harmed, there have been many reports about it, which is what raised the whole issue of them using the women's bathroom instead for personal safety.

I also understand the concern that perverts, child molesters and so forth may take advantage of the law to sneak into women's bathrooms to spy on the girls and women. But on this issue, if a pervert or child molester wants to sneak into the women's bathroom, they can do that now, hide in a stall and wait for their prey. I don't see this law changing that risk which is why most people don't let their small children go to the bathroom in a public place by themselves.

On North Carolina State Law, this law was passed to prevent the city of Charlotte from implementing its own ordinance. To me, that is wrong. Cities are municipalities, they are political subdivisions, they have a responsibility for their municipal territory, they have to promote their own jobs, their own sports, their own development, their own everything. Sure, from time to time the state assists in economic development projects, but for the most part cities and counties are on their own. So to me, Charlotte should have the right to pass a bathroom ordinance that works in their community for issues in their community without being shutdown by a state law passed solely for that purpose. The ordinance that passed only applied to businesses. It did not apply to publicly-owned facilities. And from what I can tell, there's no problem in Charlotte over it, so the state legislature should have stayed out of it. Many would say and I would not disagree with them that this is state over-reach. Charlotte is our largest city, a city that competes internationally in sports, and in business, and on a very wide cosmopolitan scale. What works in Charlotte may not work in other areas of North Carolina, and I understand that, but if it works in Charlotte, let it work in Charlotte. If it doesn't work in Charlotte, the Charlotte City Council will respond and modify their ordinance.

Charlotte has lost a lot of business and events because of what the state has done. How that possibly be good for our state of North Carolina? To much of the country, the state law makes our state look backward and bigoted against these people. How is that helpful? It raises up old scars, tears open old wounds, how can that be beneficial?

The primary issue appears to be "little girls going to the bathroom alone". Maybe little girls and little boys should not be going into public bathrooms alone, with or without the Charlotte ordinance.

Originally Posted by Judy

On North Carolina State Law, this law was passed to prevent the city of Charlotte from implementing its own ordinance. To me, that is wrong.

Are you saying you are ok with sanctuary city ordinances?


JWK

Originally Posted by johnwk

Are you saying you are ok with sanctuary city ordinances?


JWK

No, I'm not okay with any rule, law, regulation or ordinance that protects, aids or abets illegal aliens in the United States. Given what we already know, I would consider such rules, laws, regulations or ordinances acts of treason against the citizens of the United States.

Hundreds of Business Leaders Show Support for HB2 & Governor McCrory


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

NORTH CAROLINA— While the air waves have been inundated with businesses, large-scale corporations, and film-makers who neither live nor vote in North Carolina, airing their grievances against HB2, their views are not a reflection of the majority of North Carolinians, 70% of whom wanted Charlotte’s ordinance repealed.

The KeepNCsafe.org Coalition releases the following statement, “While business owners in other states have received criticism and have even been forced out of business for standing up for common sense, hundreds (334) of North Carolina business owners have signed on to a letter thanking Governor Pat McCrory and the General Assembly for passing a law affirming the privacy and safety of businesses, women, and children to live and work in accordance with their deeply held beliefs.These businesses support and applaud Governor McCrory for supporting women and children, over being politically correct.”

“North Carolina is consistently one of the top five states in the nation for business and economic growth. Any businesses threatening to not do business in our great state based on dishonest attacks by opponents of women’s and girls’ privacy and safety are only hurting themselves. Thanks to Governor McCrory and the General Assembly’s leadership and immediate action to ensure North Carolinians’ privacy and safety receives maximum protection, North Carolina will continue to flourish. It would be a shame for any companies to miss out on that simply because they believe men should be allowed into locked rooms with girls and women.”

Here is the list of businesses willing to be listed publicly:

• Preferred Planning and Insurance
• Richard and Lisa Baldwin, Baldwin Insurance & Brokerage
• Sallie Caldwell, S & S Cleaning Service, LLC
• Reese Cao, XG Technologies Inc
• Jennifer Champion, Total Life Changes
• Sam Cowles, Main Street Investments, LLC
• Mark & Lora Godwin, Mark Godwin Family Farms Inc.
• David Griffin, Griffin Tile & Marble Inc.
• David & Judith Hale, Lighthouse Electric of Charlotte
• Dusten Harward, D Harward Marketing
• Debra Hasty, Hasty Home Resources
• H. Ralph Henderson, Omnichannel Productions
• Tim Herlihy, Occupational Health Concepts
• Rebekah Hopkins, Beethoven’s Piano Revelers Studio
• Jana Huffstetler, Collision Center of Stanley County
• Gregory Humphrey, Heaven’s Best Carpet Cleaning
• Cheryl Jones, ICI Lamp Company
• Sergey Kholod, Serglandscape Company
• Tony Mazzone, Comfort Security
• Adam and Michelle Mills, Mills Inc.
• Bill Montross, Christian Business Men Connections
• Jesse Newton, Green Branch Construction, Inc.
• Ronald Obie, WCRG
• Justin Reeder, Superior Wash Southeast
• David & Jason Benham, Benham Real Estate Group
• Lila Sanacore, Prayerful Touch Massage
• Doug Schmeuszer, Sunbelt Packaging LLC
• Tim Steele, Thermal Services, Inc.
• Gretchen, Tate, God’s Glamorous Girls
• Lisa Todd, Todd Group
• Keith Vance, Vance Resource llc
• Maria Vari, Strategic Resource Development
• Elizabeth Walker, Oexning Silversmiths, Inc.
• Paul, Weaver, AWPC, Inc
• Michael Wolff, KC Solutions Group
• Charles O’Connor, Advanced Enclosure Consulting
• Richard Gavin, Riverside Millwork
• Angela Smith, Lombardo Swimming Pools
• Shardae White, Personal Catering llc
• Carl Ford, South Rowan Broadcasting Inc.
• Alva Yandle, Melatex, Inc
• Carl Ford, Ford Broadcasting Inc.
• David Snyder, Snyder Packaging, Inc.
• Wesley Dunn, Wesley’s Detail & Tree Service
• Henri McClees, McClees Consulting, Inc.
• AnnaMaria Simeonides, To Your Health Bakery
• Paul Strates, Archangel Michael Orthodox Christian Bookstore
• Kelly Simeonides, Planet Family Inc.
• CarolinaDreamRealEstate.com Inc.
• Jadd Brewer, Water Quality Lab and Operations
• Eileen Dover, Mary Merrie Christmas Shoppe
• Thomas McCain, Carolina Green Landscape Co.
• Ruben Martinez, Maranatha Realty
• Charlotte Christian Chamber
• Ray Harrison, Carolina Carpet and Flooring
• Tom Harcus, Arcas Real Estate Investment LLC
• American Homesmith
• Centurion Construction Co. Inc
• MLG Construction Co.
• System Electric Co.
• Carolina Civilworks Inc.
• Karen McDaniel, Accounting & More
• Kel Grenga, J.K. Grenga & Associates, Inc.
• Hunt Properties, Inc.
• Charles Herring, CCVentures
• Scott Saunders, Praygrounds LLC
• Rob Moser, Sanctuary Center for Counseling
• Nathan Click, Pearl Financing LLC
• Jeff & Leigh Ann Martin, Martin Medical
• Shifley and Associates

Due to vocal threats and bullying from the LGBT community, some business owners feared for the well-being of their business and families. For this reason, some preferred to remain anonymous by name, however, here is a list of timestamped signees with industry indication for those who have signed on, thus far, showing the incredibly large outpouring of support for the passage of HB2 on the North Carolina business community.

If you have not signed up to be a part of this growing list of businesses in support of HB2 and the actions taken by Governor Pat McCrory and the General Assembly, you can still list your name.
Update: As of 10PM – The business support list has grown to 350 Leaders, 2 listings were removed due to errors.

3/31/16 – List Totals 373 Organizations.
4/3/16 – List Totals 385 Organizations
4/8/16 – List Totals 393 Organizations
4/29/16 – List Totals 401 Organizations

http://keepmyncsafe.com/hundreds-bus...ernor-mccrory/