Thread: ACLU’s Joshua Block ignores limits of 14th Amendment in transgender bathroom case

.
Did anyone else see the 4th Circuits bathroom case decision and ACLU’s Joshua Block's absurd comment on the case?


The 4th Circuit in their 2-1 ruling, April 19, 2016, sent the case back to the lower court for rehearing. There is nothing in the ruling remotely suggesting a State may not make distinctions in law based upon sex. And this is the bottom line question which needs to be addressed. Title IX is not the supreme law of our land!

The nitwit at the ACLU, Joshua Block, who commented that "With this decision, we hope that schools and legislators will finally get the message that excluding transgender kids from the restrooms is unlawful sex discrimination", is absurd on its face as “transgendered” kids may use a bathroom so long as it corresponds to the sex which appears on their birth certificate.

Since our federal Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and nowhere in our federal Constitution have the states be prohibited from making distinctions in law based upon sex, [the 19th Amendment being the only exception] there is no “unlawful sex discrimination” if a state decides public bathrooms are to be used in accordance with one’s sex as it appears on one’s birth certificate.

“Any person” __ as required by the 14th Amendment __ receives equal protection of a State’s laws should a state require public bathroom to be used in accordance with one’s sex as it appears on their birth certificate. Does such a law apply equally to every homosexual person? Yes. Does such a law apply equally to every heterosexual person? Yes. Does such a law apply equally to a transgender person? Of course it does. And would such a law apply equally to every lesbian person? It sure does. How about a bi-sexual person? Would requiring a bi-sexual person to use a bathroom in accordance with their sex as stated on their birth certificate apply equally to every bi-sexual person? Of course it does.

In fact, Joshua Block, a state law which requires every person, regardless of their perceived sexual identity, to use a bathroom designated for the sex which appears on their birth certificate applies equally to “any person” as required by our Constitution. And the Tenth Amendment guarantees that all powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So, Joshua Block, what is your freaken beef with a law that applies equally to “any person”?


JWK


" I believe that there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." ___ Madison Elliot`s Debates, vol. III, page 87

Don't let them fool you there is more to this then they are talking about. Showers after PE will allow boys and girls to shower together. This law has more consequences then they are talking about. This is just sick and shows you how low the morals of this country have become. The ACLU has become sick and twisted and I believe they are Anti-American.

Originally Posted by posylady

Don't let them fool you there is more to this then they are talking about. Showers after PE will allow boys and girls to shower together. This law has more consequences then they are talking about. This is just sick and shows you how low the morals of this country have become. The ACLU has become sick and twisted and I believe they are Anti-American.

We are told by the ACLU that Title IX has been violated by requiring students to use a bathroom designated to correspond to one's sex as it appears on their birth certificate. But note, Title IX is not our nation’s supreme law of the land. Our Constitution and its various amendments are!

The ACLU is intentionally attempting to misinformed the general public with regard to the limited authority delegated to Congress under the 14th Amendment, as contradistinguished from the powers reserved by the States so each may adopt unique legislation thought necessary to protect the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

Let us look at the documented facts which prove the ACLU assertions are absurd and without foundation.

Federalist Paper No. 45 tells us:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”

And with regard to the 14th Amendment which you point to, let us look at its actual text and legislative intent which gives context to its text.

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.

The Amendment then ends with vesting power in Congress to enact appropriate legislation to enforce the provisions of the amendment.

And now that we have looked at the text of the amendment, what is its legislative intent as expressed during its framing and ratification process?

“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

Title IX states that: No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance

One problem with Title IX is, it impinges upon a State’s reserved power to make distinctions in law based upon sex which are thought necessary to protect the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. And in so doing, Title IX violates the 10th Amendment which commands:

”The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.”

In the 1980s there was an attempt to add the “Equal Rights Amendment” to our federal constitution which would, if adopted, forbid the states to make distinctions in law based upon sex. But the amendment failed and one of the reasons it failed was that it would lead to same sex bathrooms in addition to prohibiting distinctions in state laws based upon sex. But having failed, the state retained their reserved power to make distinctions in law based upon sex.

Why is this so difficult for the ACLU and others to accept, and instead of working to circumvent our written Constitution, why not work to amend it which is the only lawful way to achieve their goals?

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