Skip to comments.Virginia AG Ken Cuccinelli: Sexual Orientation not Legally Protected Category
Posted on 03/08/2010 1:58:32 PM PST by mbarker12474
"Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli says Virginia's public colleges and universities cannot prohibit discrimination against gays because the General Assembly has not authorized them to do so."
(Excerpt) Read more at 2.timesdispatch.com ...
The advocacy groups are all over this.
Note Cuccinelli’s argument that an executive body (the governor, state schools) cannot arbitrarily issue decrees and judgements regarding civil rights. Cuccinelli claims that, in Virginia, this is reserved for the General Assembly......
Observe the similar issue in Washington D.C., where the city council, and not the voters, declared the city’s support for gay marriage on civil rights grounds. Opponents argue that the city council has no power to make these decrees.
And... regarding the language here and in the Kennedy bill, just what does “sexual orientation” mean?
Ken C should be President.
He already has a longer and better record of actual accomplishment in life than the Big Fat Zero currently polluting the White House.
We must remember to append the residential districts in DC to Maryland next time we have power. If Maryland objects, take away their military bases!
Wow, Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli rules!
Best AG in the USA.
“Depends on differences in the State Constitution and the enabling legislation for the DC city council.
We must remember to append the residential districts in DC to Maryland next time we have power. If Maryland objects, take away their military bases! “
Let Maryland object all they want, all we will do is be declaring such districts outside of the Federal district.
By natural law it would logically become part of Maryland from which it came. But a state can redefine its borders to exclude such an area.
We just cant admit DC’s residential area to the union as a new state without the consent of the Maryland State legislator, as the land does belong to them.
But I agree this should be key on the republican party platform, to end this D.C. voting rights nonsense.
Technically speaking D.C. is not suppose to even have a local government a the U.S. Constitution says under article 1 section 8 of D.C.:
“To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States”
The word “exclusive” does not include the possibility of sharing power.
So technically the current arrangement for D.C. is blatantly unconstitutional. The only way they get around such a limitation is by means of having congress simply pass what ever law or act the elected authority there in have.
So yes we must end this constrainedly of taxation with our representation by getting rid of any possibility of a local population in D.C. we will let them keep the populated parts which will simply go back to the State of Maryland to do with what the State of Maryland wants.
All we will do is declare such sections of D.C. not to be any longer part of the Federal district, and then in-act a zoning law to prohibit any new residential areas in what remains of D.C.
So. He’s right.