Posted on 09/12/2022 5:54:49 PM PDT by know.your.why
Parents are enraged over President Joe Biden's proposal redefining sex and allowing transgender students to compete in female sports and use women's locker rooms in schools.
A slew of parents and 'concerned citizens' flooded to comment on the proposed rule change, claiming it dismantles the whole purpose of Title IX protections for women in sports and academics.
The public comment period went live on July 12 and in two months garnered a record 184,000 posts. The comment period closes Monday, September 12.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Groomers gotta groom.
Better to endanger children than to threaten democracy
What part of Article II of the Constitution gives a President any power to impose something like this on the country?
Only Christian groups? The Oprah spiritualist or the agnostics or even the atheists don’t fear for their children?
What part of Article II of the Constitution gives a President any power to impose something like this on the country?
“Let the pretend girls use the real girls’ bathrooms or your kids will go hungry. Nice bunch we’ve got in charge.
Dementia Joe could care less about endangering the USA.
He is owned by the WEF.
A lot of those sorts of people are liberal , and the liberal view is that we have to be accepting of all this transgender business. They may have private misgivings about all of this, but they are afraid to say anything out loud.
The Rats are predators
You should check out the many companies that are proud WEF members.
And what percentage of these folks do you imagine will STILL vote for democrats,
Indicative of Midterm votes.
If parents were making sure that their children were being taught about the federal government's constitutionally limited powers as the delegates to the Constitutional Convention had intended for those powers to be understood, then children would probably be able to calm down their constitutionally low-information parents with the following analysis of Biden's policies concerning this situation. (The problem is not mainly Biden imo, but the very corrupt, alleged election-stealing Congress that is wrongly letting Biden get away with all kinds of impeachable offenses imo.)
The bottom line is this. All that parent voters need to argue against politically correct Title IX-based federal indoctrination of their children is that the title is based on constitutionally nonexistent federal government powers.
More specifically, and militia-related training issue aside, the states have never expressly constitutionally giving the feds the specific power to dictate, regulate, tax and spend in the name of INTRAstate schooling, or to find remedies for sex-related discrimination outside the scope of voting rights issues, evidence by the 19th Amendment.
"19th Amendment:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]." —United States v. Butler, 1936.
In fact, given that the fed's power to find remedies for race-based discrimination is likewise limited to voting rights issues, evidenced by the 19th Amendment, probably most of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its titles are unconstitutional imo.
"15th Amendment:Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
Next, regardless that the feds are now pushing all kinds of indoctrination in intrastate schools, consider that President Thomas Jefferson had officially clarified the following in a State of the Union address. The states would first need to appropriately amend the Constitution in order for Congress to be able to dictate policy for intrastate schools, something that the states have never done!
“The great mass of the articles on which impost is paid is foreign luxuries, purchased by those only who are rich enough to afford themselves the use of them. Their patriotism would certainly prefer its continuance and application to the great purposes of the public education, roads, rivers, canals, and such other objects of public improvement as it may be thought proper to add to the constitutional enumeration of federal powers [emphasis added].” —Thomas Jefferson: 6th Annual Message, 1806." (Jefferson is indicating that Congress cannot tax and spend in the name of intrastate infrastructure imo.)
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
And since Biden student loan forgiveness is now an issue, consider that Jefferson had also noted that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention had considered giving banking powers to the feds, but had decided against it.
"It is known that the very power now proposed as a means was rejected as an end by the Convention which formed the Constitution. A proposition was made to them to authorize Congress to open canals, and an amendatory one to empower them to incorporate. But the whole was rejected, and one of the reasons for rejection urged in debate was, that then they would have a power to erect a bank, which would render the great cities, where there were prejudices and jealousies on the subject, adverse to the reception of the Constitution [emphasis added]. — Jefferson's Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791
In other words, not only is the very corrupt, post-17th Amendment ratification federal government regularly stealing state revenues to buy votes with unconstitutional federal social spending programs, such revenues stolen by means of unconstitutional taxes that Congress cannot reasonably justify under its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers, but also consider the following.
The Biden Administration, but really Congress, is also stealing state interest on unconstitutional “federal” student loans, loans actually based on stolen state revenues!
In other words, 2022 unconstitutional federal taxes are possibly going to go up an average about $2.500 dollars in order to pay for vote-buying federal forgiveness on unconstitutional federal student loans!
Are we having fun yet? 8^P
The next step that Trump's red tsunami of patriot supporters, including Trump closet supporters, need to take to start fixing this unconstitutional mess is to vote Republican in November.
Corrections, insights welcome.
“Transgender girls” ~ Translation: mentally ill boys.
Also see my tag line.
"fasten your seat-belts, it's going to be a bumpy ride"
"[...] because that U.S. Supreme Court decision [??? emphasis added] equated trans gender choice to actual biological sex."
First, regardless of politically correct gender arguments, it remains that the states have never expressly constitutionally given the feds the specific power to protect against sex-related discrimination outside the scope of voting rights issues, evidenced by the 19th Amendment (19A).
"19th Amendment:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]." —United States v. Butler, 1936.
And speaking of 19A, the Bostock v. Clayton County (Bostock) opinion doesn't seem to mention Minor v. Happersett (Minor), correction welcome.
More specifically, Justice Gorsuch and other institutionally indoctrinated justices seem to have overlooked (ahem) in Bostock that the Supreme Court had previously established the case precedent in Minor that male and female sexes are determined by biological birth sex.
Maybe Virginia Minor should have argued that her politically correct gender is male to try to win her case. /sarc
Note that partly because of her fight for women's suffrage, the 19th Amendment was later ratified.
Predictable constitutional problems with the misguided Roberts Court's politically correct decision in Bostock is this imo. Doomed (imo) Bostock can later be overturned for a reason similar to why Roe v. Wade (Roe) was overturned, the states having never amended the Constitution to expressly protect gender identity with Bostock, nor the so-called "right" to murder unborn children with Roe.
Insights welcome.
I forgot to wention the following possibility in post 18 regarding overturn of Roe v. Wade (Roe).
I question if the Roberts Court possibly overturned Roe in this pivotal election year to help the desparate Democrats remain in power by promising unconstitutional federal abortion protection laws to win womens’ votes.
The tradition of stare decisis is quite deeply established, and for good reason. Therefore even if Bostock could theoretically be overturned, the likelihood of it happening before the deep filthy tentacles of Biden's radical Title IX interpretation have ruined a generation or more of schoolchildren is highly unlikely. SCOTUS very rarely overturns a past decision. And there is at least one, and possibly more, cases that claim the same constitutional flaw as Roe in line ahead of it: Obergefell v. Hodges.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.