Posted on 06/18/2020 12:54:53 PM PDT by george76
Warts and all…
”...the Supreme Court rewrote Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964."
Brace yourselves patriots! The congressional record shows that Supreme Court’s scandalous, politically correct interpretation of Title VII of the constitutionally indefensible (imo) Civil Rights Act of 1964 (CRA '64) in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia was actually warned about over 150 years ago when post-Civil War lawmakers were making the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (CRA 1866). Overzealous lawmakers of that time had made the "final" draft of CRA 1866 to support the 13th Amendment (13A). The problem with basing the law on 13A is that the amendment doesn't give Congress the express powers that it needed to justify the "final" draft of CRA 1866.
"13th Amendment:
Section 1: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.Section 2: 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.
Before I go any further, patriots are hopefully aware that corrupt Congress gets around its 1st Amendment (1A) prohibitions on making laws to prohibit freedoms of religious expression and speech by doing the following. Post-17th Amendment ratification lawmakers bypass their 1A prohibited powers by simply letting corrupt Supreme Court justices get away with stealing legislative powers, then wrongly using those powers, like stealth liberal Gorsuch just did with CRA '64, to make such laws from the bench imo. (Democrats have remained in power by effectively repealing the Ten Commandments imo.)
Getting back to post-Civil War federal lawmakers, although their intentions were undoubtedly good, lawmakers who evidently didn't have a grip on the significance of enumerated, specific federal government powers began making civil rights laws to support 13A. The problem was, and still is, that neither 13A, or anything else in the Constitution for that matter, expressly give Congress the specific power to make such laws.
Fortunately, there were a few Constitution-savvy lawmakers in Congress at the time, Rep. John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment (14A), being one of them, that managed to steer lawmakers in the right direction with respect to making constitutionally defensible federal civil rights laws.
In fact, John Bingham successfully convinced lawmakers to remove the following language from the Civil Rights Act of 1866.
"there shall be no discrimination in civil rights or immunities among the inhabitants of any State or Territory of the United States on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." — Civil Rights Act of 1866 .
What was Bingham's problem with that language I hear you asking? Bingham had complained that the language that he worked to remove from CRA 1866 would give judges a free pass to legislate civil rights laws from the bench — like Gorsuch and other liberal justices just did with CRA '64 imo. (It's a small world.)
Thanks to stealth liberal Gorsuch’s juvenile (imo), agenda-driven interpretation of sex mentioned Title VII of the post-17th Amendment ratification Civil Rights Act of 1964 (CRA ’64), patriots need to wake up to major constitutional problems with that act. Just like CRA 1866, the states have never expressly constitutionally given the feds the specific power to make probably most of CRA '64 in the first place. Here's excerpt from United States v. Butler again.
”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.
Regarding major constitutional problems with CRA '64, post-17th Amendment ratification lawmakers have followed in the footsteps of misguided post-Civil War lawmakers by making civil rights laws on powers not found in the Constitution, the words “race” and “sex” showing up only in the voting rights-related 15th and 19th Amendments.
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 [emphasis added].”
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 [emphasis added]."
In other words, Congress never had the express constitutional powers to make most of CRA ’64 any more than 13A gave post-Civil War lawmakers the express power to make the "final" draft of CRA 1866.
But wait! There's more…
If Gorshuch had done his homework about Title VII, he should have found another relevant, late 1800s event related to constitutional history.
More specifically, Gorsuch should have found that the Supreme Court had decided the 14th Amendment-related case of Minor V. Happersett, a case that examined rights related to sex. In that case, instead of the justices suggesting that Virginia Minor claim to be a man in order to qualify herself to vote under her state's voting laws, the Court decided the case against her.
“3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had [emphasis added].” —Minor v. Happersett, 1874.
In fact, this precedent, recognizing only biological male and female sexes, effectively became a part of the Constitution when the states ratified the 19th Amendment imo.
"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 [emphasis added]."
Patriots have a golden opportunity to effectively reverse the liberal Court's politically correct, outcome-driven decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia by electing a new patriot Congress will promise to do the following.
New lawmakers not only need promise to fully support PDJT's already excellent work for MAGA, but will also promise to impeach and remove Constitution-Ignoring, liberal justices starting with Gorsuch.
“Of course, then that legislation gets “interpreted.””
Yes, exactly. It’s true that this decision didn’t “discover” some Constitutional principle that Congress couldn’t overrule, but if they just passed a law to make what was explicit in the original law even more explicit, the Supreme Court would just overrule it. The nature of this decision makes that pretty plain.
Bump
first of all the term transgender is a misnomer. Pervert is more correct. No matter if one mutilates them selves their DNA will always tell what sex they really are
Perhaps this will mansplain it to you.
Don't spoil a good rant with your pesky facts.
He can't "fire" a Supreme Court Justice. He has no power other that to speak logic and truth to the American people who vote. Kind of like Tucker Carlson has been doing lately. Tucker has even beaten the Cancel Culture folks who tried to silence him. It can be done.
As for your suggestion to "start pressing their case loudly and without ceasing..." you have to remember; Dem's are like ill behaved children and the Conservatives are the adults. Screaming loudly at children accomplishes nothing.You spank them when needed and send them to bed with no supper and DJT is just the parent to do it. He does however, need us to have his back. Imagine the current world if hillary had won. We owe that man a great deal.
The great plurality of comments on FR and in the conservative press do not agree with your earlier post that their concern is unwarranted. You don’t have to agree with the majority of this small but well-informed community—but singling out one passage from the decision to make your case is cherry-picking, while ignoring the bigger picture that the preponderance of conservative opinion (such as the above article as just one example) is pointing out.
Why not comment on the actual content of the above arricle instead of just digging your heels in? The decision is a disaster of unconstitutionality. The damage is potentially worse than the struggle over Roe, which has lasted two generations and counting. Make your case why this is not so.
Will Catholics/religious orders be able to keep transvestites from becoming Priests? Will Little Sisters of the Poor be forced to take direction from transvestites? Transvestites will "have children" and be able to adopt, destroying lives. They will donate blood. Transvestites through all levels of our military, government, medical, education, and child caring. The Bible may become hate speech.
How is Gorsuch a medical professional and empowered to have an educated opinion on the subject let alone have the power to change society with a couple of bizarre, goofy sentences?
“The institution and much of the judiciary is a disgrace.”
Kind of like the Roe vs. wade decision that made murdering babies legal? Yet again, criminal, activist judges enact law by dictate.
JoMa
What Constitution?
The one that says natural born citizen that was ignored on Usurpation Day?
Obama is NOT a natural born citizen
BOTH parties abrogated the Constitution.
We aren’t getting it back.
No.
“Your political appointments are awful.”
I might suggest that EVERY time you have that thought, try to imagine what Hitlery or Sloe Joe might do.
THAT THOUGHT should scare you to the “R” column.
“Rs” might not be perfect, but you can bet your ass that NO DEMOCRAT WILL EVER SATISFY YOU!
“your earlier post that their concern is unwarranted.”
I made no such post.
Find some old (really old) good ol’ boys. Get educated on how they did things in the past. [Think subtleties, inflections of tone.]
And find some courage. It’s in there somewhere.
And campaign, every one of us from now on. Don’t be afraid to contribute, speak and advertise our Republican political preferences, or we’ll lose. It’s that simple. Exercise your own First Amendment rights for elections, or those rights will be violated. Our cars, appearances of our houses and even our own skins pale in comparison to our constitutional rights and our grandchildren’s future.
Speak!
All righty, then. We’re done.
Right, right, right. Sure you are. WTF DOES THIS EVEN MEAN? I can't even tell you how many times I've read this. It's a meaningless statement. I hear Rush and Hannity and Levin and Michael Savage and Chris Plante and Ben Shapiro all comment on current events, and excoriate the fools in the Swamp who think they're our betters, AND IT NEVER CHANGES ANYTHING.
Unless and until these damn fools come up with a plan, with concrete actions that we can take, we might as well go ahead and hand over the keys to America to the socialists.
And no, I don't have a plan either.
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.