- Thread starter
- #241
Why don't you just dispense with your constitutional gymnastics and admit that you are a bigot who is loathe to extend civil rights to LGBT people and in fact endorse discrimination against all minorities in the name of "freedom " Your America is not my AmericaBearing true witness must require moral virtue.Yes I need a valid argument as opposed to your trolling moronic bullshitSo what. You needed a valid argument to have anything more than your unsubstantiated opinion.That is the bigest boatload of bizarre bovine excrement that I have heard in a long time, even on the USMBDid y'all know that our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land was intelligently designed both gender and race neutral from Inception?
And bearing true witness is not one of Progressive Patriot's qualities when discussing whether or not Congress has been delegated the power to adopt and enforce "appropriate legislation" forbidding the American people to make distinctions based upon "sex" in their social and commercial activities.
Progressive Patriot is no better than Justice Gorsuch who, in his WRITTEN OPINION in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, has perpetuated a fraud upon the American people, embraced a usurpation of power by Congress, violated his oath of office to defend our written Constitution, and has done so by embracing the Humpty Dumpty Theory of Language being applied to Title VII, of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less."
In Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S., Justice Gorsuch alleges Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees against discrimination if they are “gay or transgender”. Of course, Gorsuch arrives at that conclusion after concocting one of the most distorted and twisted definitions of “sex” imaginable to be within the meaning of “sex” as found in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
But in addition to the Gorsuch Humpty Dumpty Theory of Language being applied to Title VII, of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he brazenly ignores the irrefutable fact that Congress has never been delegated authority in the Constitution of the United States by the American people, to adopt “appropriate legislation” forbidding distinctions being made based upon “sex” ___ the one exception being is the Nineteenth Amendment, and this amendment is expressly limited to forbidding the right to vote to be denied or abridged based upon “sex”.
The Gorsuch opinion makes a mockery not only of the Tenth Amendment, which reserves to the States all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, but Gorsuch ignores the crystal clear confirmation that ”The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? ______ Chief Justice Marshall, MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
The abuse of power by Justice Gorsuch in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia,whether well-meaning or not, is a direct assault on our Constitutional system and attacks the American People’s inalienable right to be free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations, and this includes their social and commercial intercourse.
And the bottom line is, Progressive Patriot, does not bear true witness in discussing this abuse of power.
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
Well, there you go again with insulting name calling and unsubstantiated assertions.
Unlike you, not only do I support and defend our system of government and the will of the people as expressed in our written federal Constitution to be observed and enforced, I also defend the right of people, all people, being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations, and that includes their social and commercial intercourse.
How each person uses that freedom is a different discussion, and even though the choices made by some may appear to be grounded in absurd and repulsive beliefs and prejudices, and those choices reject an across the board inclusiveness, under what authority can I claim to refuse to defend their right to freedom of choice, while demanding my freedom to choose shall be protected by the force of government? To do so indicates a bigoted belief . . . "inclusiveness for me but not for thee".
JWK
The Equality Act attempts to exercise legislative power proposed under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was wisely rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, the Act is an attempted usurpation of power not granted.