See: How the 14th Amendment is changing the fight for gender-affirming care for minors
“U.S. District Judge Jay Moody struck down Tuesday Arkansas' first-in-the-nation ban as unconstitutional, arguing it violated young people's right to equal protection under the law and due process, and those of their parents.”
Under “III. Conclusions of Law, (B. Equal Protection)”, Judge Moody WRITES:
“The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment “is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike.”
But what Judge Moody writes is an outright lie.
The text of the Clause in question, and its documented legislative intent, which gives context to its text, simple commands, whatever a State’s laws are, a person within that State’s jurisdiction may not be denied the equal application of those specific laws.
Keep in mind, unlike the Nineteenth Amendment which does in fact prohibit a distinction in law based upon “sex” with respect to the right to vote, the Clause which Judge Moody points to does not forbid a state to make distinctions in law based upon sex or age, and, its documented legislative intent was specifically intended and limited to forbid distinctions in law based upon “race, color or previous condition of slavery”.
The irrefutable fact is, under the Clause in question, whatever laws are adopted by a State with regard to sex or age, the State may not deny to any person, blacks and whites alike, within its jurisdiction, the equal application of those specific laws.
Judge Moody is perpetuating the big lie that the Fourteenth Amendment altered the States’ and people therein, their Tenth Amendment reserved powers to enact laws making distinctions based upon sex and/or age. Judge Moody ignores the fact that the “Equal Rights Amendment” was wisely rejected by the American People in the 1980s which would have, if adopted, prohibited distinctions in law based upon sex.
Moody also goes on to argue the Arkansas law fails because it is not rationally based in his opinion. Of course, this violates our system’s separation of powers which prohibits a judge from substituting their personal views for those of the peoples’ elected Legislature, and in so doing, Judge Moody flagrantly violates our Constitution’s guarantee to a “Republican Form of Government” under which the people's elected legislature has the exclusive authority to enact law.
Finally, Judge Moody argues the law violates due process within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. He writes, the “… Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids states to “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law....” The reference made is to State action and 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. In the instant case the state of Arkansas is well within constitutional limits. Every one of the United States has adopted regulations based upon age, e.g., drinking, driving, age limits on marrying, etc.
The Arkansas Legislature, considering the fact our medical community is not of one mind on this issue with respect to children, and more importantly, that a child involved will have to live with an irreversible sex-altering procedure which others have made on the child's behalf, has passed lawful legislation designed to prohibit such procedures on minors until a reasonable age of maturity is reached by the child, who will then be in a better position to make such a life altering choice on their own.
The bottom line is, Judge Moody went beyond his constitutionally assigned duties and second guessed the Arkansas Legislatures’ exclusive power to enact regulatory and policing laws with respect to minors and medical procedures.
JWK
…..we are not at liberty to second-guess congressional determinations and policy judgments of this order, however debatable or arguably unwise they may be…The wisdom of Congress' action, however, is not within our province to second guess. __ELDRED et al. v. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL (2003)
“U.S. District Judge Jay Moody struck down Tuesday Arkansas' first-in-the-nation ban as unconstitutional, arguing it violated young people's right to equal protection under the law and due process, and those of their parents.”
Under “III. Conclusions of Law, (B. Equal Protection)”, Judge Moody WRITES:
“The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment “is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike.”
But what Judge Moody writes is an outright lie.
The text of the Clause in question, and its documented legislative intent, which gives context to its text, simple commands, whatever a State’s laws are, a person within that State’s jurisdiction may not be denied the equal application of those specific laws.
Keep in mind, unlike the Nineteenth Amendment which does in fact prohibit a distinction in law based upon “sex” with respect to the right to vote, the Clause which Judge Moody points to does not forbid a state to make distinctions in law based upon sex or age, and, its documented legislative intent was specifically intended and limited to forbid distinctions in law based upon “race, color or previous condition of slavery”.
The irrefutable fact is, under the Clause in question, whatever laws are adopted by a State with regard to sex or age, the State may not deny to any person, blacks and whites alike, within its jurisdiction, the equal application of those specific laws.
Judge Moody is perpetuating the big lie that the Fourteenth Amendment altered the States’ and people therein, their Tenth Amendment reserved powers to enact laws making distinctions based upon sex and/or age. Judge Moody ignores the fact that the “Equal Rights Amendment” was wisely rejected by the American People in the 1980s which would have, if adopted, prohibited distinctions in law based upon sex.
Moody also goes on to argue the Arkansas law fails because it is not rationally based in his opinion. Of course, this violates our system’s separation of powers which prohibits a judge from substituting their personal views for those of the peoples’ elected Legislature, and in so doing, Judge Moody flagrantly violates our Constitution’s guarantee to a “Republican Form of Government” under which the people's elected legislature has the exclusive authority to enact law.
Finally, Judge Moody argues the law violates due process within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. He writes, the “… Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids states to “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law....” The reference made is to State action and 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. In the instant case the state of Arkansas is well within constitutional limits. Every one of the United States has adopted regulations based upon age, e.g., drinking, driving, age limits on marrying, etc.
The Arkansas Legislature, considering the fact our medical community is not of one mind on this issue with respect to children, and more importantly, that a child involved will have to live with an irreversible sex-altering procedure which others have made on the child's behalf, has passed lawful legislation designed to prohibit such procedures on minors until a reasonable age of maturity is reached by the child, who will then be in a better position to make such a life altering choice on their own.
The bottom line is, Judge Moody went beyond his constitutionally assigned duties and second guessed the Arkansas Legislatures’ exclusive power to enact regulatory and policing laws with respect to minors and medical procedures.
JWK
…..we are not at liberty to second-guess congressional determinations and policy judgments of this order, however debatable or arguably unwise they may be…The wisdom of Congress' action, however, is not within our province to second guess. __ELDRED et al. v. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL (2003)
