Gorsuch condones usurpation of power in Civil Rights case, ignores oath of office

Jets

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2019
Messages
2,297
Reaction score
1,075
Points
210
You have no FACTS only your bias OPINIONS.


Let us review some historical facts proving there is no authority granted to Congress in our Constitution to forbid discrimination in the workplace based upon “sex”.

In 1866 Congress passes a “Civil Rights Act under the authority of the Thirteenth Amendment. The purpose of the Act, as stated by its author, Senator Trumbull, was to “break down all discrimination between black and white men.”

The Act goes on to declare:

“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.” Keep in mind there is no mention of “sex” in the Act.

In 1870 the Fifteenth Amendment is passed prohibiting the right to vote to be denied based upon “race, color or previous condition of servitude”. Once again, “sex” is not mentioned in our Constitution.

After the passage of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments Congress passes the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which begins:

“An Act to Protect All Citizens in Their Civil and Legal Rights.

Whereas it is essential to just government we recognize the equality of all men before the law, and hold that it is the duty of government in its dealings with the people to mete out equal and exact justice to all, of whatever nativity, race, color, or persuasion, religious or political ; and it being the appropriate object of legislation to enact great fundamental principles into law: Therefore …”

Up to this point in time there is no constitutional protection afforded based upon “sex”. But in 1920, the American People decide to provide protection based upon “sex”, but specifically limit that protection to women so they may vote because of the adoption of the Nineteenth Amendment.

And in 1957 Congress passes another Civil Rights Act creating a Commission on Civil Rights. Its duties include investigating allegations that "certain citizens of the United States are being deprived of their right to vote and have that vote counted by reason of their color, race, religion, or national origin."

Then, in 1964, without any constitutionally authorized power, Congress decides to prohibit discrimination in the workplace based upon “sex”. In fact, not only did Congress act without Constitutional authority to prohibit discrimination in the workplace based upon sex, but the American People, for generations, refuse to adopt an Equal Rights Amendment, the first appearing in the 1920s, and in the 1980s, the people specifically and purposely reject the Equal Rights Amendment, which was intended to prohibit discrimination based upon “sex”. One reason for its rejection by the American people was that it would lead to and grant particular rights to homosexuals, such as homosexual marriage.

So, here we are today, in a situation where a majority on our Supreme Court ignore historical facts when rendering an opinion; embrace Congress’ usurpation of power; perpetuate a fraud being perpetrated upon the American People; and even add to the fraud by adding to the meaning of “sex” found in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, protection for sexual deviant behavior, which most certainly was not intended by those who authored and passed the Act ___ an Act which in its first instance violated our Constitution in that no authority had been granted to Congress by our Constitution to prohibit distinctions being made in the workplace based upon sex.

JWK



The Democrat Party’s Revolutionary Leadership detest people being left free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.
To the underlined: Thanks for demonstrating your complete ignorance as well as your homophobia. The Equal Protection clause negates your OPINION on this matter.
Well, there you have it. Instead of refuting the facts presented, you resort to adolescent name calling and post unsubstantiated opinions.

And, with reference to the "equal protection" clause you mention, ”…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”, this wording simply commands that whatever a State’s laws are, a person within that State’s jurisdiction may not be denied the equal protection of those laws.

Keep in mind the wording does not forbid a state to make distinctions in law, e.g., based upon sex or age, but 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 protection of those specific laws. The laws must be enforced equally upon all, e.g., if a distinction in law is made with respect to civil rights, (not political) that the wife may not testify, sue or contract, it must be enforced equally upon all regardless of race, color or previous condition of slavery:

“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Rep. Shallabarger, Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293

JWK

The Democrat Party’s socialist/fascist Revolutionary Leadership detests people being left free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.
Amendment XIV
Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.


Any questions?

I didn’t think so.
Of course I have a question. Why did you post that? You failed to explain what you glean from the words you posted from the 14th Amendment.

JWK

Our socialist revolutionaries, which now control the Democrat Party Leadership, want elderly American citizens, who were forced to pay into Medicare all their lives, to surrender and share their Medicare Trust fund with millions of foreigners who have invaded America’s borders. LINK
Look at the bold italic part from your opening post. Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment says what you wrote is incorrect. Congress does have such power.

The house of cards you built your objection on just collapsed.
 
OP
J

johnwk

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
2,429
Reaction score
744
Points
200
You have no FACTS only your bias OPINIONS.


Let us review some historical facts proving there is no authority granted to Congress in our Constitution to forbid discrimination in the workplace based upon “sex”.

In 1866 Congress passes a “Civil Rights Act under the authority of the Thirteenth Amendment. The purpose of the Act, as stated by its author, Senator Trumbull, was to “break down all discrimination between black and white men.”

The Act goes on to declare:

“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.” Keep in mind there is no mention of “sex” in the Act.

In 1870 the Fifteenth Amendment is passed prohibiting the right to vote to be denied based upon “race, color or previous condition of servitude”. Once again, “sex” is not mentioned in our Constitution.

After the passage of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments Congress passes the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which begins:

“An Act to Protect All Citizens in Their Civil and Legal Rights.

Whereas it is essential to just government we recognize the equality of all men before the law, and hold that it is the duty of government in its dealings with the people to mete out equal and exact justice to all, of whatever nativity, race, color, or persuasion, religious or political ; and it being the appropriate object of legislation to enact great fundamental principles into law: Therefore …”

Up to this point in time there is no constitutional protection afforded based upon “sex”. But in 1920, the American People decide to provide protection based upon “sex”, but specifically limit that protection to women so they may vote because of the adoption of the Nineteenth Amendment.

And in 1957 Congress passes another Civil Rights Act creating a Commission on Civil Rights. Its duties include investigating allegations that "certain citizens of the United States are being deprived of their right to vote and have that vote counted by reason of their color, race, religion, or national origin."

Then, in 1964, without any constitutionally authorized power, Congress decides to prohibit discrimination in the workplace based upon “sex”. In fact, not only did Congress act without Constitutional authority to prohibit discrimination in the workplace based upon sex, but the American People, for generations, refuse to adopt an Equal Rights Amendment, the first appearing in the 1920s, and in the 1980s, the people specifically and purposely reject the Equal Rights Amendment, which was intended to prohibit discrimination based upon “sex”. One reason for its rejection by the American people was that it would lead to and grant particular rights to homosexuals, such as homosexual marriage.

So, here we are today, in a situation where a majority on our Supreme Court ignore historical facts when rendering an opinion; embrace Congress’ usurpation of power; perpetuate a fraud being perpetrated upon the American People; and even add to the fraud by adding to the meaning of “sex” found in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, protection for sexual deviant behavior, which most certainly was not intended by those who authored and passed the Act ___ an Act which in its first instance violated our Constitution in that no authority had been granted to Congress by our Constitution to prohibit distinctions being made in the workplace based upon sex.

JWK



The Democrat Party’s Revolutionary Leadership detest people being left free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.
To the underlined: Thanks for demonstrating your complete ignorance as well as your homophobia. The Equal Protection clause negates your OPINION on this matter.
Well, there you have it. Instead of refuting the facts presented, you resort to adolescent name calling and post unsubstantiated opinions.

And, with reference to the "equal protection" clause you mention, ”…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”, this wording simply commands that whatever a State’s laws are, a person within that State’s jurisdiction may not be denied the equal protection of those laws.

Keep in mind the wording does not forbid a state to make distinctions in law, e.g., based upon sex or age, but 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 protection of those specific laws. The laws must be enforced equally upon all, e.g., if a distinction in law is made with respect to civil rights, (not political) that the wife may not testify, sue or contract, it must be enforced equally upon all regardless of race, color or previous condition of slavery:

“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Rep. Shallabarger, Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293

JWK

The Democrat Party’s socialist/fascist Revolutionary Leadership detests people being left free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.
Amendment XIV
Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.


Any questions?

I didn’t think so.
Of course I have a question. Why did you post that? You failed to explain what you glean from the words you posted from the 14th Amendment.

JWK

Our socialist revolutionaries, which now control the Democrat Party Leadership, want elderly American citizens, who were forced to pay into Medicare all their lives, to surrender and share their Medicare Trust fund with millions of foreigners who have invaded America’s borders. LINK
Look at the bold italic part from your opening post. Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment says what you wrote is incorrect. Congress does have such power.

The house of cards you built your objection on just collapsed.

I'll ask you again.


Of course I have a question. Why did you post that? You failed to explain what you glean from the words you posted from the 14th Amendment.



JWK
 

Jets

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2019
Messages
2,297
Reaction score
1,075
Points
210
You have no FACTS only your bias OPINIONS.


Let us review some historical facts proving there is no authority granted to Congress in our Constitution to forbid discrimination in the workplace based upon “sex”.

In 1866 Congress passes a “Civil Rights Act under the authority of the Thirteenth Amendment. The purpose of the Act, as stated by its author, Senator Trumbull, was to “break down all discrimination between black and white men.”

The Act goes on to declare:

“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.” Keep in mind there is no mention of “sex” in the Act.

In 1870 the Fifteenth Amendment is passed prohibiting the right to vote to be denied based upon “race, color or previous condition of servitude”. Once again, “sex” is not mentioned in our Constitution.

After the passage of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments Congress passes the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which begins:

“An Act to Protect All Citizens in Their Civil and Legal Rights.

Whereas it is essential to just government we recognize the equality of all men before the law, and hold that it is the duty of government in its dealings with the people to mete out equal and exact justice to all, of whatever nativity, race, color, or persuasion, religious or political ; and it being the appropriate object of legislation to enact great fundamental principles into law: Therefore …”

Up to this point in time there is no constitutional protection afforded based upon “sex”. But in 1920, the American People decide to provide protection based upon “sex”, but specifically limit that protection to women so they may vote because of the adoption of the Nineteenth Amendment.

And in 1957 Congress passes another Civil Rights Act creating a Commission on Civil Rights. Its duties include investigating allegations that "certain citizens of the United States are being deprived of their right to vote and have that vote counted by reason of their color, race, religion, or national origin."

Then, in 1964, without any constitutionally authorized power, Congress decides to prohibit discrimination in the workplace based upon “sex”. In fact, not only did Congress act without Constitutional authority to prohibit discrimination in the workplace based upon sex, but the American People, for generations, refuse to adopt an Equal Rights Amendment, the first appearing in the 1920s, and in the 1980s, the people specifically and purposely reject the Equal Rights Amendment, which was intended to prohibit discrimination based upon “sex”. One reason for its rejection by the American people was that it would lead to and grant particular rights to homosexuals, such as homosexual marriage.

So, here we are today, in a situation where a majority on our Supreme Court ignore historical facts when rendering an opinion; embrace Congress’ usurpation of power; perpetuate a fraud being perpetrated upon the American People; and even add to the fraud by adding to the meaning of “sex” found in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, protection for sexual deviant behavior, which most certainly was not intended by those who authored and passed the Act ___ an Act which in its first instance violated our Constitution in that no authority had been granted to Congress by our Constitution to prohibit distinctions being made in the workplace based upon sex.

JWK



The Democrat Party’s Revolutionary Leadership detest people being left free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.
To the underlined: Thanks for demonstrating your complete ignorance as well as your homophobia. The Equal Protection clause negates your OPINION on this matter.
Well, there you have it. Instead of refuting the facts presented, you resort to adolescent name calling and post unsubstantiated opinions.

And, with reference to the "equal protection" clause you mention, ”…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”, this wording simply commands that whatever a State’s laws are, a person within that State’s jurisdiction may not be denied the equal protection of those laws.

Keep in mind the wording does not forbid a state to make distinctions in law, e.g., based upon sex or age, but 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 protection of those specific laws. The laws must be enforced equally upon all, e.g., if a distinction in law is made with respect to civil rights, (not political) that the wife may not testify, sue or contract, it must be enforced equally upon all regardless of race, color or previous condition of slavery:

“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Rep. Shallabarger, Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293

JWK

The Democrat Party’s socialist/fascist Revolutionary Leadership detests people being left free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.
Amendment XIV
Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.


Any questions?

I didn’t think so.
Of course I have a question. Why did you post that? You failed to explain what you glean from the words you posted from the 14th Amendment.

JWK

Our socialist revolutionaries, which now control the Democrat Party Leadership, want elderly American citizens, who were forced to pay into Medicare all their lives, to surrender and share their Medicare Trust fund with millions of foreigners who have invaded America’s borders. LINK
Look at the bold italic part from your opening post. Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment says what you wrote is incorrect. Congress does have such power.

The house of cards you built your objection on just collapsed.

I'll ask you again.


Of course I have a question. Why did you post that? You failed to explain what you glean from the words you posted from the 14th Amendment.



JWK
Asked and answered.
The problem is you have no counter because there isn’t one. Your argument has been smashed.
 
OP
J

johnwk

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
2,429
Reaction score
744
Points
200
You have no FACTS only your bias OPINIONS.


Let us review some historical facts proving there is no authority granted to Congress in our Constitution to forbid discrimination in the workplace based upon “sex”.

In 1866 Congress passes a “Civil Rights Act under the authority of the Thirteenth Amendment. The purpose of the Act, as stated by its author, Senator Trumbull, was to “break down all discrimination between black and white men.”

The Act goes on to declare:

“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.” Keep in mind there is no mention of “sex” in the Act.

In 1870 the Fifteenth Amendment is passed prohibiting the right to vote to be denied based upon “race, color or previous condition of servitude”. Once again, “sex” is not mentioned in our Constitution.

After the passage of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments Congress passes the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which begins:

“An Act to Protect All Citizens in Their Civil and Legal Rights.

Whereas it is essential to just government we recognize the equality of all men before the law, and hold that it is the duty of government in its dealings with the people to mete out equal and exact justice to all, of whatever nativity, race, color, or persuasion, religious or political ; and it being the appropriate object of legislation to enact great fundamental principles into law: Therefore …”

Up to this point in time there is no constitutional protection afforded based upon “sex”. But in 1920, the American People decide to provide protection based upon “sex”, but specifically limit that protection to women so they may vote because of the adoption of the Nineteenth Amendment.

And in 1957 Congress passes another Civil Rights Act creating a Commission on Civil Rights. Its duties include investigating allegations that "certain citizens of the United States are being deprived of their right to vote and have that vote counted by reason of their color, race, religion, or national origin."

Then, in 1964, without any constitutionally authorized power, Congress decides to prohibit discrimination in the workplace based upon “sex”. In fact, not only did Congress act without Constitutional authority to prohibit discrimination in the workplace based upon sex, but the American People, for generations, refuse to adopt an Equal Rights Amendment, the first appearing in the 1920s, and in the 1980s, the people specifically and purposely reject the Equal Rights Amendment, which was intended to prohibit discrimination based upon “sex”. One reason for its rejection by the American people was that it would lead to and grant particular rights to homosexuals, such as homosexual marriage.

So, here we are today, in a situation where a majority on our Supreme Court ignore historical facts when rendering an opinion; embrace Congress’ usurpation of power; perpetuate a fraud being perpetrated upon the American People; and even add to the fraud by adding to the meaning of “sex” found in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, protection for sexual deviant behavior, which most certainly was not intended by those who authored and passed the Act ___ an Act which in its first instance violated our Constitution in that no authority had been granted to Congress by our Constitution to prohibit distinctions being made in the workplace based upon sex.

JWK



The Democrat Party’s Revolutionary Leadership detest people being left free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.
To the underlined: Thanks for demonstrating your complete ignorance as well as your homophobia. The Equal Protection clause negates your OPINION on this matter.
Well, there you have it. Instead of refuting the facts presented, you resort to adolescent name calling and post unsubstantiated opinions.

And, with reference to the "equal protection" clause you mention, ”…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”, this wording simply commands that whatever a State’s laws are, a person within that State’s jurisdiction may not be denied the equal protection of those laws.

Keep in mind the wording does not forbid a state to make distinctions in law, e.g., based upon sex or age, but 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 protection of those specific laws. The laws must be enforced equally upon all, e.g., if a distinction in law is made with respect to civil rights, (not political) that the wife may not testify, sue or contract, it must be enforced equally upon all regardless of race, color or previous condition of slavery:

“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Rep. Shallabarger, Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293

JWK

The Democrat Party’s socialist/fascist Revolutionary Leadership detests people being left free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.
Amendment XIV
Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.


Any questions?

I didn’t think so.
Of course I have a question. Why did you post that? You failed to explain what you glean from the words you posted from the 14th Amendment.

JWK

Our socialist revolutionaries, which now control the Democrat Party Leadership, want elderly American citizens, who were forced to pay into Medicare all their lives, to surrender and share their Medicare Trust fund with millions of foreigners who have invaded America’s borders. LINK
Look at the bold italic part from your opening post. Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment says what you wrote is incorrect. Congress does have such power.

The house of cards you built your objection on just collapsed.

I'll ask you again.


Of course I have a question. Why did you post that? You failed to explain what you glean from the words you posted from the 14th Amendment.



JWK
Asked and answered.
The problem is you have no counter because there isn’t one. Your argument has been smashed.

Not answered. You posted parts of the 14th Amendment but never was specific as to what wording is in conflict with something specific that I wrote. I can understand your refusal to be specific and desire to be elusive . . . you can't offer an intelligent rebuttal to what I posted and provided supportive documentation to.

You did mention the following as being in conflict with what I wrote: ”…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”, but the fact is,
that wording simply commands that whatever a State’s laws are, a person within that State’s jurisdiction may not be denied the equal protection of those laws.

Keep in mind the wording does not forbid a state to make distinctions in law, e.g., based upon sex or age, but 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 protection of those specific laws. The laws must be enforced equally upon all, e.g., if a distinction in law is made with respect to civil rights, (not political) that the wife may not testify, sue or contract, it must be enforced equally upon all regardless of race, color or previous condition of slavery:

“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Rep. Shallabarger, Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293


So, once again I ask, why did you post what you did from the 14th Amendment, and how does it conflict with what I wrote?



JWK

The Democrat Party’s socialist/fascist Revolutionary Leadership detests people being left free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.
 

Jets

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2019
Messages
2,297
Reaction score
1,075
Points
210
You have no FACTS only your bias OPINIONS.


Let us review some historical facts proving there is no authority granted to Congress in our Constitution to forbid discrimination in the workplace based upon “sex”.

In 1866 Congress passes a “Civil Rights Act under the authority of the Thirteenth Amendment. The purpose of the Act, as stated by its author, Senator Trumbull, was to “break down all discrimination between black and white men.”

The Act goes on to declare:

“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.” Keep in mind there is no mention of “sex” in the Act.

In 1870 the Fifteenth Amendment is passed prohibiting the right to vote to be denied based upon “race, color or previous condition of servitude”. Once again, “sex” is not mentioned in our Constitution.

After the passage of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments Congress passes the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which begins:

“An Act to Protect All Citizens in Their Civil and Legal Rights.

Whereas it is essential to just government we recognize the equality of all men before the law, and hold that it is the duty of government in its dealings with the people to mete out equal and exact justice to all, of whatever nativity, race, color, or persuasion, religious or political ; and it being the appropriate object of legislation to enact great fundamental principles into law: Therefore …”

Up to this point in time there is no constitutional protection afforded based upon “sex”. But in 1920, the American People decide to provide protection based upon “sex”, but specifically limit that protection to women so they may vote because of the adoption of the Nineteenth Amendment.

And in 1957 Congress passes another Civil Rights Act creating a Commission on Civil Rights. Its duties include investigating allegations that "certain citizens of the United States are being deprived of their right to vote and have that vote counted by reason of their color, race, religion, or national origin."

Then, in 1964, without any constitutionally authorized power, Congress decides to prohibit discrimination in the workplace based upon “sex”. In fact, not only did Congress act without Constitutional authority to prohibit discrimination in the workplace based upon sex, but the American People, for generations, refuse to adopt an Equal Rights Amendment, the first appearing in the 1920s, and in the 1980s, the people specifically and purposely reject the Equal Rights Amendment, which was intended to prohibit discrimination based upon “sex”. One reason for its rejection by the American people was that it would lead to and grant particular rights to homosexuals, such as homosexual marriage.

So, here we are today, in a situation where a majority on our Supreme Court ignore historical facts when rendering an opinion; embrace Congress’ usurpation of power; perpetuate a fraud being perpetrated upon the American People; and even add to the fraud by adding to the meaning of “sex” found in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, protection for sexual deviant behavior, which most certainly was not intended by those who authored and passed the Act ___ an Act which in its first instance violated our Constitution in that no authority had been granted to Congress by our Constitution to prohibit distinctions being made in the workplace based upon sex.

JWK



The Democrat Party’s Revolutionary Leadership detest people being left free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.
To the underlined: Thanks for demonstrating your complete ignorance as well as your homophobia. The Equal Protection clause negates your OPINION on this matter.
Well, there you have it. Instead of refuting the facts presented, you resort to adolescent name calling and post unsubstantiated opinions.

And, with reference to the "equal protection" clause you mention, ”…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”, this wording simply commands that whatever a State’s laws are, a person within that State’s jurisdiction may not be denied the equal protection of those laws.

Keep in mind the wording does not forbid a state to make distinctions in law, e.g., based upon sex or age, but 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 protection of those specific laws. The laws must be enforced equally upon all, e.g., if a distinction in law is made with respect to civil rights, (not political) that the wife may not testify, sue or contract, it must be enforced equally upon all regardless of race, color or previous condition of slavery:

“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Rep. Shallabarger, Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293

JWK

The Democrat Party’s socialist/fascist Revolutionary Leadership detests people being left free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.
Amendment XIV
Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.


Any questions?

I didn’t think so.
Of course I have a question. Why did you post that? You failed to explain what you glean from the words you posted from the 14th Amendment.

JWK

Our socialist revolutionaries, which now control the Democrat Party Leadership, want elderly American citizens, who were forced to pay into Medicare all their lives, to surrender and share their Medicare Trust fund with millions of foreigners who have invaded America’s borders. LINK
Look at the bold italic part from your opening post. Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment says what you wrote is incorrect. Congress does have such power.

The house of cards you built your objection on just collapsed.

I'll ask you again.


Of course I have a question. Why did you post that? You failed to explain what you glean from the words you posted from the 14th Amendment.



JWK
Asked and answered.
The problem is you have no counter because there isn’t one. Your argument has been smashed.

Not answered. You posted parts of the 14th Amendment but never was specific as to what wording is in conflict with something specific that I wrote. I can understand your refusal to be specific and desire to be elusive . . . you can't offer an intelligent rebuttal to what I posted and provided supportive documentation to.

You did mention the following as being in conflict with what I wrote: ”…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”, but the fact is,
that wording simply commands that whatever a State’s laws are, a person within that State’s jurisdiction may not be denied the equal protection of those laws.

Keep in mind the wording does not forbid a state to make distinctions in law, e.g., based upon sex or age, but 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 protection of those specific laws. The laws must be enforced equally upon all, e.g., if a distinction in law is made with respect to civil rights, (not political) that the wife may not testify, sue or contract, it must be enforced equally upon all regardless of race, color or previous condition of slavery:

“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Rep. Shallabarger, Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293


So, once again I ask, why did you post what you did from the 14th Amendment, and how does it conflict with what I wrote?



JWK

The Democrat Party’s socialist/fascist Revolutionary Leadership detests people being left free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.
Fail. You have been proven wrong and will never admit it.

Next time, don’t let your reactionary ideology lead you to post false narratives.
 
OP
J

johnwk

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
2,429
Reaction score
744
Points
200
Fail. You have been proven wrong and will never admit it.

Next time, don’t let your reactionary ideology lead you to post false narratives.


So, you refuse once again to explain how my post is in conflict with what you posted from the 14th Amendment.

As I indicated, I can understand your refusal to be specific and desire to be elusive . . . you can't offer an intelligent rebuttal to what I posted and provided supportive documentation to confirm its accuracy.

JWK


The Equality Act attempts to exercise legislation authorized to be written under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, the Act is a usurpation of power not granted.
 

Jets

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2019
Messages
2,297
Reaction score
1,075
Points
210
Fail. You have been proven wrong and will never admit it.

Next time, don’t let your reactionary ideology lead you to post false narratives.


So, you refuse once again to explain how my post is in conflict with what you posted from the 14th Amendment.

As I indicated, I can understand your refusal to be specific and desire to be elusive . . . you can't offer an intelligent rebuttal to what I posted and provided supportive documentation to confirm its accuracy.

JWK


The Equality Act attempts to exercise legislation authorized to be written under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, the Act is a usurpation of power not granted.
I did. You only hear what you want to hear. That’s why arguing with a partisan hack is a waste of time. All you care about is getting the last word.

You can have it ;)
 

Tipsycatlover

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2016
Messages
47,645
Reaction score
20,257
Points
2,330
Sorry Conservatives, hate to break it to you

But Civil Rights now apply to gays. They can marry, adopt children, join the military and you can’t fire them for being gay.
You can pontificate about the founding fathers not endorsing gay rights, but in 2020, they have the same rights as you do.
It certainly is not the first time gays have bludgeoned the larger society into accepting degeneracy and depravity as normal. Egypt did, so did Rome. It always ends the same way.
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
221,710
Reaction score
47,582
Points
2,190
Sorry Conservatives, hate to break it to you

But Civil Rights now apply to gays. They can marry, adopt children, join the military and you can’t fire them for being gay.
You can pontificate about the founding fathers not endorsing gay rights, but in 2020, they have the same rights as you do.
It certainly is not the first time gays have bludgeoned the larger society into accepting degeneracy and depravity as normal. Egypt did, so did Rome. It always ends the same way.
Society has accepted gays

Conservatives still scream QUEER!
 

Tipsycatlover

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2016
Messages
47,645
Reaction score
20,257
Points
2,330
Sorry Conservatives, hate to break it to you

But Civil Rights now apply to gays. They can marry, adopt children, join the military and you can’t fire them for being gay.
You can pontificate about the founding fathers not endorsing gay rights, but in 2020, they have the same rights as you do.
It certainly is not the first time gays have bludgeoned the larger society into accepting degeneracy and depravity as normal. Egypt did, so did Rome. It always ends the same way.
Society has accepted gays

Conservatives still scream QUEER!
Prior societies also accepted gays. This isn't new and it certainly isn't the first time. Accepting homosexuality as normal behavior is an indication of cultural rot. It is a stage of decay. When the dead culture is replaced the new culture rejects such depravity and it all starts again.
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
221,710
Reaction score
47,582
Points
2,190
Sorry Conservatives, hate to break it to you

But Civil Rights now apply to gays. They can marry, adopt children, join the military and you can’t fire them for being gay.
You can pontificate about the founding fathers not endorsing gay rights, but in 2020, they have the same rights as you do.
It certainly is not the first time gays have bludgeoned the larger society into accepting degeneracy and depravity as normal. Egypt did, so did Rome. It always ends the same way.
Society has accepted gays

Conservatives still scream QUEER!
Prior societies also accepted gays. This isn't new and it certainly isn't the first time. Accepting homosexuality as normal behavior is an indication of cultural rot. It is a stage of decay. When the dead culture is replaced the new culture rejects such depravity and it all starts again.
To each his own
Civilized societies know it is no big deal
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top