See: US Supreme Court conservatives lean toward allowing transgender sports bans | Reuters
"WASHINGTON, Jan 13 (Reuters) - Conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices appeared ready on Tuesday to uphold state laws banning transgender athletes from female sports teams amid escalating efforts nationwide to restrict the rights of transgender people.
The justices heard more than three hours of arguments in appeals by Idaho and West Virginia of decisions by lower courts siding with transgender students who challenged the bans in the two states as violating the U.S. Constitution and a federal anti-discrimination law. Twenty-five other states have similar laws on the books"
When listening to oral arguments before our Supreme Court concerning state bans on transgender athletes participating in female sports events, there certainly was much ado about Title IX, Supreme Court “tests”, such as “Intermediate scrutiny," and, what is and what is not “fair” or “unfair” ___ all of which is totally irrelevant with respect to whether or not our federal Constitution forbids the States, when enacting law, to discriminate based upon sex.
From one who actually supports and defends the text of our written Constitution, and adhering to its documented “legislative intent” which gives context to its text, today’s three hour ramblings at our Supreme Court, especially Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor’s sophomoric contributions, was akin to a clown show, and one which never actually delved into the bottom line and fundamental controlling question: What wording in our federal Constitution, other than the 19th Amendment guaranteeing 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”, forbids a State to make distinctions in law based upon sex?
The fact is, there is no wording in the 14th Amendment which forbids a State to make distinctions in law based upon “sex”, and the 19th Amendment, adopted over fifty years later, would not have been necessary to adopt if the 14th Amendment already forbid States to make distinctions in law based upon “sex”.
Additionally, at the very time the 14th Amendment was adopted, there was an active movement in the United States to adopt an “Equal Rights Amendment”, (ERA) and it persisted for decades. The proposed ERA is intentionally designed to prohibit distinctions in law based upon “sex”, which apparently would forbid a state law banning transgender athletes from participating in female sports events
The proposed amendment is as follows:
Section 1. Equality of Rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of sex.
In the 1970s, Congress set a seven year deadline for the ratification of the ERA which was later extended by three years to 1982. But despite efforts to secure ratification of the ERA, a sufficient number of States refused to adopt the amendment. Some of the reasons for its rejection were, it would lead to women being drafted into the military, unisex bathrooms, legalization of homosexual marriages and, there were significant fears that adopting the ERA would undermine specific protections for women, including those provided by Title IX.
So why was the most important and fundamental question not addressed during the oral arguments before the Supreme Court in a case where a state law ban on transgender athletes participating in female sports events was being challenged as being unconstitutional?
The answer is, participants in those oral arguments before the S.C. have been conned into in discussing “tests” intentionally invented by the Warren court of the 1950’s and 60s to avoid determining what is and what is not constitutional, and instead, put the court’s members in a omnipotent position requiring litigants to withstand the court’s arbitrary judgment that a law in question, e.g., is “rationally based” or “reasonable” to survive the court‘s review, and not whether it is in harmony with the text of our written Constitution and its documented “legislative intent”, which gives context to its text.
The bottom line is, it is without question that the 14th Amendment does not, nor was it intended, to prohibit the States to make distinctions based upon sex, and one of the 14th Amendments supporters, during the 39th Congressional debates which framed and helped to ratify the amendment summarizes the very purpose of the amendment as follows:
“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: Representative Shellabarger, a supporter of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congressional Globe, March 9th, 1866, page 1293
JWK
Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records _ its framing and ratification debates which give context to its text _ wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to apply the Humpty Dumpty theory of language to our Constitution and make it mean whatever they wish it to mean.
"WASHINGTON, Jan 13 (Reuters) - Conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices appeared ready on Tuesday to uphold state laws banning transgender athletes from female sports teams amid escalating efforts nationwide to restrict the rights of transgender people.
The justices heard more than three hours of arguments in appeals by Idaho and West Virginia of decisions by lower courts siding with transgender students who challenged the bans in the two states as violating the U.S. Constitution and a federal anti-discrimination law. Twenty-five other states have similar laws on the books"
When listening to oral arguments before our Supreme Court concerning state bans on transgender athletes participating in female sports events, there certainly was much ado about Title IX, Supreme Court “tests”, such as “Intermediate scrutiny," and, what is and what is not “fair” or “unfair” ___ all of which is totally irrelevant with respect to whether or not our federal Constitution forbids the States, when enacting law, to discriminate based upon sex.
From one who actually supports and defends the text of our written Constitution, and adhering to its documented “legislative intent” which gives context to its text, today’s three hour ramblings at our Supreme Court, especially Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor’s sophomoric contributions, was akin to a clown show, and one which never actually delved into the bottom line and fundamental controlling question: What wording in our federal Constitution, other than the 19th Amendment guaranteeing 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”, forbids a State to make distinctions in law based upon sex?
The fact is, there is no wording in the 14th Amendment which forbids a State to make distinctions in law based upon “sex”, and the 19th Amendment, adopted over fifty years later, would not have been necessary to adopt if the 14th Amendment already forbid States to make distinctions in law based upon “sex”.
Additionally, at the very time the 14th Amendment was adopted, there was an active movement in the United States to adopt an “Equal Rights Amendment”, (ERA) and it persisted for decades. The proposed ERA is intentionally designed to prohibit distinctions in law based upon “sex”, which apparently would forbid a state law banning transgender athletes from participating in female sports events
The proposed amendment is as follows:
Section 1. Equality of Rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of sex.
In the 1970s, Congress set a seven year deadline for the ratification of the ERA which was later extended by three years to 1982. But despite efforts to secure ratification of the ERA, a sufficient number of States refused to adopt the amendment. Some of the reasons for its rejection were, it would lead to women being drafted into the military, unisex bathrooms, legalization of homosexual marriages and, there were significant fears that adopting the ERA would undermine specific protections for women, including those provided by Title IX.
So why was the most important and fundamental question not addressed during the oral arguments before the Supreme Court in a case where a state law ban on transgender athletes participating in female sports events was being challenged as being unconstitutional?
The answer is, participants in those oral arguments before the S.C. have been conned into in discussing “tests” intentionally invented by the Warren court of the 1950’s and 60s to avoid determining what is and what is not constitutional, and instead, put the court’s members in a omnipotent position requiring litigants to withstand the court’s arbitrary judgment that a law in question, e.g., is “rationally based” or “reasonable” to survive the court‘s review, and not whether it is in harmony with the text of our written Constitution and its documented “legislative intent”, which gives context to its text.
The bottom line is, it is without question that the 14th Amendment does not, nor was it intended, to prohibit the States to make distinctions based upon sex, and one of the 14th Amendments supporters, during the 39th Congressional debates which framed and helped to ratify the amendment summarizes the very purpose of the amendment as follows:
“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: Representative Shellabarger, a supporter of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congressional Globe, March 9th, 1866, page 1293
JWK
Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records _ its framing and ratification debates which give context to its text _ wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to apply the Humpty Dumpty theory of language to our Constitution and make it mean whatever they wish it to mean.
