Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Repeating the question does not change the argument.
Let’s back up: Was the Civil Rights Act of 1964 lawfully passed by Congress?
Yes or No.
The part of it [the Civil Rights Act of 1964] which prohibits distinctions in the workplace based upon “sex” is an assumption of power not delegated to Congress!
Let us look at historical facts regarding whether or not Congress has been delegated a power to prohibit, by legislation, state action making distinctions based upon sex [excluding of course the 19th Amendment], or prohibiting, by legislation, citizens or persons in a state to make distinctions based upon sex in their social or commercial activities.
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”. Please note that “sex” is not yet 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 still no delegated power authorizing Congress to legislate protection with respect to “sex”. But in 1920, the American People decide by adopting the Nineteenth Amendment, to delegate to Congress power to provide by "appropriate legislation" that the right to vote "shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."
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 enact the 1964 Civil Rights Act, part of which prohibits distinctions in the workplace based upon “sex”.
In fact, not only did Congress act without Constitutional authority to prohibit distinctions in the workplace based upon sex, but the American People, for generations, refuse to adopt an Equal Rights Amendment that would grant legislative power to Congress to prohibit government actions from making distinctions based upon sex ___ the first appearing in the 1920s, and in the 1980s, the people specifically and purposely reject the Equal Rights Amendment "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex" , which was intended to allow Congress to enact "appropriate legislation" to prohibit government actions making distinctions based upon “sex”.
So, here we are today, in a situation where the rule of law is being ignored, along with historical facts, and people like you embracing Congress’ usurpation of power.
JWK
At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, `Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?' `A republic, if you can keep it,' responded Franklin.
Repeating the question does not change the argument.
Let’s back up: Was the Civil Rights Act of 1964 lawfully passed by Congress?
Yes or No.
The part of it [the Civil Rights Act of 1964] which prohibits distinctions in the workplace based upon “sex” is an assumption of power not delegated to Congress!
Let us look at historical facts regarding whether or not Congress has been delegated a power to prohibit, by legislation, state action making distinctions based upon sex [excluding of course the 19th Amendment], or prohibiting, by legislation, citizens or persons in a state to make distinctions based upon sex in their social or commercial activities.
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”. Please note that “sex” is not yet 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 still no delegated power authorizing Congress to legislate protection with respect to “sex”. But in 1920, the American People decide by adopting the Nineteenth Amendment, to delegate to Congress power to provide by "appropriate legislation" that the right to vote "shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."
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 enact the 1964 Civil Rights Act, part of which prohibits distinctions in the workplace based upon “sex”.
In fact, not only did Congress act without Constitutional authority to prohibit distinctions in the workplace based upon sex, but the American People, for generations, refuse to adopt an Equal Rights Amendment that would grant legislative power to Congress to prohibit government actions from making distinctions based upon sex ___ the first appearing in the 1920s, and in the 1980s, the people specifically and purposely reject the Equal Rights Amendment "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex" , which was intended to allow Congress to enact "appropriate legislation" to prohibit government actions making distinctions based upon “sex”.
So, here we are today, in a situation where the rule of law is being ignored, along with historical facts, and people like you embracing Congress’ usurpation of power.
JWK
At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, `Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?' `A republic, if you can keep it,' responded Franklin.
And that’s the problem right there. There is nothing to discuss if one embraces such a narrow view of the Constitution. Fourteenth Amendment/Section 5 belies that point of view. Congress does have such power. You disagreeing with its use does not render it unconstitutional.
We are done here.
Repeating the question does not change the argument.
Let’s back up: Was the Civil Rights Act of 1964 lawfully passed by Congress?
Yes or No.
The part of it [the Civil Rights Act of 1964] which prohibits distinctions in the workplace based upon “sex” is an assumption of power not delegated to Congress!
Let us look at historical facts regarding whether or not Congress has been delegated a power to prohibit, by legislation, state action making distinctions based upon sex [excluding of course the 19th Amendment], or prohibiting, by legislation, citizens or persons in a state to make distinctions based upon sex in their social or commercial activities.
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”. Please note that “sex” is not yet 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 still no delegated power authorizing Congress to legislate protection with respect to “sex”. But in 1920, the American People decide by adopting the Nineteenth Amendment, to delegate to Congress power to provide by "appropriate legislation" that the right to vote "shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."
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 enact the 1964 Civil Rights Act, part of which prohibits distinctions in the workplace based upon “sex”.
In fact, not only did Congress act without Constitutional authority to prohibit distinctions in the workplace based upon sex, but the American People, for generations, refuse to adopt an Equal Rights Amendment that would grant legislative power to Congress to prohibit government actions from making distinctions based upon sex ___ the first appearing in the 1920s, and in the 1980s, the people specifically and purposely reject the Equal Rights Amendment "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex" , which was intended to allow Congress to enact "appropriate legislation" to prohibit government actions making distinctions based upon “sex”.
So, here we are today, in a situation where the rule of law is being ignored, along with historical facts, and people like you embracing Congress’ usurpation of power.
JWK
At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, `Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?' `A republic, if you can keep it,' responded Franklin.
And that’s the problem right there. There is nothing to discuss if one embraces such a narrow view of the Constitution. Fourteenth Amendment/Section 5 belies that point of view. Congress does have such power. You disagreeing with its use does not render it unconstitutional.
We are done here.
I figured that would be your response after my posting historical facts regarding whether or not Congress has been delegated a power to prohibit, by legislation, state action making distinctions based upon sex [excluding of course the 19th Amendment], or prohibiting, by legislation, citizens or persons in a state to make distinctions based upon sex in their social or commercial activities.
It is abundantly clear that the rule of law, and defined and limited powers being granted to Congress by the people, are not embraced by your kind.
JWK
The Democrat Party’s Revolutionary Leadership, detests people being left free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations, and likewise detests a free market, free enterprise system.
We have already gone over The specific provisions of Section 1Repeating the question does not change the argument.
Let’s back up: Was the Civil Rights Act of 1964 lawfully passed by Congress?
Yes or No.
The part of it [the Civil Rights Act of 1964] which prohibits distinctions in the workplace based upon “sex” is an assumption of power not delegated to Congress!
Let us look at historical facts regarding whether or not Congress has been delegated a power to prohibit, by legislation, state action making distinctions based upon sex [excluding of course the 19th Amendment], or prohibiting, by legislation, citizens or persons in a state to make distinctions based upon sex in their social or commercial activities.
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”. Please note that “sex” is not yet 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 still no delegated power authorizing Congress to legislate protection with respect to “sex”. But in 1920, the American People decide by adopting the Nineteenth Amendment, to delegate to Congress power to provide by "appropriate legislation" that the right to vote "shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."
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 enact the 1964 Civil Rights Act, part of which prohibits distinctions in the workplace based upon “sex”.
In fact, not only did Congress act without Constitutional authority to prohibit distinctions in the workplace based upon sex, but the American People, for generations, refuse to adopt an Equal Rights Amendment that would grant legislative power to Congress to prohibit government actions from making distinctions based upon sex ___ the first appearing in the 1920s, and in the 1980s, the people specifically and purposely reject the Equal Rights Amendment "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex" , which was intended to allow Congress to enact "appropriate legislation" to prohibit government actions making distinctions based upon “sex”.
So, here we are today, in a situation where the rule of law is being ignored, along with historical facts, and people like you embracing Congress’ usurpation of power.
JWK
At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, `Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?' `A republic, if you can keep it,' responded Franklin.
And that’s the problem right there. There is nothing to discuss if one embraces such a narrow view of the Constitution. Fourteenth Amendment/Section 5 belies that point of view. Congress does have such power. You disagreeing with its use does not render it unconstitutional.
We are done here.
I figured that would be your response after my posting historical facts regarding whether or not Congress has been delegated a power to prohibit, by legislation, state action making distinctions based upon sex [excluding of course the 19th Amendment], or prohibiting, by legislation, citizens or persons in a state to make distinctions based upon sex in their social or commercial activities.
It is abundantly clear that the rule of law, and defined and limited powers being granted to Congress by the people, are not embraced by your kind.
JWK
The Democrat Party’s Revolutionary Leadership, detests people being left free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations, and likewise detests a free market, free enterprise system.
When are you going to realize that cherry picking quotes that support your ideology doesn’t negate the actual text of the Constitution. You lose this argument each and every time. When confronted with text from the fourteenth amendment you parrot the same phrase thinking it changes the discussion in your favor.
Let’s do this yet again:
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.
Here is your dilemma. Other than the SC, There is nothing to stop Congress from using Section 5 to buttress the parts of Section 1. That is why the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed and not ruled unconstitutional. There is no historical document you can provide that changes the wording of the text.
We have already gone over The specific provisions of Section 1Repeating the question does not change the argument.
Let’s back up: Was the Civil Rights Act of 1964 lawfully passed by Congress?
Yes or No.
The part of it [the Civil Rights Act of 1964] which prohibits distinctions in the workplace based upon “sex” is an assumption of power not delegated to Congress!
Let us look at historical facts regarding whether or not Congress has been delegated a power to prohibit, by legislation, state action making distinctions based upon sex [excluding of course the 19th Amendment], or prohibiting, by legislation, citizens or persons in a state to make distinctions based upon sex in their social or commercial activities.
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”. Please note that “sex” is not yet 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 still no delegated power authorizing Congress to legislate protection with respect to “sex”. But in 1920, the American People decide by adopting the Nineteenth Amendment, to delegate to Congress power to provide by "appropriate legislation" that the right to vote "shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."
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 enact the 1964 Civil Rights Act, part of which prohibits distinctions in the workplace based upon “sex”.
In fact, not only did Congress act without Constitutional authority to prohibit distinctions in the workplace based upon sex, but the American People, for generations, refuse to adopt an Equal Rights Amendment that would grant legislative power to Congress to prohibit government actions from making distinctions based upon sex ___ the first appearing in the 1920s, and in the 1980s, the people specifically and purposely reject the Equal Rights Amendment "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex" , which was intended to allow Congress to enact "appropriate legislation" to prohibit government actions making distinctions based upon “sex”.
So, here we are today, in a situation where the rule of law is being ignored, along with historical facts, and people like you embracing Congress’ usurpation of power.
JWK
At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, `Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?' `A republic, if you can keep it,' responded Franklin.
And that’s the problem right there. There is nothing to discuss if one embraces such a narrow view of the Constitution. Fourteenth Amendment/Section 5 belies that point of view. Congress does have such power. You disagreeing with its use does not render it unconstitutional.
We are done here.
I figured that would be your response after my posting historical facts regarding whether or not Congress has been delegated a power to prohibit, by legislation, state action making distinctions based upon sex [excluding of course the 19th Amendment], or prohibiting, by legislation, citizens or persons in a state to make distinctions based upon sex in their social or commercial activities.
It is abundantly clear that the rule of law, and defined and limited powers being granted to Congress by the people, are not embraced by your kind.
JWK
The Democrat Party’s Revolutionary Leadership, detests people being left free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations, and likewise detests a free market, free enterprise system.
When are you going to realize that cherry picking quotes that support your ideology doesn’t negate the actual text of the Constitution. You lose this argument each and every time. When confronted with text from the fourteenth amendment you parrot the same phrase thinking it changes the discussion in your favor.
Let’s do this yet again:
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.
Here is your dilemma. Other than the SC, There is nothing to stop Congress from using Section 5 to buttress the parts of Section 1. That is why the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed and not ruled unconstitutional. There is no historical document you can provide that changes the wording of the text.
As to Section 5, which I already pointed out to you, it simply delegates power to Congress to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the specific provisions of Section 1. It does not delegate a power to enlarge the specific provisions. This is constitutional law 101.
JWK
“any person”? Please explain the context in which you are using "any person".What part of “any person” is not resonating. There is nothing to enlarge. The text is self explanatory. You cannot apply your specious interpretation to the word “ANY”.
“any person”? Please explain the context in which you are using "any person".What part of “any person” is not resonating. There is nothing to enlarge. The text is self explanatory. You cannot apply your specious interpretation to the word “ANY”.
JWK
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.
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.
We have already gone over section one of the 14th Amendment HERE
.
SECTION ONE OF THE FOURTEEN AMENDMENT EXPLAINED
The 14th Amendment declares in crystal clear language:
”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.”
As we can see from the language of the 14th Amendment it:
1. Makes ”All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof … citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
The amendment then goes on to declare:
2. “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”
This wording forbids State action from abridging a United States citizen’s “privileges or immunities” which a State has adopted under law. Note that the wording does not forbid a State to deny “privileges or immunities” to “persons” who may not be "citizens of the United States"! Nor does the wording declare what “privileges or immunities” a state may or may not adopt.
The amendment then continues with:
3. “… nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..”
Again, the reference 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.
Section one of the Amendment then concludes with:
4. ”…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 specific 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.
And here is a summary, explaining the meaning, of what you quoted by one of the 14th Amendments supporters when it was being debated for adoption into our constitution:
“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
I hope the above has been useful to you in understanding the true meaning of Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Finally, Congress does not have the constitutional authority to pass and enforce the Equality Act. it would have to be adopted by a Constitutional Amendment, just as the proposed, but defeated, "Equal Rights Amendment".
JWK
The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
Actually he makes a lot of sense and brings up facts and connections that makes a lot of sense. To counter that with a "blah blah blah, is not" reply doesn't do it justice.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.
We have already gone over section one of the 14th Amendment HERE
.
SECTION ONE OF THE FOURTEEN AMENDMENT EXPLAINED
The 14th Amendment declares in crystal clear language:
”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.”
As we can see from the language of the 14th Amendment it:
1. Makes ”All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof … citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
The amendment then goes on to declare:
2. “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”
This wording forbids State action from abridging a United States citizen’s “privileges or immunities” which a State has adopted under law. Note that the wording does not forbid a State to deny “privileges or immunities” to “persons” who may not be "citizens of the United States"! Nor does the wording declare what “privileges or immunities” a state may or may not adopt.
The amendment then continues with:
3. “… nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..”
Again, the reference 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.
Section one of the Amendment then concludes with:
4. ”…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 specific 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.
And here is a summary, explaining the meaning, of what you quoted by one of the 14th Amendments supporters when it was being debated for adoption into our constitution:
“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
I hope the above has been useful to you in understanding the true meaning of Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Finally, Congress does not have the constitutional authority to pass and enforce the Equality Act. it would have to be adopted by a Constitutional Amendment, just as the proposed, but defeated, "Equal Rights Amendment".
JWK
The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
Repeating the same post previously does not make your argument any more valid. You are intentionally ignoring the actual wording of the fourteen amendment because it doesn’t align with YOUR ideology.
Dismissed.
Actually he makes a lot of sense and brings up facts and connections that makes a lot of sense. To counter that with a "blah blah blah, is not" reply doesn't do it justice.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.
We have already gone over section one of the 14th Amendment HERE
.
SECTION ONE OF THE FOURTEEN AMENDMENT EXPLAINED
The 14th Amendment declares in crystal clear language:
”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.”
As we can see from the language of the 14th Amendment it:
1. Makes ”All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof … citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
The amendment then goes on to declare:
2. “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”
This wording forbids State action from abridging a United States citizen’s “privileges or immunities” which a State has adopted under law. Note that the wording does not forbid a State to deny “privileges or immunities” to “persons” who may not be "citizens of the United States"! Nor does the wording declare what “privileges or immunities” a state may or may not adopt.
The amendment then continues with:
3. “… nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..”
Again, the reference 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.
Section one of the Amendment then concludes with:
4. ”…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 specific 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.
And here is a summary, explaining the meaning, of what you quoted by one of the 14th Amendments supporters when it was being debated for adoption into our constitution:
“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
I hope the above has been useful to you in understanding the true meaning of Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Finally, Congress does not have the constitutional authority to pass and enforce the Equality Act. it would have to be adopted by a Constitutional Amendment, just as the proposed, but defeated, "Equal Rights Amendment".
JWK
The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
Repeating the same post previously does not make your argument any more valid. You are intentionally ignoring the actual wording of the fourteen amendment because it doesn’t align with YOUR ideology.
Dismissed.
I never denied the ability of Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Stop lying about what I actually stated in POST NO. 60 which is:Actually he isn’t. The minute he denied the ability of Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he lost credibility. The actual text in the Fourteenth Amendment contradicts that particular point.
He is wrong.
I never denied the ability of Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Stop lying about what I actually stated in POST NO. 60 which is:Actually he isn’t. The minute he denied the ability of Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he lost credibility. The actual text in the Fourteenth Amendment contradicts that particular point.
He is wrong.
The part of it [the Civil Rights Act of 1964] which prohibits distinctions in the workplace based upon “sex” is an assumption of power not delegated to Congress!
I continued with the following supporting my contention:
Let us look at historical facts regarding whether or not Congress has been delegated a power to prohibit, by legislation, state action making distinctions based upon sex [excluding of course the 19th Amendment], or prohibiting, by legislation, citizens or persons in a state to make distinctions based upon sex in their social or commercial activities.
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”. Please note that “sex” is not yet 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 still no delegated power authorizing Congress to legislate protection with respect to “sex”. But in 1920, the American People decide by adopting the Nineteenth Amendment, to delegate to Congress power to provide by "appropriate legislation" that the right to vote "shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."
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 enact the 1964 Civil Rights Act, part of which prohibits distinctions in the workplace based upon “sex”.
In fact, not only did Congress act without Constitutional authority to prohibit distinctions in the workplace based upon sex, but the American People, for generations, refuse to adopt an Equal Rights Amendment that would grant legislative power to Congress to prohibit government actions from making distinctions based upon sex ___ the first appearing in the 1920s, and in the 1980s, the people specifically and purposely reject the Equal Rights Amendment "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex" , which was intended to allow Congress to enact "appropriate legislation" to prohibit government actions making distinctions based upon “sex”.
So, here we are today, in a situation where the rule of law is being ignored, along with historical facts, and people like you embracing Congress’ usurpation of power.
Stop freaking lying about what I have posted.
JWK
At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, `Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?' `A republic, if you can keep it,' responded Franklin.
I never denied the ability of Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Stop lying about what I actually stated in POST NO. 60 which is:Actually he isn’t. The minute he denied the ability of Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he lost credibility. The actual text in the Fourteenth Amendment contradicts that particular point.
He is wrong.
The part of it [the Civil Rights Act of 1964] which prohibits distinctions in the workplace based upon “sex” is an assumption of power not delegated to Congress!
I continued with the following supporting my contention:
Let us look at historical facts regarding whether or not Congress has been delegated a power to prohibit, by legislation, state action making distinctions based upon sex [excluding of course the 19th Amendment], or prohibiting, by legislation, citizens or persons in a state to make distinctions based upon sex in their social or commercial activities.
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”. Please note that “sex” is not yet 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 still no delegated power authorizing Congress to legislate protection with respect to “sex”. But in 1920, the American People decide by adopting the Nineteenth Amendment, to delegate to Congress power to provide by "appropriate legislation" that the right to vote "shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."
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 enact the 1964 Civil Rights Act, part of which prohibits distinctions in the workplace based upon “sex”.
In fact, not only did Congress act without Constitutional authority to prohibit distinctions in the workplace based upon sex, but the American People, for generations, refuse to adopt an Equal Rights Amendment that would grant legislative power to Congress to prohibit government actions from making distinctions based upon sex ___ the first appearing in the 1920s, and in the 1980s, the people specifically and purposely reject the Equal Rights Amendment "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex" , which was intended to allow Congress to enact "appropriate legislation" to prohibit government actions making distinctions based upon “sex”.
So, here we are today, in a situation where the rule of law is being ignored, along with historical facts, and people like you embracing Congress’ usurpation of power.
Stop freaking lying about what I have posted.
JWK
At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, `Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?' `A republic, if you can keep it,' responded Franklin.
You are playing word games.
Then, in 1964, without any constitutionally authorized power, Congress decides to enact the 1964 Civil Rights Act, part of which prohibits distinctions in the workplace based upon “sex”.
Did you bother to read what you wrote?
That is in FACT YOU denying that Congress has the ability to pass the 1964 CVA.
I never denied the ability of Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Stop lying about what I actually stated in POST NO. 60 which is:Actually he isn’t. The minute he denied the ability of Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he lost credibility. The actual text in the Fourteenth Amendment contradicts that particular point.
He is wrong.
The part of it [the Civil Rights Act of 1964] which prohibits distinctions in the workplace based upon “sex” is an assumption of power not delegated to Congress!
I continued with the following supporting my contention:
Let us look at historical facts regarding whether or not Congress has been delegated a power to prohibit, by legislation, state action making distinctions based upon sex [excluding of course the 19th Amendment], or prohibiting, by legislation, citizens or persons in a state to make distinctions based upon sex in their social or commercial activities.
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”. Please note that “sex” is not yet 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 still no delegated power authorizing Congress to legislate protection with respect to “sex”. But in 1920, the American People decide by adopting the Nineteenth Amendment, to delegate to Congress power to provide by "appropriate legislation" that the right to vote "shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."
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 enact the 1964 Civil Rights Act, part of which prohibits distinctions in the workplace based upon “sex”.
In fact, not only did Congress act without Constitutional authority to prohibit distinctions in the workplace based upon sex, but the American People, for generations, refuse to adopt an Equal Rights Amendment that would grant legislative power to Congress to prohibit government actions from making distinctions based upon sex ___ the first appearing in the 1920s, and in the 1980s, the people specifically and purposely reject the Equal Rights Amendment "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex" , which was intended to allow Congress to enact "appropriate legislation" to prohibit government actions making distinctions based upon “sex”.
So, here we are today, in a situation where the rule of law is being ignored, along with historical facts, and people like you embracing Congress’ usurpation of power.
Stop freaking lying about what I have posted.
JWK
At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, `Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?' `A republic, if you can keep it,' responded Franklin.
You are playing word games.
Then, in 1964, without any constitutionally authorized power, Congress decides to enact the 1964 Civil Rights Act, part of which prohibits distinctions in the workplace based upon “sex”.
Did you bother to read what you wrote?
That is in FACT YOU denying that Congress has the ability to pass the 1964 CVA.
Your reading comprehension problem is showing itself again.
The part of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that is not constitutionally authorized is that part "which prohibits distinctions in the workplace based upon “sex”, and which I provided sufficient documentation to confirm.
Have you forgotten the people of the United States specifically rejected delegating a power to Congress to adopt appropriate legislation prohibiting state action making distinctions based upon sex [excluding of course the 19th Amendment], or prohibiting, by legislation, citizens or persons in a state to make distinctions based upon sex in their social or commercial activities when they rejected the ERA [Equal Rights Amendment]?
JWK
The Equality Act attempts to exercise legislative power proposed under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, the Act is an attempted usurpation of power not granted.
Given the prevalence of bigots in this country, it seems like the CRA would have been challenged by now. How mny years now?I never denied the ability of Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Stop lying about what I actually stated in POST NO. 60 which is:Actually he isn’t. The minute he denied the ability of Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he lost credibility. The actual text in the Fourteenth Amendment contradicts that particular point.
He is wrong.
The part of it [the Civil Rights Act of 1964] which prohibits distinctions in the workplace based upon “sex” is an assumption of power not delegated to Congress!
I continued with the following supporting my contention:
Let us look at historical facts regarding whether or not Congress has been delegated a power to prohibit, by legislation, state action making distinctions based upon sex [excluding of course the 19th Amendment], or prohibiting, by legislation, citizens or persons in a state to make distinctions based upon sex in their social or commercial activities.
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”. Please note that “sex” is not yet 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 still no delegated power authorizing Congress to legislate protection with respect to “sex”. But in 1920, the American People decide by adopting the Nineteenth Amendment, to delegate to Congress power to provide by "appropriate legislation" that the right to vote "shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."
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 enact the 1964 Civil Rights Act, part of which prohibits distinctions in the workplace based upon “sex”.
In fact, not only did Congress act without Constitutional authority to prohibit distinctions in the workplace based upon sex, but the American People, for generations, refuse to adopt an Equal Rights Amendment that would grant legislative power to Congress to prohibit government actions from making distinctions based upon sex ___ the first appearing in the 1920s, and in the 1980s, the people specifically and purposely reject the Equal Rights Amendment "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex" , which was intended to allow Congress to enact "appropriate legislation" to prohibit government actions making distinctions based upon “sex”.
So, here we are today, in a situation where the rule of law is being ignored, along with historical facts, and people like you embracing Congress’ usurpation of power.
Stop freaking lying about what I have posted.
JWK
At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, `Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?' `A republic, if you can keep it,' responded Franklin.
You are playing word games.
Then, in 1964, without any constitutionally authorized power, Congress decides to enact the 1964 Civil Rights Act, part of which prohibits distinctions in the workplace based upon “sex”.
Did you bother to read what you wrote?
That is in FACT YOU denying that Congress has the ability to pass the 1964 CVA.
Your reading comprehension problem is showing itself again.
The part of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that is not constitutionally authorized is that part "which prohibits distinctions in the workplace based upon “sex”, and which I provided sufficient documentation to confirm.
Have you forgotten the people of the United States specifically rejected delegating a power to Congress to adopt appropriate legislation prohibiting state action making distinctions based upon sex [excluding of course the 19th Amendment], or prohibiting, by legislation, citizens or persons in a state to make distinctions based upon sex in their social or commercial activities when they rejected the ERA [Equal Rights Amendment]?
JWK
The Equality Act attempts to exercise legislative power proposed under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, the Act is an attempted usurpation of power not granted.
Now you are walking back your previous post. Good for you.
Next time you accuse me of lying, make sure you check your own words first.
You cannot prove your contention. The Equality Act is an amendment to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It does not require an Article 5 amendment anymore than the CRA itself.
You have not and cannot prove that it was a usurpation of power by Congress. I have shown you the actual words of the 14th amendment ad nauseam.
Your opinion on how it should be interpreted is only your opinion.
I never denied the ability of Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Stop lying about what I actually stated in POST NO. 60 which is:Actually he isn’t. The minute he denied the ability of Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he lost credibility. The actual text in the Fourteenth Amendment contradicts that particular point.
He is wrong.
The part of it [the Civil Rights Act of 1964] which prohibits distinctions in the workplace based upon “sex” is an assumption of power not delegated to Congress!
I continued with the following supporting my contention:
Let us look at historical facts regarding whether or not Congress has been delegated a power to prohibit, by legislation, state action making distinctions based upon sex [excluding of course the 19th Amendment], or prohibiting, by legislation, citizens or persons in a state to make distinctions based upon sex in their social or commercial activities.
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”. Please note that “sex” is not yet 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 still no delegated power authorizing Congress to legislate protection with respect to “sex”. But in 1920, the American People decide by adopting the Nineteenth Amendment, to delegate to Congress power to provide by "appropriate legislation" that the right to vote "shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."
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 enact the 1964 Civil Rights Act, part of which prohibits distinctions in the workplace based upon “sex”.
In fact, not only did Congress act without Constitutional authority to prohibit distinctions in the workplace based upon sex, but the American People, for generations, refuse to adopt an Equal Rights Amendment that would grant legislative power to Congress to prohibit government actions from making distinctions based upon sex ___ the first appearing in the 1920s, and in the 1980s, the people specifically and purposely reject the Equal Rights Amendment "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex" , which was intended to allow Congress to enact "appropriate legislation" to prohibit government actions making distinctions based upon “sex”.
So, here we are today, in a situation where the rule of law is being ignored, along with historical facts, and people like you embracing Congress’ usurpation of power.
Stop freaking lying about what I have posted.
JWK
At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, `Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?' `A republic, if you can keep it,' responded Franklin.
You are playing word games.
Then, in 1964, without any constitutionally authorized power, Congress decides to enact the 1964 Civil Rights Act, part of which prohibits distinctions in the workplace based upon “sex”.
Did you bother to read what you wrote?
That is in FACT YOU denying that Congress has the ability to pass the 1964 CVA.
Your reading comprehension problem is showing itself again.
The part of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that is not constitutionally authorized is that part "which prohibits distinctions in the workplace based upon “sex”, and which I provided sufficient documentation to confirm.
Have you forgotten the people of the United States specifically rejected delegating a power to Congress to adopt appropriate legislation prohibiting state action making distinctions based upon sex [excluding of course the 19th Amendment], or prohibiting, by legislation, citizens or persons in a state to make distinctions based upon sex in their social or commercial activities when they rejected the ERA [Equal Rights Amendment]?
JWK
The Equality Act attempts to exercise legislative power proposed under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, the Act is an attempted usurpation of power not granted.
Now you are walking back your previous post. Good for you.
Given the prevalence of bigots in this country, it seems like the CRA would have been challenged by now. How mny years now?I never denied the ability of Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Stop lying about what I actually stated in POST NO. 60 which is:Actually he isn’t. The minute he denied the ability of Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he lost credibility. The actual text in the Fourteenth Amendment contradicts that particular point.
He is wrong.
The part of it [the Civil Rights Act of 1964] which prohibits distinctions in the workplace based upon “sex” is an assumption of power not delegated to Congress!
I continued with the following supporting my contention:
Let us look at historical facts regarding whether or not Congress has been delegated a power to prohibit, by legislation, state action making distinctions based upon sex [excluding of course the 19th Amendment], or prohibiting, by legislation, citizens or persons in a state to make distinctions based upon sex in their social or commercial activities.
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”. Please note that “sex” is not yet 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 still no delegated power authorizing Congress to legislate protection with respect to “sex”. But in 1920, the American People decide by adopting the Nineteenth Amendment, to delegate to Congress power to provide by "appropriate legislation" that the right to vote "shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."
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 enact the 1964 Civil Rights Act, part of which prohibits distinctions in the workplace based upon “sex”.
In fact, not only did Congress act without Constitutional authority to prohibit distinctions in the workplace based upon sex, but the American People, for generations, refuse to adopt an Equal Rights Amendment that would grant legislative power to Congress to prohibit government actions from making distinctions based upon sex ___ the first appearing in the 1920s, and in the 1980s, the people specifically and purposely reject the Equal Rights Amendment "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex" , which was intended to allow Congress to enact "appropriate legislation" to prohibit government actions making distinctions based upon “sex”.
So, here we are today, in a situation where the rule of law is being ignored, along with historical facts, and people like you embracing Congress’ usurpation of power.
Stop freaking lying about what I have posted.
JWK
At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, `Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?' `A republic, if you can keep it,' responded Franklin.
You are playing word games.
Then, in 1964, without any constitutionally authorized power, Congress decides to enact the 1964 Civil Rights Act, part of which prohibits distinctions in the workplace based upon “sex”.
Did you bother to read what you wrote?
That is in FACT YOU denying that Congress has the ability to pass the 1964 CVA.
Your reading comprehension problem is showing itself again.
The part of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that is not constitutionally authorized is that part "which prohibits distinctions in the workplace based upon “sex”, and which I provided sufficient documentation to confirm.
Have you forgotten the people of the United States specifically rejected delegating a power to Congress to adopt appropriate legislation prohibiting state action making distinctions based upon sex [excluding of course the 19th Amendment], or prohibiting, by legislation, citizens or persons in a state to make distinctions based upon sex in their social or commercial activities when they rejected the ERA [Equal Rights Amendment]?
JWK
The Equality Act attempts to exercise legislative power proposed under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, the Act is an attempted usurpation of power not granted.
Now you are walking back your previous post. Good for you.
Next time you accuse me of lying, make sure you check your own words first.
You cannot prove your contention. The Equality Act is an amendment to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It does not require an Article 5 amendment anymore than the CRA itself.
You have not and cannot prove that it was a usurpation of power by Congress. I have shown you the actual words of the 14th amendment ad nauseam.
Your opinion on how it should be interpreted is only your opinion.
