The Equality Act, another lawyers' full employment Act and an attack on inalienable rights

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The constitutional argument has been discussed ad nauseam. Your theory that you are allowed to discriminate based on your right to the freedom of association is bunk. In you private life, yes, but not in business. Not in pblic accomodations.

All rights have limits and when you behave in a way that infringes on anothers rights, you have crossed the line,

What I, and freedom loving people object to is federal government force being used to meddle in the inalienable right of people being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations, and that includes their social and commercial activities. Federal legislation designed to put the muscle of government in the hands of a "protected class", and without the consent of the governed via a constitutional amendment, has proven to create countless discerning and destructive consequences as I have demonstrated.

Now, with regard to Congress' power and the proposed "Equality Act" ___ which, if made the rule of law would forbid State and American citizens from making distinctions based upon sex ___ under what wording in our federal Constitution has Congress been delegated a power to prohibit, by legislation, state action from 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? If the authority in question has not been delegated to Congress, then the "Equality Act" would be an exercise of power not delegated to Congress.

Are we not a nation in which our federal government is restricted by the defined and limited powers granted by a written constitution?

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.

Bla Bla Bla. You have said it all before. The fatal flaw in your reasoning is that only the ones (like you) who want to exclude others have the right to freedom of association, while, at the same time, those who you seek to exclude have no such rights.

The freedom to force others to associate with you? Never heard of that one.

In business and places of public accomodation. The issue is discrimination. Never heard of that?

 

[dblack]

The freedom to force others to associate with you? Never heard of that one.

In business and places of public accomodation. The issue is discrimination. Never heard of that?

I've never heard it claimed as a right, no. "The freedom to force others to associate with you ... in business and public accommodation." It makes no more sense with the addendum.

Rather than twisting yourself in knots trying to pretend this is about rights, why not recognize it for what it is? A social engineering project targeting certain biases for suppression.

 

[johnwk]

Hey OP, why hasn’t the SC EVER ruled CVA 1964 unconstitutional?

Still waiting on an answer…

When did the Supreme Court provide evidence that including "sex" in the 1964 Civil Rights Act was authorized and agreed to by a constitutional amendment?

The truth, which you seem to have a problem with is, 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.

JWK

So, the short answer is that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was never ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS.

Thank you

The Supreme Court never provide evidence that including "sex" in the 1964 Civil Rights Act was authorized and agreed to by a constitutional amendment, which is required prior to Congress exercising such restrictive legislative power over the subject matter in question.

You seem to reject the required use of Article V (our constitution's amendment process) to enlarge Congress' legislative powers and impose your personal views of social justice, fairness and reasonableness as the rule of law. In regard to this very abuse of power ___ Congress ignoring the will of the people as expressed in a written constitution, and imposing its will as the rule of law, one of our notable Chief Justices wisely cautioned that:

"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

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.

 

[Jets]

Hey OP, why hasn’t the SC EVER ruled CVA 1964 unconstitutional?

Still waiting on an answer…

When did the Supreme Court provide evidence that including "sex" in the 1964 Civil Rights Act was authorized and agreed to by a constitutional amendment?

The truth, which you seem to have a problem with is, 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.

JWK

So, the short answer is that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was never ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS.

Thank you

The Supreme Court never provide evidence that including "sex" in the 1964 Civil Rights Act was authorized and agreed to by a constitutional amendment, which is required prior to Congress exercising such restrictive legislative power over the subject matter in question.

You seem to reject the required use of Article V (our constitution's amendment process) to enlarge Congress' legislative powers and impose your personal views of social justice, fairness and reasonableness as the rule of law. In regard to this very abuse of power ___ Congress ignoring the will of the people as expressed in a written constitution, and imposing its will as the rule of law, one of our notable Chief Justices wisely cautioned that:

"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

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.

Deflection noted.

If the CVA of 1964 was a usurpation of power as you claim, than it would have been challenged and ruled unconstitutional by the SC. It was not because your originalist view of the 14th amendment is nothing less than your nescient opinion.

You say this in the OP:

In poll after poll, we see that Americans overwhelmingly believe that LGBTQ people should be able to live free from fear of harassment and discrimination

Then you say this in the previous one:

Congress ignoring the will of the people


Your concession is accepted. Have a nice day.

 

[johnwk]

The constitutional argument has been discussed ad nauseam. Your theory that you are allowed to discriminate based on your right to the freedom of association is bunk. In you private life, yes, but not in business. Not in pblic accomodations.

All rights have limits and when you behave in a way that infringes on anothers rights, you have crossed the line,

What I, and freedom loving people object to is federal government force being used to meddle in the inalienable right of people being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations, and that includes their social and commercial activities. Federal legislation designed to put the muscle of government in the hands of a "protected class", and without the consent of the governed via a constitutional amendment, has proven to create countless discerning and destructive consequences as I have demonstrated.

Now, with regard to Congress' power and the proposed "Equality Act" ___ which, if made the rule of law would forbid State and American citizens from making distinctions based upon sex ___ under what wording in our federal Constitution has Congress been delegated a power to prohibit, by legislation, state action from 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? If the authority in question has not been delegated to Congress, then the "Equality Act" would be an exercise of power not delegated to Congress.

Are we not a nation in which our federal government is restricted by the defined and limited powers granted by a written constitution?

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.

Bla Bla Bla. You have said it all before. The fatal flaw in your reasoning is that only the ones (like you) who want to exclude others have the right to freedom of association, while, at the same time, those who you seek to exclude have no such rights.

The freedom to force others to associate with you? Never heard of that one.

In business and places of public accomodation. The issue is discrimination. Never heard of that?

So, you agree with forbidding people being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations, and this includes their social and commercial activities, effectively rendering this inalienable right meaningless.

I find nothing wrong with people being free to discriminate as they please . . .freedom to choose is a fundamental right in a freedom and inclusive loving country . But your mantra appears to be ...
. inclusiveness for me, but not for thee.

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.

 

[Jets]

The constitutional argument has been discussed ad nauseam. Your theory that you are allowed to discriminate based on your right to the freedom of association is bunk. In you private life, yes, but not in business. Not in pblic accomodations.

All rights have limits and when you behave in a way that infringes on anothers rights, you have crossed the line,

What I, and freedom loving people object to is federal government force being used to meddle in the inalienable right of people being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations, and that includes their social and commercial activities. Federal legislation designed to put the muscle of government in the hands of a "protected class", and without the consent of the governed via a constitutional amendment, has proven to create countless discerning and destructive consequences as I have demonstrated.

Now, with regard to Congress' power and the proposed "Equality Act" ___ which, if made the rule of law would forbid State and American citizens from making distinctions based upon sex ___ under what wording in our federal Constitution has Congress been delegated a power to prohibit, by legislation, state action from 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? If the authority in question has not been delegated to Congress, then the "Equality Act" would be an exercise of power not delegated to Congress.

Are we not a nation in which our federal government is restricted by the defined and limited powers granted by a written constitution?

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.

Bla Bla Bla. You have said it all before. The fatal flaw in your reasoning is that only the ones (like you) who want to exclude others have the right to freedom of association, while, at the same time, those who you seek to exclude have no such rights.

The freedom to force others to associate with you? Never heard of that one.

In business and places of public accomodation. The issue is discrimination. Never heard of that?

So, you agree with forbidding people being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations, and this includes their social and commercial activities, effectively rendering this inalienable right meaningless.

I find nothing wrong with people being free to discriminate as they please . . .freedom to choose is a fundamental right in a freedom and inclusive loving country . But your mantra appears to be ...
. inclusiveness for me, but not for thee.

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.

To the bolded: That is why you cannot fathom what the fourteenth amendment means.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The constitutional argument has been discussed ad nauseam. Your theory that you are allowed to discriminate based on your right to the freedom of association is bunk. In you private life, yes, but not in business. Not in pblic accomodations.

All rights have limits and when you behave in a way that infringes on anothers rights, you have crossed the line,

What I, and freedom loving people object to is federal government force being used to meddle in the inalienable right of people being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations, and that includes their social and commercial activities. Federal legislation designed to put the muscle of government in the hands of a "protected class", and without the consent of the governed via a constitutional amendment, has proven to create countless discerning and destructive consequences as I have demonstrated.

Now, with regard to Congress' power and the proposed "Equality Act" ___ which, if made the rule of law would forbid State and American citizens from making distinctions based upon sex ___ under what wording in our federal Constitution has Congress been delegated a power to prohibit, by legislation, state action from 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? If the authority in question has not been delegated to Congress, then the "Equality Act" would be an exercise of power not delegated to Congress.

Are we not a nation in which our federal government is restricted by the defined and limited powers granted by a written constitution?

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.

Bla Bla Bla. You have said it all before. The fatal flaw in your reasoning is that only the ones (like you) who want to exclude others have the right to freedom of association, while, at the same time, those who you seek to exclude have no such rights.

The freedom to force others to associate with you? Never heard of that one.

In business and places of public accomodation. The issue is discrimination. Never heard of that?

So, you agree with forbidding people being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations, and this includes their social and commercial activities, effectively rendering this inalienable right meaningless.

I find nothing wrong with people being free to discriminate as they please . . .freedom to choose is a fundamental right in a freedom and inclusive loving country . But your mantra appears to be ...
. inclusiveness for me, but not for thee.

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.

The bottom line is that attempts have been made to invalidate the CRA and have failed

On This Day: Supreme Court Upheld 1964 Civil Rights Act

The Supreme Court ruled on 14 December 1964 that the Civil Rights Act was constitutional, prohibiting racial discrimination in public accommodations.

blog.genealogybank.com

The Supreme Court heard the case (Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. U.S.) on October 5. It issued its historic decision on 14 December 1964, ruling that Title II of the Civil Rights Act was indeed constitutional, thereby upholding its prohibition against racial discrimination in public accommodations.

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Congress’ constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce does indeed grant it power to fight discrimination, as enacted by Title II of the Civil Rights Act, and ruled against the plaintiffs. McClung’s black customers had every right to sit down and be served in his restaurant, and blacks also had every right to stay at Rolleston’s motel whenever they wanted.

One would be hard pressed these days to find a business that does not to some degree engage in interstate commerce, so give it a rest.

 

[johnwk]

One would be hard pressed these days to find a business that does not to some degree engage in interstate commerce, so give it a rest.

I take it you never read the actual case Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. U.S. Decided: December 14, 1964. Had you read the case you would have realized the particulars under which the court's ruling was made are very specific and do not normally apply to your local businesses, and especially do not apply to, or restrict citizens from exercising the inalienable right to mutually agree in their contracts and associations, an that includes their social and commercial activities.

Additionally, the case has nothing to do with the Court establishing a delegation of power to Congress to adopt appropriate legislation to forbid distinctions being made based upon sex.

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.

 

[johnwk]

To the bolded: That is why you cannot fathom what the fourteenth amendment means.

How many times must we go over the same ground without you clearly stating your objections to what I have posted regarding the 14th Amendment?

.
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.

Congress does not have the constitutional authority to pass and enforce the Equality Act legislation unless power over the subject matter [sex] is delegated to Congress via a Constitutional Amendment, allowing "appropriate legislation" to be written and enforced.

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.

 

[Jets]

To the bolded: That is why you cannot fathom what the fourteenth amendment means.

View attachment 499202

How many times must we go over the same ground without you clearly stating your objections to what I have posted regarding the 14th Amendment?

.
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 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.

Translation: I object to the text of the fourteenth amendment because it does not allow for people being free to discriminate as they please . (Your words)

Your bigotry is noted. The good news is that the Supreme Court doesn’t hold such a warped view of the Fourteenth Amendment. Whether the Equality Act passes or not, the Civil Rights Act is and will be constitutional in spite of your histrionics. Want to know why:

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

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

This is why the CVR act is constitutional and why the Equality Act can be passed as an amendment.

 

[johnwk]

To the bolded: That is why you cannot fathom what the fourteenth amendment means.

View attachment 499202

How many times must we go over the same ground without you clearly stating your objections to what I have posted regarding the 14th Amendment?

.
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 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.

Your bigotry is noted..

So, once again you resort to name calling, and refuse to addressed the provisions of the 14th Amendment which Congress is restricted to when adopting appropriate legislation.

JWK

 

[Jets]

To the bolded: That is why you cannot fathom what the fourteenth amendment means.

View attachment 499202

How many times must we go over the same ground without you clearly stating your objections to what I have posted regarding the 14th Amendment?

.
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 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.

Your bigotry is noted..

So, once again you resort to name calling, and refuse to addressed what I have actually posted regarding the 1st Section of the 14th Amendment.

JWK

Its not name calling. Read what I wrote. “Your bigotry” is not calling you a bigot.

Try again

 

[johnwk]

You say this in the OP:

In poll after poll, we see that Americans overwhelmingly believe that LGBTQ people should be able to live free from fear of harassment and discrimination

Why are you once again lying? In the OP, I quoted an article saying that.

JWK

 

[johnwk]

Its not name calling. Read what I wrote. “Your bigotry” is not calling you a bigot.

Try again

.

.
JWK

 

[Jets]

You say this in the OP:

In poll after poll, we see that Americans overwhelmingly believe that LGBTQ people should be able to live free from fear of harassment and discrimination

Why are you once again lying? In the OP, I quoted an article saying that.

JWK

How about including the second bolded part you conveniently left out.

Try again

 

[johnwk]

You say this in the OP:

In poll after poll, we see that Americans overwhelmingly believe that LGBTQ people should be able to live free from fear of harassment and discrimination

Why are you once again lying? In the OP, I quoted an article saying that.

JWK

How about including the second bolded part you conveniently left out.

Try again

I left it out because I was addressing the lie you posted which alleged I said something I didn't.
JWK

 

[Jets]

You say this in the OP:

In poll after poll, we see that Americans overwhelmingly believe that LGBTQ people should be able to live free from fear of harassment and discrimination

Why are you once again lying? In the OP, I quoted an article saying that.

JWK

How about including the second bolded part you conveniently left out.

Try again

I left it out because I was addressing the lie you posted which alleged I said something I didn't.
JWK

Irrelevant. You left it out because it exposed your blatant hypocrisy.

You said:

“Congress is ignoring the will of the people”.

Yet in the OP

In poll after poll, we see that Americans overwhelmingly believe that LGBTQ people should be able to live free from fear of harassment and discrimination

You are so busy parsing my posts that you cannot avoid stepping on land mines.

Congress is following the will of the people by attempting to amend the CVR with the Equality Act.

Any part of this sinking in?

 

[Jets]

Its not name calling. Read what I wrote. “Your bigotry” is not calling you a bigot.

Try again

.
View attachment 499232
.
JWK

If you support being able to discriminate you support bigotry.

If you don’t like it, use the ignore feature.

 

[johnwk]

Irrelevant. You left it out because it exposed your blatant hypocrisy.
You said:
“Congress is ignoring the will of the people”.
Yet in the OP
In poll after poll, we see that Americans overwhelmingly believe that LGBTQ people should be able to live free from fear of harassment and discrimination
You are so busy parsing my posts that you cannot avoid stepping on land mines.

Congress is following the will of the people by attempting to amend the CVR with the Equality Act.

Any part of this sinking in?

There you go again, posting an unsubstantiated and insulting remark, charging me with "blatant hypocrisy".

What you ignore is, in our system of government the will of the people is expressed in a written constitution and a few years after the adoption of the 19th Amendment, in 1923, women pushed forward to achieve equality between the sexes by having an equal rights amendment added to our federal Constitution to end distinctions being made based upon sex. The amendment read:


Men and women shall have equal rights throughout the United States and every place subject to its jurisdiction.


Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


The amendment never was adopted by the people, but the movement to end distinctions being made based upon sex has continued ever since. The most recent wording of the Equal Rights Amendment reads as follows:

'Article--


'Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

'Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

'Section 3. This article shall take effect 2 years after the date of ratification.'


But once again, in the 1980s the people express their will and refuse to adopt the Equal Rights Amendment, and reject delegating the sweeping power to Congress to adopt "appropriate legislation" forbidding distinctions being made based upon "sex".

So, once again, not only is your insulting accusation ___ charging me with "blatant hypocrisy" ___ without foundation, your assertion that "Congress is following the will of the people by attempting to amend the CVR with the Equality Act" is also without foundation because the people specifically rejected delegating the necessary authority to Congress to prohibit, by appropriate legislation,
distinctions being made based upon "sex" which is what the "Equality Act" is designed to accomplish.

Why do you constantly have to lie, and misrepresent truth and facts?

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.

 

[Jets]

Irrelevant. You left it out because it exposed your blatant hypocrisy.
You said:
“Congress is ignoring the will of the people”.
Yet in the OP
In poll after poll, we see that Americans overwhelmingly believe that LGBTQ people should be able to live free from fear of harassment and discrimination
You are so busy parsing my posts that you cannot avoid stepping on land mines.

Congress is following the will of the people by attempting to amend the CVR with the Equality Act.

Any part of this sinking in?

There you go again, posting an unsubstantiated and insulting remark, charging me with "blatant hypocrisy".

What you ignore is, in our system of government the will of the people is expressed in a written constitution and a few years after the adoption of the 19th Amendment, in 1923, women pushed forward to achieve equality between the sexes by having an equal rights amendment added to our federal Constitution to end distinctions being made based upon sex. The amendment read:


Men and women shall have equal rights throughout the United States and every place subject to its jurisdiction.


Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


The amendment never was adopted by the people, but the movement to end distinctions being made based upon sex has continued ever since. The most recent wording of the Equal Rights Amendment reads as follows:

'Article--


'Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

'Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

'Section 3. This article shall take effect 2 years after the date of ratification.'


But once again, in the 1980s the people express their will and refuse to adopt the Equal Rights Amendment, and reject delegating the sweeping power to Congress to adopt "appropriate legislation" forbidding distinctions being made based upon "sex".

So, once again, not only is your insulting accusation ___ charging me with "blatant hypocrisy" ___ without foundation, your assertion that "Congress is following the will of the people by attempting to amend the CVR with the Equality Act" is also without foundation because the people specifically rejected delegating the necessary authority to Congress to prohibit, by appropriate legislation,
distinctions being made based upon "sex" which is what the "Equality Act" is designed to accomplish.

Why do you constantly have to lie, and misrepresent truth and facts?

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.

Translation: If I ignore the actual words of the Fourteenth amendment I can deflect by bringing up a failed amendment that has NOTHING to do with the CRA or the EA.

You are arguing against the 14th because it doesn’t allow you to discriminate against other people. Your bigotry is on full display for everyone to see.

I’m not going to continue arguing with someone who intentionally ignores the text of the Constitution, because it doesn’t support your risible opinion.

Let me know when you are capable of distinguishing between YOUR bias opinion and actual facts.