Does North Carolina's HB2 bathroom law violate our Constitution? A resounding NO!


#1

In short, under the law in question, sexual deviants who believe their sex is not that which appears on their birth certificate, nor have taken surgical and legal steps to change the gender specified on their birth certificate, are not permitted under the law to use a public bathroom designated for a sex contrary to what is stated on their birth certificate. Does this violate our federal Constitution? We are told by our United States Attorney General Loretta Lynch that the law violates federal law. But our Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, and that includes the 14th Amendment which has been asserted is violated by North Carolina’s H.B.2 law. So, let us look at some irrefutable facts, as opposed to Loretta Lynch’s personal views of justice, fairness or reasonableness which she asserts is violated by North Carolina’s HB 2 law.

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:

  1. “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” This wording forbids every State 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:

  1. “… nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”

This wording 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.

This section of the Amendment then concludes with:

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

This wording simply commands that whatever a State’s laws are, a person within that State’s jurisdiction may not be denied the equal protection of those laws. Keep in mind the wording does not forbid a state to make distinctions in law, e.g., based upon sex or age, but whatever laws are adopted by a State, the State may not deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of those specific laws.

Now that we have looked at the text of the 14th Amendment, exactly what was the legislative intent of the Amendment? I ask this question because our aim, in this discussion has been summarized as follows by our very own Supreme Court:


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 ASS’N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

So, what was the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment as stated by one of its ardent supporters?

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

The very notion that the 14th Amendment prohibits distinctions in law based upon sex is an invention of Justice Ginsburg made in the Virginia Military Academy (VMI) case.

In delivering the Court’s opinion in the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) case, decided June 26, 1996, which commanded the Institute to accept women by citing the 14th Amendment as forbidding sex discrimination, Ginsburg pointed to previous Supreme Court rulings and a court invented test unknown to our founding fathers or the 39th Congress, and asserted a party seeking to uphold government action making a distinction based upon sex must establish an "exceedingly persuasive justification" In addition, Ginsburg noted, “The justification must be genuine, not hypothesized or invented post hoc in response to litigation. And it must not rely on overbroad generalizations about the different talents, capacities, or preferences of males and females.”

But to this day, neither Justice Ginsburg nor any Supreme Court Justice has ever established by the text of the 14th Amendment, nor its legislative intent as expressed during the debates of the 39th Congress which framed the amendment, that its purpose was to forbid distinctions in law based upon sex.

The argument that the 14th Amendment prohibits state legislation which makes distinctions in law based upon sex is immediately exposed for the fraud that it is when reading the 19th Amendment which specifically forbids a new kind of discrimination. In this Amendment, the People of America decide to forbid sex discrimination [the discrimination mentioned by Ginsburg and Loretta Lynch] but only extend the prohibition with respect to the right to vote being “denied or abridged” on account of “sex”

If the 14th Amendment prohibited every kind of discrimination as we are led to believe today, including discrimination based upon sex as Ginsburg and Lynch allege, then why was it necessary for the 15th and 19th Amendments to be added to the Constitution after the adoption of the 14th Amendment __ each of which forbids a new, but specific kind of discrimination?

Finally, why would there have been a proposed and so-call equal rights amendment attempted to be added to the Constitution of the United States in the 1980’s to prohibit sex discrimination, which fell short of the required number of ratifying States, if the 14th Amendment already prohibited distinctions in law based upon sex as Ginsburg and Loretta Lynch allege?

Thumbs up to the State of North Carolina and Gov. McCrory for standing up to Loretta Lynch’s attempted blackmailing. Hopefully other states will join in this suit.

JWK


“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



#2

The American people rejected the introduction of homosexuality as a protected class in our Constitution in 1982 when they specifically rejected the so called “Equal Rights Amendment”. One of the very reasons it was rejected was because it would lead to such things as homosexual marriage; require our nation’s women to be drafted into the armed services, and various other things which are repugnant to the vast majority of the American People.

And so, our homosexual community went into the courts and found homosexual sympathizers who were and are willing to use their office of public trust to engage in judicial tyranny and do what the people are unwilling to do under Article V of our Constitution, which is the only lawful way to accommodate change for alleged changing times.

The unavoidable truth is, our federal constitution does not forbid the States to make distinctions in law based upon sex __ an exception being the 19th Amendment which declares the right to vote “shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”

We need to start removing judges and Justices, and public servants like Loretta Lynch from their office of public trust who are acting in rebellion to our written Constitution and its legislative intent. And they must be punished, with no punishment left off the table!

JWK

***“If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?”***___ Justice Story


#3

What about equal protection for the 8 year old girl taking a pee as a biological male cruises into the ladies room? What about the little girl’s psyche/safety for Christ’s sake? The Equal Protection Clause exists as a safeguard against the minority being held hostage at the whim of the majority. It was not written with the intent it be used by a scant minority sub-group as a club to bludgeon the majority into submission over an issue that is biologically and demonstrable self evident.

Realism and common sense has all but vanished within the government of the United States and much of the judiciary.

If there was ever even a smidgen of doubt that being a liberal/progressive Democrat is a form of mental illness, this BS by Obama and his Justice Department, and embraced by Hillary Clinton, eliminates any doubt whatsoever.

As I have stated before on this site - we do not knowingly allow progressives/liberals/Democrats into our home. This kind of sh*t is the reason why.


#4

See: North Carolina Guv Calls On Other States To Join Lawsuit Over Anti-LGBT Law

North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory ® said Monday he hopes other states and private sector companies join his state’s lawsuit against the Justice Department over the federal government’s challenge to the state’s sweeping anti-LGBT law.

What is being disputed by North Carolina is the Obama Administrations, and Justice Departments repeated acts to re-write, through arbitrary interpretations and Executive Orders, various parts of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when Congress has the exclusive power to write legislation. And this does apply to every State in the Union.

HERE IS A LIST containing a number of the Obama Administration’s arbitrary acts to alter the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

JWK


The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47



#5

What I would like to know is HOW MANY of these “trannys” are amongst us? I don’t know of any, but I don’t reside in an urban area. It would seem to me that there would be VERY few, so why should ANY administration cater to them? It would be like making exceptions to the Martian population. It’s a bunch of bull…


#6

The arguments about sex-segregated bathrooms were exhaustively debated during the proposed Equal Rights Amendment and concluded that even if the ERA were passed sex-segregated bathrooms were protected!

See: SHE THE PEOPLE: THE NINETEENTH AMENDMENT, SEX EQUALITY, FEDERALISM, AND THE FAMILY

*"But during the 1970s, the decade sex discrimination doctrine was born, the law of equal protection had begun to contract around segregation as the archetypal scene of racial harm, group classification as its technology, and blindness as its remedy. A particular – and highly stylized – memory of race discrimination thus supplied the legal template for constitutional debates about sex discrimination.

During the 1970s, constitutional debates over sex discrimination continually referred back to this historically particular conception of race discrimination. In debates over the ERA, a litmus test for commitment to the sex equality principle was willingness to treat sex like race, which in turn translated into the question, reiterated in debate after debate: but would you eliminate sex-segregated bathrooms?[26]"*

Footnote 26 is as follows:

” JANE J. MANSBRIDGE, WHY WE LOST THE ERA 114 (1986) (“Unisex toilets became one of the four major themes that activists speaking to reporters and writing in the newspapers stressed as central to their opposition.”). Proponents of the ERA denied that the amendment would necessarily lead to unisex bathrooms, and argued that privacy doctrine would protect bathrooms from sex desegregation. Barbara Brown, Thomas I. Emerson, Gail Falk & Ann E. Freedman, The Equal Rights Amendment: A Constitutional Basis for Equal Rights for Women, 80 YALE L. J. 871, 901 (1971) (arguing that “the right of privacy would permit the separation of the sexes in public rest rooms, segregation by sex in sleeping quarters of prisons or similar public institutions, and appropriate segregation of living conditions in the armed forces”); Ruth Bader Ginsburg, The Fear of the Equal Rights Amendment, WASH. POST, Apr. 7, 1975, at A21 (“Separate places to disrobe, sleep, perform personal bodily functions are permitted, in some situations required, by regard for individual privacy.”)."

So where does the Obama Administration, or anyone else, get the notion that North Carolina’s HB2 law is unconstitutional?

JWK

***“If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?”***___ Justice Story


#7

The law to them is something to play with. And the Constitution is a roadblock to run around.

This, to the crypto-Marxists in Washington, is a way to foment chaos and thus further their aims of dictatorial control - with the people’s will, to end chaos. To the sodomites, this is just more PURE EVIL, which is what sodomites always push. They are mentally deranged - that’s why they’re sodomites, because they are cracked in the head.

To us, it’s a test of how much insanity and debasement we will tolerate, before we revolt or secede.


#8

If you ever get the chance, and haven’t yet seen “The Devils Advocate”, see it!

JWK

Loretta Lynch, our United States Attorney General, does not have authority to alter what the people have agreed to in their written Constitution. To assume she has such power is to assume” the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves.”___ quoting Hamilton in Federalist No 78.


#9

See Obama Administration to Issue Decree on Transgender Access to School Restrooms

”WASHINGTON — In the middle of a legal fight with North Carolina over transgender rights, the Obama administration is planning to issue a sweeping decree telling every public school district in the country to allow transgender students to use the bathrooms that match their gender identity.”

The constitutional arguments about sex-segregated bathrooms were exhaustively debated during the proposed Equal Rights Amendment and concluded that even with the ERA sex-segregated bathrooms were protected!

See: SHE THE PEOPLE: THE NINETEENTH AMENDMENT, SEX EQUALITY, FEDERALISM, AND THE FAMILY

*"But during the 1970s, the decade sex discrimination doctrine was born, the law of equal protection had begun to contract around segregation as the archetypal scene of racial harm, group classification as its technology, and blindness as its remedy. A particular – and highly stylized – memory of race discrimination thus supplied the legal template for constitutional debates about sex discrimination.

During the 1970s, constitutional debates over sex discrimination continually referred back to this historically particular conception of race discrimination. In debates over the ERA, a litmus test for commitment to the sex equality principle was willingness to treat sex like race, which in turn translated into the question, reiterated in debate after debate: but would you eliminate sex-segregated bathrooms?[26]"*

Footnote 26 is as follows:

” JANE J. MANSBRIDGE, WHY WE LOST THE ERA 114 (1986) (“Unisex toilets became one of the four major themes that activists speaking to reporters and writing in the newspapers stressed as central to their opposition.”). Proponents of the ERA denied that the amendment would necessarily lead to unisex bathrooms, and argued that privacy doctrine would protect bathrooms from sex desegregation. Barbara Brown, Thomas I. Emerson, Gail Falk & Ann E. Freedman, The Equal Rights Amendment: A Constitutional Basis for Equal Rights for Women, 80 YALE L. J. 871, 901 (1971) (arguing that “the right of privacy would permit the separation of the sexes in public rest rooms, segregation by sex in sleeping quarters of prisons or similar public institutions, and appropriate segregation of living conditions in the armed forces”); Ruth Bader Ginsburg, The Fear of the Equal Rights Amendment, WASH. POST, Apr. 7, 1975, at A21 (“Separate places to disrobe, sleep, perform personal bodily functions are permitted, in some situations required, by regard for individual privacy.”).

So where does Obama get the authority to forbid sex segregated bathrooms in your local school?

Is it not time for patriotic America citizens to rise up in rebellion against a federal government which is acting in rebellion to our written Constitution and its legislative intent?

JWK

Loretta Lynch, our United States Attorney General, does not have authority to alter what the people have agreed to in their written Constitution. To assume she has such power is to assume” the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves.”___ quoting Hamilton in Federalist No 78.


#10

Raleigh City Code Sec. 13-2015. – TOILET FACILITIES; USE BY SEX FOR WHICH NOT INTENDED.

"On public or on private property used by the public or patrons of a business establishment where separate toilet facilities are provided for the use of different sexes and such facilities are conspicuously labeled to give notice of the sex for which the facility is set apart, it shall be unlawful for a member of one sex to enter or use a facility provided for members of the opposite sex. Provided this section shall not be construed to prevent the inspection of toilet facilities by the owner or person in charge thereof or the designated agent of either, nor to prevent the performance of janitorial services therein by the person or persons designated to perform such services when members of the opposite sex are not present."

JWK


#11

Just this morning, I got into this on a local forum,with a couple of liberals,and when they couldn’t refute my morality stance, they, like some here, resort to insult and innuendo and obfuscation.


#12

The Obama Administration is a paper tiger. It’s time for the States and American People to tell Obama go . . . . _____ insert your own wording here.

BTW, this latest attempt at blackmailing the States violates the RICO Act!

JWK


#13

See Texas Lt. Gov. accuses Obama of ‘blackmail’ on transgender bathrooms

05/13/16

***“I believe it is the biggest issue facing families and schools in America since prayer was taken out of public schools,” Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick told reporters.

Obama’s policy “will divide the country not along political lines but along family values and school districts,” Patrick said.

“He says he’s going to withhold funding if schools do not follow the policy,” Patrick said, referring to possible consequences if they do not adhere to the recommendations. “Well, in Texas, he can keep his 30 pieces of silver. We will not yield to blackmail from the president of the United States.”

Noting that Texas public schools get $10 billion of federal funds over a two-year budget, Patrick said the majority of that is for free breakfast and lunch programs.”***

It should also be noted that the Obama Administration’s [and this includes Hillary and Loretta Lynch] attempt to blackmail the States falls under the RICO LAW. Is it not time for the rank and file of both political parties to call for the impeachment of Obama and Loretta Lynch?

JWK


We are here today and gone tomorrow, but what is most important is what we do in between, and is what our children will inherit and remember us by.



#14

Let’s face it…Normal people are going to have return to the primitive method of “going” in the woods.


#15

Or those people who are of Our Preezy’s FAVORITE RELIGION…will just do what they feel they have to.


#16

SEE: Ruth Bader Ginsburg 1975: ‘Unisex’ bathrooms unnecessary

***“Separate places to disrobe, sleep, perform personal bodily functions are permitted, in some situations required, by regard for individual privacy,” she wrote in a 1975 commentary printed by the Washington Post.

“Individual privacy, a right of constitutional dimension, is appropriately harmonized with the equality principle,” she wrote.

The author?

Ruth Ginsburg, now on the bench of the U.S. Supreme Court.”***

As I previously pointed out, the constitutional arguments about sex-segregated bathrooms were exhaustively debated during the proposed Equal Rights Amendment and concluded that even with the ERA sex-segregated bathrooms were protected!

See: SHE THE PEOPLE: THE NINETEENTH AMENDMENT, SEX EQUALITY, FEDERALISM, AND THE FAMILY

*"But during the 1970s, the decade sex discrimination doctrine was born, the law of equal protection had begun to contract around segregation as the archetypal scene of racial harm, group classification as its technology, and blindness as its remedy. A particular – and highly stylized – memory of race discrimination thus supplied the legal template for constitutional debates about sex discrimination.

During the 1970s, constitutional debates over sex discrimination continually referred back to this historically particular conception of race discrimination. In debates over the ERA, a litmus test for commitment to the sex equality principle was willingness to treat sex like race, which in turn translated into the question, reiterated in debate after debate: but would you eliminate sex-segregated bathrooms?[26]"*

Footnote 26 is as follows:

” JANE J. MANSBRIDGE, WHY WE LOST THE ERA 114 (1986) (“Unisex toilets became one of the four major themes that activists speaking to reporters and writing in the newspapers stressed as central to their opposition.”). Proponents of the ERA denied that the amendment would necessarily lead to unisex bathrooms, and argued that privacy doctrine would protect bathrooms from sex desegregation. Barbara Brown, Thomas I. Emerson, Gail Falk & Ann E. Freedman, The Equal Rights Amendment: A Constitutional Basis for Equal Rights for Women, 80 YALE L. J. 871, 901 (1971) (arguing that “the right of privacy would permit the separation of the sexes in public rest rooms, segregation by sex in sleeping quarters of prisons or similar public institutions, and appropriate segregation of living conditions in the armed forces”); Ruth Bader Ginsburg, The Fear of the Equal Rights Amendment, WASH. POST, Apr. 7, 1975, at A21 (“Separate places to disrobe, sleep, perform personal bodily functions are permitted, in some situations required, by regard for individual privacy.”).

For this kind of crap to be forced down the throats of the American People under our nation’s first Black President must be a shocking betrayal to those who elected him, and especially so to those in our nation’s Black communities.

JWK

Loretta Lynch, our United States Attorney General, does not have authority to alter what the people have agreed to in their written Constitution. To assume she has such power is to assume” the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves.”___ quoting Hamilton in Federalist No 78.


#17

Don’t expect her (actually, her clerks, since she’s now semi-comotose) to agree with what she herself said forty years ago.

Liberalism is a journey. Always, always, pushing the envelope…towards sexual anarchy, economic dictatorship, government ownership of the subjects’ bodies and souls.


#18

Well, one thing cannot be denied which is, the Equal Rights Amendment was rejected, and one of the reasons it was rejected was the argument that if adopted, it would make it constitutional to require unisex bathrooms to end sex discrimination. The fact is, nowhere in our federal Constitution is there wording to forbid the States to make distinctions in law based upon sex ____ the exception being the 19th Amendment which is limited to the right to vote being denied or abridged based upon sex.

JWK


#19

See 12 States Stand Up Against Obama’s Unlawful Trans Bathroom Decree

May 14th, 2016

***”Now other states have jumped on board, defending North Carolina and the state’s rights to set these guidelines themselves without federal interference. At the very least, they want Congress to establish guidelines, as the Founders intended, instead of a despotic executive bent on “fundamentally transforming” us.

At the state GOP convention in Greensboro, Sen. Ralph Hise had a message for Obama and AG Loretta Lynch: “You picked the wrong state to start this fight with.”***

Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg agrees that sex segregated bathrooms are within equal law.

JWK

Neither Obama or Loretta Lynch, our United States Attorney General, has authority to alter what the people have agreed to in their written Constitution. To assume they have such power is to assume” the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves.”___ quoting Hamilton in Federalist No 78.


#20

I go into NC quite often, and from what I’ve seen there, the “labeling” on the bathroom doors needs to be in Spanish, regardless of who or what uses them. That’s all I see there anymore.