.
See: Pride Month concludes without Equality Act vote in Senate
July 1, 2021
.
“Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that the 1964 Civil Rights Act protects LGBTQ people from workplace discrimination. This week, the court effectively handed a victory to a transgender student who sued his school for access to the boys’ bathroom.”
To be more accurate, last year a majority on the Supreme Court used their office of public trust in a manner which violates the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction [adhering to the documented legislative intent concerning why “sex” was added to the 1964 Civil Rights Act], [1], and also violated the irrefutable fact that Congress has never been granted power to adopt “appropriate legislation” over the subject matter “sex”, excluding of course the 19th Amendment’s specifically limited delegation of legislative power over “sex”, i.e., to adopt “appropriate legislation” forbidding the right to vote to” be denied or abridged . . . on account of sex”.
Finally, Neil Gorsuch, who wrote the majority opinion in BOSTOCK v. CLAYTON COUNTY, GEORGIA, knowingly and willingly spat upon on our federal Constitution’s only lawful way to delegate legislative power to Congress. He did so by ignoring the American People’s specific rejection of the “Equal Rights Amendment”, which would have, if adopted, authorize Congress to legislate the broad and sweeping power over “sex” which Justice Gorsuch arbitrarily decided to allow by applying the Humpty Dumpty theory of language to “sex” in his written opinion:
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master-that's all.”
And that describes the deceitful thinking of Justice Gorsuch and those who joined in his written opinion . . . they truly believe they are the master, regardless of what our Constitution states in crystal clear language, or legislation is specifically intended to mean.
[1]
In fact, a review of the 1964 Civil Rights Act Congressional debates,110 Cong. Rec., February 8, 1964, 2577, as well as contemporary news accounts when the Act was being debated for passage, confirms Representative Howard Smith, who initiated the amendment adding the word "sex" to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, did so saying: “. . . this amendment is offered to the fair employment practices title of this bill to include within our desire to prevent discrimination against another minority group, the women, but a very essential minority group, in the absence of which the majority group would not be here today.” Adding the word "sex", as the documented Congressional debates prove, had absolutely nothing to do with protection for sexual deviant behavior or conduct in the workplace as fraudulently imposed upon the American People by the majority opinion in Bostock. It was specifically intended to “… do some good for the minority sex . . .” as emphasized by Representative Smith.
JWK
”The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands [our Supreme Court] . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47
See: Pride Month concludes without Equality Act vote in Senate
July 1, 2021
.
“Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that the 1964 Civil Rights Act protects LGBTQ people from workplace discrimination. This week, the court effectively handed a victory to a transgender student who sued his school for access to the boys’ bathroom.”
To be more accurate, last year a majority on the Supreme Court used their office of public trust in a manner which violates the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction [adhering to the documented legislative intent concerning why “sex” was added to the 1964 Civil Rights Act], [1], and also violated the irrefutable fact that Congress has never been granted power to adopt “appropriate legislation” over the subject matter “sex”, excluding of course the 19th Amendment’s specifically limited delegation of legislative power over “sex”, i.e., to adopt “appropriate legislation” forbidding the right to vote to” be denied or abridged . . . on account of sex”.
Finally, Neil Gorsuch, who wrote the majority opinion in BOSTOCK v. CLAYTON COUNTY, GEORGIA, knowingly and willingly spat upon on our federal Constitution’s only lawful way to delegate legislative power to Congress. He did so by ignoring the American People’s specific rejection of the “Equal Rights Amendment”, which would have, if adopted, authorize Congress to legislate the broad and sweeping power over “sex” which Justice Gorsuch arbitrarily decided to allow by applying the Humpty Dumpty theory of language to “sex” in his written opinion:
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master-that's all.”
And that describes the deceitful thinking of Justice Gorsuch and those who joined in his written opinion . . . they truly believe they are the master, regardless of what our Constitution states in crystal clear language, or legislation is specifically intended to mean.
[1]
In fact, a review of the 1964 Civil Rights Act Congressional debates,110 Cong. Rec., February 8, 1964, 2577, as well as contemporary news accounts when the Act was being debated for passage, confirms Representative Howard Smith, who initiated the amendment adding the word "sex" to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, did so saying: “. . . this amendment is offered to the fair employment practices title of this bill to include within our desire to prevent discrimination against another minority group, the women, but a very essential minority group, in the absence of which the majority group would not be here today.” Adding the word "sex", as the documented Congressional debates prove, had absolutely nothing to do with protection for sexual deviant behavior or conduct in the workplace as fraudulently imposed upon the American People by the majority opinion in Bostock. It was specifically intended to “… do some good for the minority sex . . .” as emphasized by Representative Smith.
JWK
”The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands [our Supreme Court] . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47
Last edited:
