Posted on 11/18/2018 12:03:35 PM PST by Rusty0604
That is my guess too.
Good question.
Thank you for point that out Rusty0604.
But regardless that constitutionally undefined trade negotiators made the deal, it remains that elected members of Congress, not faceless, non elected federal bureaucrats, uniquely have the Commerce Clause responsibility (1.8.3) for what is in the deal.
Pro-LGBT RINO House members seem to be trying to win LGBT votes while keeping their voting records clean by letting constitutionally unauthorized, non-elected federal bureaucrats get away with stealing legislative powers to make such deals.
Also, since the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect LGBT agenda issues, by approving language that establishes privileges for such people, corrupt career lawmakers are effectively violating the Constitution’s Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 imo by making LGBT people a protected / privileged class.
"Article I, Section 9, Clause 8: No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States [emphasis added]: And no person holding any office or profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state."
Do FReepers see how the interference with federal government powers by pro-LGBT activists has escalated since corrupt Congress likewise let lawless Obama get away with using executive order edicts based on stolen state powers to legalize "transgender” bathrooms?
Finally, why didn't "whistle blower" RINO House members mention the constitutional problems pointed out in this post concerning the trade deal?
Good points.
Seems like a dead issue. SCOTUS ruled in favor of homosexual marriages years ago. That’s not going to be undone. If they can marry how can you denial equal protection under the law? It’s not logical.
The gender identity thing is not settled or well understood but we already deal with in on a case by case basis at the state level. That said, women have to figure out if trans females can fairly compete in sports without being in hormones, for example. Do we maintain separate restrooms for the traditional two genders? Or do we move to “all gender” restrooms? Do I refuse to call transgender persons their pronouns of choice because to do so would be exclusionary? Sorry, you were born a male, medically transitioned and legally became female but I cannot call you she or her because that’s bigoted thinking?
Ironically, “I’m with Her” is more exclusionary and less progressive, than the very inclusive “MAGA”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.