Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: LegendHasIt; All
"I’m not sure where in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or the various writings of the Founders where bathroom / locker room assignments are discussed."

First, note that Section 1 of the 14th Amendment (14A) prohibits state actors from abridging rights that the states have amended the Constitution to expressly protect.

From the 14th Amendment:

So if minority citizen voters in the school district can successfully argue that the school district is abridging the 1st Amendment-protected rights of religious expression and free speech, for example, with politically correct transgender bathroom policy then the school district is violating Section 1 of 14A imo.

Also, the Founding States constitutionally guaranteed each state a republican form of government, state actors obligated to respect the will of legal majority voting citizens.

"Article IV, Section 4: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government [emphasis added], and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."

So if elected school distract board members are ignoring the voting voice of local majority citizens, then state actors are violating Article IV imo.

Also, why can’t the families whose children are victims of politically correct transgender policy argue being deprived of right to privacy like women who murder their unborn children?

The problem with the above constitutional protections is that we’re presently stuck with a corrupt Congress that has a track record for not doing its constitutionally enumerated duties to protect citizens’ enumerated protections.

That's why patriots need to elect a new patriot Congress in 2020 elections that will not only promise to support PDJT’s vision for MAGA, but will also promise to do its duty to make punitive laws that discourage state actors from abridging constitutionally enumerated protections.

15 posted on 05/28/2019 3:46:53 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]


To: Amendment10

Thanks for that explanation.

I still think it is quite a stretch for that to apply in this case, but I’ll leave it to more learned constitutionalists to fight it out. Even though I am completely against all this tranny and ‘gender identification’ nonsense, when in doubt, I’d prefer the individual states to fight it out than let Roberts and the others on the ‘Court of Final Whim’ make a decree.


17 posted on 05/28/2019 5:28:44 PM PDT by LegendHasIt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson