Bigot Trump’s Transgender Ban Likely Un-Constitutional

[C_Clayton_Jones]

‘It’s settled law that government actions discriminating on the basis of gender are subject to what constitutional doctrine calls “heightened scrutiny” and in particular that they can survive only if they are “substantially related to important government interests.” In other words, it’s not enough for the government to proffer some explanation that might conceivably explain the rationality of such a law. Instead, the government has to meet a more demanding standard.
[…]
It’s well-established that government action rooted merely in animus is unconstitutional. And that’s what we have here, as made clear by the sheer breadth of the ban.’

Why Trump’s Ban on Transgender Servicepeople Is Flatly Unconstitutional

There is no objective, documented evidence in support of banning transgender persons from serving in the military; such a ban is clearly motivated by ignorance, fear, and unwarranted hatred of those transgender – ignorance, fear, and hate common to far too many on the right.

Consequently, such a ban is devoid of a rational basis, it is devoid of factual support, and it seeks only to disadvantage those transgender for no other reason than being transgender, where Trump’s ban would not pass Constitutional muster.

 

[HenryBHough]

A liberal uses the word "Constitutional" in anything other than a dirty joke?

No, really????

 

[Harry Dresden]

jones are you a liberal?.....

 

[Geaux4it]

‘It’s settled law that government actions discriminating on the basis of gender are subject to what constitutional doctrine calls “heightened scrutiny” and in particular that they can survive only if they are “substantially related to important government interests.” In other words, it’s not enough for the government to proffer some explanation that might conceivably explain the rationality of such a law. Instead, the government has to meet a more demanding standard.
[…]
It’s well-established that government action rooted merely in animus is unconstitutional. And that’s what we have here, as made clear by the sheer breadth of the ban.’

Why Trump’s Ban on Transgender Servicepeople Is Flatly Unconstitutional

There is no objective, documented evidence in support of banning transgender persons from serving in the military; such a ban is clearly motivated by ignorance, fear, and unwarranted hatred of those transgender – ignorance, fear, and hate common to far too many on the right.

Consequently, such a ban is devoid of a rational basis, it is devoid of factual support, and it seeks only to disadvantage those transgender for no other reason than being transgender, where Trump’s ban would not pass Constitutional muster.

Transgenders have demonstrated flawed decision making thus making them unfit for duty

-Geaux

 

[Geaux4it]

jones are you a liberal?.....

I take it that is a rhetorical question

-Geaux

 

[deanrd]

A liberal uses the word "Constitutional" in anything other than a dirty joke?

No, really????

no

clearly, it's the Republicans who want the constitution destroyed.

 

[etchopost]

‘It’s settled law that government actions discriminating on the basis of gender are subject to what constitutional doctrine calls “heightened scrutiny” and in particular that they can survive only if they are “substantially related to important government interests.” In other words, it’s not enough for the government to proffer some explanation that might conceivably explain the rationality of such a law. Instead, the government has to meet a more demanding standard.
[…]
It’s well-established that government action rooted merely in animus is unconstitutional. And that’s what we have here, as made clear by the sheer breadth of the ban.’

Why Trump’s Ban on Transgender Servicepeople Is Flatly Unconstitutional

There is no objective, documented evidence in support of banning transgender persons from serving in the military; such a ban is clearly motivated by ignorance, fear, and unwarranted hatred of those transgender – ignorance, fear, and hate common to far too many on the right.

Consequently, such a ban is devoid of a rational basis, it is devoid of factual support, and it seeks only to disadvantage those transgender for no other reason than being transgender, where Trump’s ban would not pass Constitutional muster.

Where is it written in the constitution that people have to like fags. Trump didn't go far enough! What he SHOULD have done is sign an executive order banning homoqueeros and transgender "Its" from the military.

I used to be in the navy and I KNOW! I wish I had known before I joined that about half of the navy is a gay club. Being in the military is hard enough. Having to put up with the advances of gays (of which there were many) is something I didn't sign on for.

I happened to be stationed on a large ship that had both men and women on it. The areas where the crew slept and showered are called berthing compartments. They had them for the men and the women. It wouldn't have been so bad if they had separate ones for fagos. That way, you wouldn't have one jacking off as he watched you shower. Which also happened to me. All of this happened even before they did away with their "don't ask, don't tell" rule. If any of you out there like queers, or object to the term queer, fuck off. I want to see you dead!

 

[007]

The mentally ill have always been barred from military service. The homos should be glad they're all not being dishonorably discharged for being mentally ill as is.

The constitution makes no mention of special rights for cross dressing fag boys as per the military.

 

[007]

A liberal uses the word "Constitutional" in anything other than a dirty joke?

No, really????

no

clearly, it's the Republicans who want the constitution destroyed.

Of course, you just dug that turd of a comment out of that toilet you call a brain much as do with all your comments.

Seems to me it's the DEMOCRATS that are against FREE SPEECH, just for STARTERS.

 

[mudwhistle]

‘It’s settled law that government actions discriminating on the basis of gender are subject to what constitutional doctrine calls “heightened scrutiny” and in particular that they can survive only if they are “substantially related to important government interests.” In other words, it’s not enough for the government to proffer some explanation that might conceivably explain the rationality of such a law. Instead, the government has to meet a more demanding standard.
[…]
It’s well-established that government action rooted merely in animus is unconstitutional. And that’s what we have here, as made clear by the sheer breadth of the ban.’

Why Trump’s Ban on Transgender Servicepeople Is Flatly Unconstitutional

There is no objective, documented evidence in support of banning transgender persons from serving in the military; such a ban is clearly motivated by ignorance, fear, and unwarranted hatred of those transgender – ignorance, fear, and hate common to far too many on the right.

Consequently, such a ban is devoid of a rational basis, it is devoid of factual support, and it seeks only to disadvantage those transgender for no other reason than being transgender, where Trump’s ban would not pass Constitutional muster.

This is why America is getting fed up with the left.
They do nothing to improve life for anyone.
All they're good for is causing hate, division, and chaos.

 

[etchopost]

The mentally ill have always been barred from military service. The homos should be glad they're all not being dishonorably discharged for being mentally ill as is.

The constitution makes no mention of special rights for cross dressing fag boys as per the military.

Thanks for the like. I forgot to mention that all this happened even before they did away with their "don't ask, don't tell" rule.

 

[007]

The mentally ill have always been barred from military service. The homos should be glad they're all not being dishonorably discharged for being mentally ill as is.

The constitution makes no mention of special rights for cross dressing fag boys as per the military.

Thanks for the like. I forgot to mention that all this happened even before they did away with their "don't ask, don't tell" rule.

President Trump should bring back DADT as well. The military was good with that.

We had a little fag black boy in our basic training, he offered to saw the hems on people's fatigues, probably so he wouldn't get a blanket party.

 

[Harry Dresden]

jones are you a liberal?.....

I take it that is a rhetorical question

-Geaux

just trying to get the jerk to reply....

 

[Correll]

‘It’s settled law that government actions discriminating on the basis of gender are subject to what constitutional doctrine calls “heightened scrutiny” and in particular that they can survive only if they are “substantially related to important government interests.” In other words, it’s not enough for the government to proffer some explanation that might conceivably explain the rationality of such a law. Instead, the government has to meet a more demanding standard.
[…]
It’s well-established that government action rooted merely in animus is unconstitutional. And that’s what we have here, as made clear by the sheer breadth of the ban.’

Why Trump’s Ban on Transgender Servicepeople Is Flatly Unconstitutional

There is no objective, documented evidence in support of banning transgender persons from serving in the military; such a ban is clearly motivated by ignorance, fear, and unwarranted hatred of those transgender – ignorance, fear, and hate common to far too many on the right.

Consequently, such a ban is devoid of a rational basis, it is devoid of factual support, and it seeks only to disadvantage those transgender for no other reason than being transgender, where Trump’s ban would not pass Constitutional muster.

It's not based in animus.

Transgendered people are fucked up with MULTIPLE issues.

They are not fit to serve.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

That Gorsuch appointment is looking better everyday

 

[Geaux4it]

jones are you a liberal?.....

I take it that is a rhetorical question

-Geaux

just trying to get the jerk to reply....

Good luck with that. He tends to hit and run

-Geaux

 

[Harry Dresden]

jones are you a liberal?.....

I take it that is a rhetorical question

-Geaux

just trying to get the jerk to reply....

Good luck with that. He tends to hit and run

-Geaux

yea he has been doing that since he joined....no doubt because he grabs something off an internet site about the right and brings it over here and puts it up but is clueless about what it says so just post and run....

 

[MaryL]

I was never FOR allowing open gays in the military, let alone opening up this sexual rainbow weirdness. But, the ponies are out of the coral, and a precedent has been made. Trump seems to be desperately throwing bones to his constituency. President Trump has failed, so far to, make anything stick, and although I believe this psycho -sexual malarkey is silly and has to end, Trumps action is more symbolic, and too little and far to late.

 

[etchopost]

I was never FOR allowing open gays in the military, let alone opening up this sexual rainbow weirdness. But, the ponies are out of the coral, and a precedent has been made. Trump seems to be desperately throwing bones to his constituency. President Trump has failed, so far to, make anything stick, and although I believe this psycho -sexual malarkey is silly and has to end, Trumps action is more symbolic, and too little and far to late.

I of course agree with gays in the military being bad. As for a precedent being set, new precedents can always be set. Unfortunately, Trump doesn't have the balls do anything other than talk.

 

[theHawk]

‘It’s settled law that government actions discriminating on the basis of gender are subject to what constitutional doctrine calls “heightened scrutiny” and in particular that they can survive only if they are “substantially related to important government interests.” In other words, it’s not enough for the government to proffer some explanation that might conceivably explain the rationality of such a law. Instead, the government has to meet a more demanding standard.
[…]
It’s well-established that government action rooted merely in animus is unconstitutional. And that’s what we have here, as made clear by the sheer breadth of the ban.’

Why Trump’s Ban on Transgender Servicepeople Is Flatly Unconstitutional

There is no objective, documented evidence in support of banning transgender persons from serving in the military; such a ban is clearly motivated by ignorance, fear, and unwarranted hatred of those transgender – ignorance, fear, and hate common to far too many on the right.

Consequently, such a ban is devoid of a rational basis, it is devoid of factual support, and it seeks only to disadvantage those transgender for no other reason than being transgender, where Trump’s ban would not pass Constitutional muster.

The US military discriminates against many types of people and won't allow them to serve. You cannot join if old or disabled. You cannot join if you can't pass a test. You cannot stay in if you can't pass basic. If you don't meet the standards you will be reprimanded and may even be discharged. It holds different standards for males and females. A male cannot pretend he is a female and expect the military to play along with this fantasy and hold the male to female standards.

That being said, any able bodied male or female can join that can abide by the standards set for their gender (actual, not pretend gender).