Under the last presidential administration, progressive politicians expanded their Raison D ‘Etre to expand transgender rights. They marched happily to President Joe Biden Executive order Based on sex expressions and identity, all federal officers are instructed to prohibit discrimination.
But now, the same politicians are now alien about the executive of the executive, the return to biological reality, the rule of law and the return to common sense.
Leading rates are Jamie Raskin (D-MD.), Mark Takano (D-CALIF) and Gerry Connolly (D-VA.). ~ Inside letter President Trump’s President Trump’s President Trump Executive order I admit the government’s “two gender” policies Accompanying memorial It is unconstitutional to guide the implementation.
One of these three has a law degree, but it definitely does not strengthen their noticeable legal conclusions.
Among the defects, the letter quotes the Supreme Court’s 1996 decision. ROEMER V. EVANS “The government policy that Animus motivated is a clear violation of the protection of the Constitution.” ROEMER has completely examined them without the ability to participate in the political process in violation of the equal protection provisions of the 14th amendment, including legislation, judicial or administrative protection against homosexuals who are experiencing discrimination.
>>> Trump’s transgender order is in administrative authority
The president’s EO and the federal instructions are in contrast to the instructions on gender identity. Rather, they restore the guarantee of equal protection provisions that were motivated by the legitimate government’s interest in protecting personal safety, personal information and equality. At the same time, the EO protects religious opponents who simply prevent religious opponents from simply following the instructions of conscience.
The Supreme Court also did not put the transgender identity in the same category as biological gender, and requires the same level of judicial investigation. This renders the government’s actions that constitutionally suggest the transgender status. The court explained this Frontiero V. Richardson (1973): “Sexual intercourse, such as racial and country, is an immutable characteristic that is determined only as a birth accident, and because of sexual intercourse, special disorders are imposed on members of certain sexual intercourse seem to infringe on the basic concept of our system that legal burden should have some relationships with individual responsibilities.
Unlike sex, transgender status is not immutable. Even the transgender lawyers representing ACLU had to admit that they had raised the question of the Ministry of Justice of Samuel Alito in just two months ago. US V. Skrmetti. Gender identity is a subjective, internal, tightness and often temporary sensation. Therefore, expanding the concept of equal protection or protection of “constant characteristics” is insufficient ground.
The letter of the parliament also quotes the court’s decision by 2020. Bostock V. Clayton CountyAs a homosexual or transgender, employers who dismissed individuals violated the title VII of the Civil Rights Law. But the court for the decision did not identify sexual gender with transgender status or sexual taste. Rather, they both decided that they had an inseparable relationship with sex.
>>> The tyrant of the immortal judiciary: The federal judge ordered a “gender assignment” order for child murderers
Bostock’s decision argued that the court’s decision on the federal employment law, which is repeatedly cited by the left and prohibits gender discrimination, somehow changes all federal laws and regulations like magic. Congress members do not admit that Judge Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority of opinions.
Without the fair or evidence, the lawmakers also said, “BIDEN’s Ender Identity Regulations to withdraw this in a few days. Administrative procedure. ”
The APA applies a process in which federal agencies develop and issue other institutional behaviors, such as regulations and policy statements and guidelines. But if these parliamentary members fully understand the operation of the APA, they will recognize that they can revise or reverse the rules only through the process of deciding on the rules.
This process is done by the appropriate organs according to the EO and related memorandums. This includes posting the “Notification of Proposed Rules”. It can be easily achieved within 30 days, and a new rules configuration begins a long and detailed process built in the APA.
Congress members are tilted from the windmills in a letter that legally and legally defects. What the administration is currently doing is legal, common sense and deadline.
