Trannies for Trump

[morim]

"these are the same tactics Adolf Hitler and the Nazis used when they came to power."

To die with laughter!!!

[broncofan]

Both the 10th and 15th amendments define rights for specific groups of people. LBGT people are a specific group of people who are complaining that their rights are being violated. It's practically a generic case study in the best possible use of a Constitutional amendment.
.

I'm not trying to engage in one upsmanship by correcting you but the 10th amendment says that what power does not belong to the federal government resides in the states. It prevents the federal government from encroaching on state sovereignty but it doesn't protect "specific groups of people".

You don't seem to understand how unlikely it is that 38 states would support bolstering lgbt civil rights, and your vagueness about what civil rights would be enhanced is understandable since such protections should be sought through legislation directed at discriminatory private conduct rather than through a constitutional amendment. Although the 13th amendment banned slavery and badges of slavery and was directed at private conduct, most constitutional amendments place limits on the types of actions that can be taken by the government.

The reason the 14th amendment equal protection clause protects lgbt members is because it should in theory prevent the government from passing laws that use arbitrary classifications and discriminate against lgbt members. You can take a look at Karnoski v Trump if you're curious how the 5th amendment due process protects lgbt members against federal government action that is "[d]ripping with animus" and "unsupported by any compelling, important, or even rational justification". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karnoski_v._Trump

The lgbt community could be protected by federal civil rights legislation, which like the civil rights act would be passed by Congress and would not require 38 states to ratify. Sadly, in eight years, no matter how liberal our country is and I personally hope we move in that direction, states would be more likely to ratify an amendment discriminating against lgbt members than protecting them (see the federal marriage amendment).

Even civil rights legislation that protects lgbt members in the same manner as other minority groups would be unpopular among religious groups who seek to exempt religious people from doing business with gay couples under the religious freedom restoration act. The best we can hope for at this point is a Congress that tries to protect the lgbt community and a President who does not try to actively discriminate against them. We don't have that right now...

[giovanni_hotel]

People are really overestimating the size of Trump's base.

He won't win Ohio/Michigan/Wisconsin again. That was a total fluke.

[broncofan]

People are really overestimating the size of Trump's base.

He won't win Ohio/Michigan/Wisconsin again. That was a total fluke.

Probably true as he lost the popular vote and he was a bit lucky to win those states you mention. But he's the incumbent and the Democrats aren't sure who they're going to run though it's early. Remember also that people thought he had no chance in 2016. Pretty disconcerting that he got 63 million votes to begin with. You think he'll definitely lose in 2020? I don't have any confidence at all about it. When I asked people a couple months before the last election what they thought it would be like to live under a Trump presidency a lot of people said they couldn't imagine him winning.

[buttslinger]

Trump owns the next 5 months. Then you get mid-terms and the Mueller probe.
The insults get teeth. Don't boo, vote!!!!!!

[Nick Danger]

I'm not trying to engage in one upsmanship by correcting you but the 10th amendment says that...

That was an unfortunate typo, Bronco, I meant the 19th amendment - which of course gives suffrage to women.

You seem like an intelligent guy, so I'm sure you're familiar with the Equal Rights Amendment. I envision an updated, all-inclusive version of that finally getting serious consideration, and I think Americans are ready to say, yeah, you know, we're pretty tired of all this discrimination - hearing about it, talking about it, and fucking with it in general. Time to put it to bed once and for all.

That's what I think is going to happen. Trump isn't going to do it, but he is playing a vital role - setting the stage with his antics.

One thing most people don't consider is that the generation that has brought this county conservative morality politics for so many decades is...dying. They're not dead yet, but the worst of them are in their 70's right now - those born right after WWII. Not bad people, but people with a very specific, very collective set of values.

Once this MASSIVE ultra-conservative voting bloc is underground, everything will change. You'll get what you think will never happen, it's really just simple mathematics.

The LGBT community is involved in a war of attrition, whether they realize it or not. Their most effective weapon is...waiting. Victory is 6 years away IMO.

[broncofan]

One thing most people don't consider is that the generation that has brought this county conservative morality politics for so many decades is...dying. They're not dead yet, but the worst of them are in their 70's right now - those born right after WWII. Not bad people, but people with a very specific, very collective set of values.

Once this MASSIVE ultra-conservative voting bloc is underground, everything will change. You'll get what you think will never happen, it's really just simple mathematics.

The LGBT community is involved in a war of attrition, whether they realize it or not. Their most effective weapon is...waiting. Victory is 6 years away IMO.

That's an interesting idea but it might not offer additional protection. An equal rights amendment like that proposed for gender would be an additional layer on top of the 5th and 14th. It certainly wouldn't be a bad thing but I'm not sure what it adds, particularly since there has never been a sexual orientation litmus test for voting which would necessitate a 15th or 19th amendment analogue.

The civil rights act has been interpreted to protect sexual orientation and gender identity at various times but it was not written with the rights of these groups in mind. Title VII for instance, considers sex a protected classification with respect to employment rights but it was written at a time when it was permissible for states to pass anti-sodomy laws so it's unlikely it was intended as an lgbt protection.

I think it would be a bit more useful to pass a comprehensive civil rights law that includes gender identity and sexual orientation as protected categories and which expressly trumps any statutory exemptions that exist at the state or federal level under the religious freedom restoration act. See ENDA and Equality act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employ...rimination_Act .... but given that Congress could not pass those by a simple majority, you can see how far we are from three-fourths of state legislatures.

The lesson with the transgender military ban is that if the commander in chief wants to discriminate, even if doing so is unconstitutional, it takes a while to challenge it and win in court. The President has a lot of power, some of his actions are not reviewable in court, and those which are can cause a lot of damage in the interim and waste resources litigating.

[JPeterson]

People are really overestimating the size of Trump's base.

He won't win Ohio/Michigan/Wisconsin again. That was a total fluke.

On one hand

It's hard to imagine Democrats could *uck it up again and nominate someone with Hilary personal baggage,laziness,entitlement,incompetence and gaffe prone way's all rolled into a single candidate.

On the other hand
Incumbent's tend to get reelected in America more then they don't

If Democrats are still talking Russia in 2019 bet on his reelection,if we get hit with a recession or major international incident then bet on him going down in flames.

[filghy2]

The lesson with the transgender military ban is that if the commander in chief wants to discriminate, even if doing so is unconstitutional, it takes a while to challenge it and win in court. The President has a lot of power, some of his actions are not reviewable in court, and those which are can cause a lot of damage in the interim and waste resources litigating.

It's worth bearing in mind that the southern states were allowed to maintain a system of explicit racial discrimination up until the 1960s, despite the equal protection clause in the constitution. That shows that constitutional protections are no panacea when administrations are unwilling to abide by or enforce them.

[Stavros]

Also, Presidents love signing amendments. It becomes a huge part of their legacy.
It needs to happen and it will happen.
And as for "sending the wrong message," well, by political standards, Trump is sending exactly the right message to his voting base, and doesn't give much of a flying fuck what the LGBT community - most certainly, for the most part, NOT his voting base - thinks about it.

There have not been many Constitutional Amendments for Presidents to get excited about, the last one was signed in 1992, and as I and others have argued, the application of existing law makes more sense than a Constitutional Amendment to protect and promote Transgender rights, as would be the case with Disabled Americans. The USA is not the only country where the application of the law varies from one place to another, and from one social group to another. That is where the difficulty lies, not least when a State can legally impose rules on Black Americans that in effect bars them from registering to vote or even to vote on polling day. If Americans lose faith in the rule of law, a fundamental pillar of a free and democratic society is weakened.
https://worldhistoryproject.org/topi...ion-amendments

But here is the killer: if the President claims to be the President of ALL Americans, then he should not be solely concerned with delivering to his voter base, even if I agree with your point that tactically that is what he appears to be doing. Just when every Transgendered Americans has the right to be respected, their President spends an astonishing amount of time heaping insult and abuse on any and indeed, all Americans who don't agree with him, as if that simple fact alone was a form of treachery deserving of the Presidents wrath. This is not the President of all Americans, indeed one is tempted to quote Jeremy Cobyn and suggest the USA would be better of if it had a President for the Many, not the Few.
Respect must be earned, it cannot be bought. Or sold.