unconstitutional-law

Casual reminder that if you’re losing your shit and claiming “trumps gonna take away my LGBTQABC123DORAYME rights!!”, shut the fuck up

No, he isn’t

Equality of marriage was a SCOTUS ruling and he can’t repeal it.

He also has no interest in doing so.

Y'all need to find the nearest highschool and take a government and econ class because 99% of the people freaking out right now and claiming the end times are coming don’t seem to actually understand how our government works or what our president can actually do.

It’s not your fault though, most of you grew up during the presidency of a man who liked to “bypass congress” and force unconstitutional laws on people - it’s not surprising you think that’s how it usually works.

  • Straight People: *Call homosexuality gross, unnatural, sinful, a phase, etc*
  • Straight Ppl: * Refuse to acknowledge or legitimize bi/ace/pansexuality*
  • Straight Ppl: *Deny the LGBTQIA community the most basic civil rights until the fucking 21st century*
  • Straight Ppl: *Make gay characters the butt of every joke on TV and reduce them to flamboyant stereotypes*
  • Straight Ppl: *Give Oscars to straight actors for portraying gay characters who die tragically*
  • Straight Ppl: *Invent conversion therapy*
  • Straight Ppl: *Use religion as an excuse to alienate and discriminate against the LGBTQIA community*
  • Straight Ppl: *Pass unconstitutional laws to make life harder/worse for the LGBTQIA community.*
  • Straight Ppl: But why does anyone feel like they have to LIE about being straight???!

Today in 1955, Rosa Parks refused to give her seat to a white passenger on a bus in Montgomery, Alabama. She was arrested for violating Montgomery, AL segregation laws.
Parks’ arrest lead to the Montgomery Bus Boycott, a protest lasting 381 days.

The famous boycott concluded when the outcome for Browder v. Gayle was upheld by the US Supreme Court, ruling that Alabama Bus segregation laws were unconstitutional - violating the Fourteenth Amendment.

Rosa Parks’ action that day serves as one of the watershed events of American history.

I was crunching some numbers because I wanted to make a post about how part of the problem with the Electoral College as it stands is that it’s based on the number of members in both houses of Congress, and the House hasn’t had its count updated since 1913, since which the population has tripled and we’ve gained multiple states.

But! it turned out my main thesis was wrong. Proportionately, it shifts the percentage of electors about 1% in Hillary’s favor. The empty states still get disproportionate representation over the places where people actually live. It would create interesting situations in the House, and the Capitol would have to be majorly renovated, but it wouldn’t have changed the election results.

Still, I did a bunch of math, so here’s some facts:

  • The Constitution states that there must be one representative for every 30,000 citizens.
  • Congress failed to update this number as is their duty starting in 1921. In 1929, Congress passed the Reapportionment Act of 1929, a blatantly unconstitutional law which set a permanent cap of 435 representatives in the House. This was ruled on in 1932, but has still remained in effect, at least from a practical standpoint.
  • The 1:30k ratio has never been literally adhered to, and hasn’t been even close since the 1800s, but at the last apportionment, the ratio was 1:210k. Now it’s 1:720k. That’s the average, even when you realize that the smallest states (like Wyoming) still have a ratio lower than the 1913 average.
  • If we literally adhered to the 1:30k ratio, there would be 9,386 representatives in the House (9,486 electors in the Electoral College). The smallest state, Wyoming, would go from 1 representative (3 electors) to 16 representatives (18 electors). The largest state, California, would go from 53 representatives (55 electors) to 1129 representatives (1,131 electors).
  • If we normalized that apportionment by dividing those numbers by such a factor that the smallest state still has three electors (in this case, 6, bringing the ratio to 1:180k), there would be 1,481 representatives in the House (1,581 electors). Wyoming would be the only state to keep its current apportionment (1 rep, 3 electors). California would have 187 reps, 189 electors.
  • There are 32 states whose totals would be 60% or more made up of new electors. Surprisingly, 20 of those went to Trump and 12 went to Hillary.
  • The biggest gains–70% or more new representatives–would be 73% (NY), 72% (OH), 71% (CA, IL, MI, PA), 70% (NJ).
  • NYC would have 46 of NY’s 104 representatives (44%), compared to the current 10 of 29 (34%).
  • Nate Silver’s site would be “fifteeneightyone,” and the election map simulator site would be “791towin.” Neither of those is as catchy as the versions in our reality.

No one is trying to take your guns!

They’re just trying to ban broad groups of people from owning guns for suspected wrong-think, trying to ban certain guns, and make all other firearms and ammunition possession prohibitively expensive, inconvenient and absurdly complicated, in addition to violating 4th and 5th amendment rights to ensure you’re a Good Gun Owner.

But they’re not taking them away!

npr.org
Judge Blocks Mississippi Law Protecting Religious Objections To Gay Marriage
Late Thursday night, shortly before the controversial law was set to take effect, a federal judge ruled it unconstitutional. He called it an "attempt to put LGBT citizens back in their place."

Almost at the last minute, a federal judge has declared a controversial Mississippi law unconstitutional.

The law, HB 1523, would have protected religious objections to gay marriage, extramarital sex and transgender identities. The judge says it favors some religious beliefs over others and would codify unequal treatment of LGBT people.

Today in labor history, December 15, 1921: A protest by 500 women in Kansas that began earlier in the week – organized in support of striking mine workers and against new anti-labor legislation that forced unions into arbitration and outlawed strikes in the state – swells to 4,000, stretching a mile long.  The women, dubbed the “Amazon Army” by The New York Times, disbanded upon hearing that the militia was on its way. Victory came a year later when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the Kansas anti-labor laws unconstitutional.

The problem with the “the Supreme Court undermined all these voters!” argument is that it ignores what the Supreme Court’s job is. The Supreme Court is supposed to determine if legislation is constitutional or not.

Did eliminating segregation through Brown v. Board undermine the voting wishes of a majority of Southern voters? Certainly.

Did ruling anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia remove a long-standing set of laws that governed what marriage was “supposed” to be? Of course.

When Lawrence v. Texas overturned Bowers v. Hardwick, were there still thousands of people who agreed with the Bowers decision and thought that legalizing sodomy “cast aside millennia of moral teaching”? Definitely. But that’s the point of the Supreme Court.

You think this decision undermines democracy? Not Citizens United v. FEC? Not Burwell v. Hobby Lobby? THIS is the one you take issue with? Because it lets people get married? What, exactly, does your idea of “democracy” entail?

theguardian.com
Japanese women in court fight to keep their surnames after marriage
Five women are suing the government of Japan over a law requiring spouses to adopt the same surname.

“The women say the law is unconstitutional and violates married couples’ civil rights, and are demanding compensation.

“By losing your surname … you’re being made light of, you’re not respected … It’s as if part of your self vanishes,” said Kaori Oguni, a translator and one of the five women involved in the lawsuit.

An 1896 law says spouses must adopt the same surname to legally register their marriage. The law does not specify which one, but in practice, 96% of women take their husband’s name, a reflection of Japan’s male-dominated society.

Conservatives say allowing couples to choose whether they share the same surname or not could damage family ties and threaten society.

“Allowing different surnames risks destroying social stability, the maintenance of public order and the basis for social welfare.”

 Many working women face the hassle of juggling two names: their maiden name for professional use and their legal, married name, required on official documents.

“If changing surnames is so easy, why don’t more men do it?” said Oguni. “The system is one that says, basically, if you’re not willing to change, you shouldn’t be getting married.”

Two previous courts ruled against the women.

Public opinion is divided. A poll by the liberal Asahi Shimbun newspaper last month found 52% in favour of being able to choose and 34% against. Support for the option of separate surnames is much higher among younger people.”

Read the full piece here

Shredding the Constitution is a Right Wing institution. Look at all their voter suppression laws ruled unconstitutional. Look at their opposition to marriage equality. Look at Trump.

way to go, indiana government…the general population didn’t even vote for it, yet the legislature passed an awful, unconstitutional law for the sake of “religious freedom.” telling people they can deny service to the LGTBQ etc community on religious grounds (aka a communal area) because of who they are is discriminatory and ridiculous! if all people are created equal, that applies to every single person, regardless of religion, sexuality, or whatever makes them unique. you’d think our political leaders would finally understand the equality thing and the purpose of a democracy at this point… it’s up to the people as an entirety, not a group of homophobic leaders who are attempting to justify oppression by making it legal. first hobby lobby and birth control, then chick-fil-a and their anti-gay statements, and now an entire state? step it up, america. you promised that “all men are created equal”, live up to it. violating the first amendment because a specific religious group is “uncomfortable” is unacceptable.

even the bible fucking says it. galatians 3:28- “there is neither jew nor greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in jesus christ.”
Trump Campaign CEO Commits Election Fraud

“Donald Trump’s new presidential campaign chief, [Steve Bannon] is registered to vote in a key swing state at an empty house where he does not live, in an apparent breach of election laws.”

Republicans are guilty of creating unconstitutional voting laws, and then committing the fraud they are pretending to fight.

huffingtonpost.com
Here's How Two Women Changed The Lives Of LGBT Families In Alabama Forever
In towns large and small all across our country, there are parents that RaiseAChild.US considers to be true heros. Such is the case with Cari Searcy and Kim McKeand of Mobile, Alabama, who together fought

“The only way I could adopt was to make the state marriage law unconstitutional. We felt we had a pretty narrow and easily decided case in federal court because it was not right for me to be unable to adopt my own son,” Cari explained.

 "There were tons of times we thought maybe it just wasn’t meant to be but then someone would come up to us and tell us to keep going for it, so we did. This is America and we shouldn’t have to fight for equal rights,“ Cari said.

"It’s amazing that our son made history. Our case helped thousands and thousands of families across our state. It restored our pride in Alabama. We love to hear Khaya talking to his friends when he tells them, ‘We helped change the world.’ He is so proud. And so are we.”

Read the full story here

Source: Huffington Post

Congratulations to Cari and Kim, and thank you to everyone who has been fighting for the rights of LGBTQ families!

I have to say, that as much of a problem I have with the Canadian Parliament and the current conservative government, not all aspects of the Canadian Government are terrible.

The Supreme Court of Canada right now is worthy of praise. They consistently vote in the favour of compassion, logic and regularly hold the government to account when they err into unconstitutional or otherwise immoral areas.

Today’s agreement echoes that but they have a long, recent history of making genuinely good decisions (sex workers law found unconstitutional, Canadians have the right to strike, repealing Harper’s legislation that strips healthcare from refugees, etc).