Please verify

Blaze Media
Watch LIVE

Judges gone wild: Demands transgender passports

Conservative Review

When a society begins undermining the most immutable laws of nature and practices of civilization there is no limit to the chaos that will ensue. The promotion of transgenderism as a matter of policy through the political branches of government is bad enough, but we are now confronted with the most pernicious form of social transformation without representation – at the hands of the unelected judiciary.

Last week, Judge Richard Brooke Jackson of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado urged the State Department at a hearing to adopt transgender passports and indicated that he might draft an opinion ordering them to do so. The plaintiff, Dana Zzyym, is suing the State Department for the right to a “gender neutral passport.” At the hearing, the federal judge, who was confirmed by unanimous consent in 2011 by the Senate, seemed sympathetic to his mentally ill argument. Here is the background from the Washington Post:

Zzyym (pronounced “Zimm”), who prefers to be referred to as “they” and “them” and who identifies as intersexual but doesn’t identify as male or female, has claimed the American government is forcing them to lie in order to obtain their birthright — a U.S. passport.

The passport application includes a section in which applicants check a box labeled “M” for male or “F” for female. As Zzyym identifies as neither, they wrote “X,” along with an explanation simply reading, “I am not male or female.”

Folks, remember when during the debate over redefining marriage liberals wanted to know, to paraphrase Hillary Clinton, “what difference does it make?” They accused those of us who wanted to uphold the integrity of the most foundational institution of all civilization of shoving our religious beliefs on everyone else. In reality, this had nothing to do with religion. When you violate natural law and concoct absurdities, it makes a difference and disrupts society. Now we’ve taken this to a new level in which sexuality itself, the most immutable law of nature, is being redefined. 

This will have grave consequences. Why can’t someone identify as anything he wants? Why can’t someone without a law degree identify as a judge? That is less absurd than a male identifying as a female. And now it will present major security threats. Sexuality is the most basic identifying characteristic of a human being. It is important that it be documented correctly on a passport. This business of “what difference does it make?” or “leave marriage to the church” or sexuality to the person is absurd. Of course it makes a difference in the inevitable interaction between legitimate functions of government and the citizenry. I can’t hallucinate that I’m 6’ 5’’ and have green eyes, and place that information on my driver’s license. To say that government should “stay out of height and eye color” is a complete non sequitur just like it’s a non sequitur to say state governments should stay out of defining marriage or the federal government should stay out of defining gender on a passport. Nobody is intervening in those areas of people’s lives, but they must be identified for basic purposes of security and integrity.

Worse, not only are the cultural Marxists trying to engage in de-civilization from a policy standpoint, they are trying to retroactively codify it into our Constitution and Civil Rights statutes – out of reach from the political process. The judge justified his opinion by stating that "a lot of things are changing in our world." Now, even if one agrees with this view – that is a political argument, not a legal rationale. That is why we have a Congress (for federal issues) and state legislatures (for state issues). This notion that times are changing so we can retroactively codify transgenderism into the Constitution is dangerous and will destroy our republic.  There are all sorts of unfortunate mental illnesses whereby people hallucinate about being all sorts of fictional characters and having all sorts of attributes. Do we change our national policy, the most foundational laws of civilization, to accommodate those problems? Moreover, do we codify those hallucinations of the illness as immutable rights into the Constitution, which itself was predicated on natural law and Nature’s God? 

This case is a poster child for why I advocate in Stolen Sovereignty that we must strip the courts of jurisdiction over societal and political questions.  Simply “appointing better judges” will not work for a number of reasons I detail in chapter 9 of the book. We need wholesale judicial reform. The lower courts are even worse than the Supreme Court and many cases never even make it to the grand council of revision. Could you ever have imagined one district judge, an institution created by Congress – not the Constitution – having the power to redefine sexuality?

In 1812, the Supreme Court ruled that the lower courts “possess no jurisdiction but what is given them by the power that creates them, and can be vested with none but what the power ceded to the general government will authorize them to confer.”[i] In Sheldon v. Sill(1850), the Supreme Court ruled that “Congress, having the power to establish the courts, must define their respective jurisdictions.” Could our Founders ever have envisioned a Supreme Court, much less a district court having the ability to boss around Congress on matters related to redefining sexuality or marriage and for Congress and the states to sit by helplessly and regard the edict as universally binding precedent across the nation?!

That even conservative leaders say nothing but express the need to appoint better judges, a fool’s errand in the long run, demonstrates the constitutional illiteracy of our people concerning the role of the courts. It’s time for Congress and the states to simply say no to this illegal insanity, or at the very least, exercise their constitutional power to define the jurisdiction of the courts.

[i] United States v. Hudson, 11 U.S. 7 Cranch 32, 33 (1812). 

Read MoreShow less
Most recent

Author and NYT columnist David Brooks' tweet about $78 meal blows up

All Articles