Tuesday, August 1, 2017

Natural Born Citizen "Gender Essentialism" vs. Transgender Citizen

Natural Born Citizen "Gender Essentialism" vs. Transgender Citizen

This was also posted on Mario Apuzzo’s Natural Born Citizen blog.


Prof. Lawrence Solum posted an interesting abstract by Melina Bell on his Legal Theory Blog on July 3, 2017:

>> http://lsolum.typepad.com/legaltheory/2017/07/melina-constantine-bell-washington-and-lee-university-has-postedgender-essentialism-and-american-law-why-and-how-to-sever.html

An Article V amendment to the U.S. Constitution may be the only way to stop the future of who determines who?/what? is a U.S. citizen. If the "gender system" (the last two words of the last sentence of the abstract) is altered, who will be a "natural born Citizen" and who will be eligible to be president? Will your "Natural Born Citizen" blog be necessary in a "gender system" in which "gender essentialism" is history?

"Bell on Gender Essentialism

"Melina Constantine Bell (Washington and Lee University) has posted Gender Essentialism and American Law: Why and How to Sever the Connection (Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy, Vol. 23, 2016) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

"American law presumes that all persons are born either female or male, and rests a surprising number of legal entitlements on this presumption. Persons’ legal rights to express their identity at work, to use public accommodations, and to retain legal parenthood status with respect to their children may all depend on whether they are female or male. Yet we, as individuals, generally have no choice regarding whether we are legally designated female or male, just as people had no choice as to whether they were designated “colored” or “white” under past racial discrimination schemes.

"The American legal system plays a significant role in the construction, maintenance, and coercive enforcement of the binary gender system that requires people to conform their identities in distorting ways to be included politically. By sustaining the gender system, legal institutions unnecessarily undermine human well-being, and unjustly and disrespectfully constrain individual liberty.

"The United States and state governments should re-examine laws that use sex or gender as a category by adapting the Law Commission of Canada’s methodology in Beyond Conjugality. In this fashion, American law can begin to move gradually away from the creation, maintenance, and enforcement of the gender system."

This is the url for the SSRN article by Melina Bell:
Gender Essentialism and American Law: Why and How to Sever the Connection

>> https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2994349

Why is "gender essentiallism" an important issue to discuss in the context of who is a "natural born Citizen" and eligible to be president?

Well, consider this quote by a "trans veteran who served six tours in the Middle East": "My gender was female, but at birth, my sex was male".

This is the url for the July 30, 2017 article on Politico.com:
>> http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/30/transgender-veteran-on-trump-military-ban-215432

There is so much that could be written, but, well, no wonder that John Jay's original genesis original intent for underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his July 25, 1787 note to George Washington is ignored today in 2017 America. Confusion about original genesis has become a mental illness that is being legalized in front of God and everybody on earth, atheist, theist, Jew, Christian, Muslim, statist, globalist, original genesis original intent constitutionalist, etc.

What did John Jay imply by underlining the word "born" if NOT

ONLY singular U.S. citizenship/allegiance
ONLY by birth alone
ONLY on U.S. soil (jurisdiction)
ONLY to two U.S. citizen parents
ONLY married
ONLY to each other
ONLY before the birth of the child

Mario, tick...tock... it's only a matter of time before Prof. Akhil Reed Amar's "unwritten constitution" with it's "implicit" serendipities discovers that "gender essentialism" was not the ONLY essential that was implicit in the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment "citizen" language in conjunction with the 1898 United States v Wong Kim Ark "citizen" fiat "declaration" by the Supreme Court.