Eliminating Discrimination Against Men
"In the colonial past when the right to vote was linked to property, some women enjoyed the franchise. The right, as applied to women, had been revoked in New York in 1777. The spread of Jacksonian democracy beginning in the 1820s had meant universal white male suffrage, without regard to property or other qualification, but sensitive, intelligent, and publicly concerned women were still deprived of it."
"The Ten Original Amendments: The Bill of Rights, was passed by Congress September 25, 1789."
Thus the US Constitution and the original amendments presumed that a man was the head of the family, was the sole voter and decision maker, and was solely responsible for all family matters. There would be no thought for the next century and a half that the language of this historic document would be applied to women.
"The suffrage amendment was reintroduced by Jeannette Rankin of Montana on January 20, 1918. She herself was from the first region to grant the vote to women and was the first woman to be elected to Congress. The amendment passed amidst the cheers of women who sat knitting in the galleries. Other women gathered on the steps of Capitol were described by the New York Times as "cheering like collegians after a football victory." The vote was indeed close, only one more than the required two-thirds. One congressman left the deathbed of his suffragist wife to cast his vote and then returned to her funeral. Two congressmen came from hospitals to cast affirmative votes. Tennessee was the thirty-sixth state to ratify the amendment. On August 26, 1920, final passage was achieved. Times had changed."
"AMENDMENT XIX Passed by Congress June 4, 1919. Ratified August 18, 1920. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."
No attempt, however, was made to correct the language of the Constitution to take into account the mental, physical, moral, and emotional differences between the genders. Consider for example that the amendment referring to "equal protection" of the laws was written more than half a century before women had the right to vote or were even considered for "equal protection".
"AMENDMENT XIV Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868 nor to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The 143 years during which women did not have the right to vote marked a stable period of American History during which social pathology was absent, divorce was rare, illegitimacy was almost non-existent, economic growth was unprecedented, and innovation ruled. In the 75 years since women were given the right to vote, chronic declining family stability, increasing divorce rates, increasing illegitimacy, increasing crime, and increasing incarceration rates, which accelerated at an unprecedented rate beginning in the 1950s, have been the byword. But this gradually increasing social pathology did not seriously impact the momentum of the previous 2 centuries of rapid economic growth for almost half a century, in the mid-1960s, when the Dow Jones Industrial Average reached its all- time after-inflation high. At that point the US was the undisputed world leader in standard of living and per capita income. So why the feminist complaints that American women were "discriminated against"? In a reckless and vigorous attempt to accommodate that complaint we ignored and abridged the clear language of the Constitution.
This mistake shall be corrected. The original language of the US Constitution shall be adhered to. The protections, immunities, privileges, and rights of those to whom the Constitution originally applied shall hereby be asserted without further prevarication.
"AMENDMENT XIII Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865. Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
What IS "involuntary servitude" if it is not forcing someone to work against their will for someone else? Removing children from fathers as a matter of government policy; doling them back to fathers in exchange for tremendous psychological, time consuming, financial, legal costs; ignoring the state of fatherlessness this creates; forcing fathers to pay "child support" to an ex-wife who provides no physical or emotional or other support and who often provides exactly the opposite; tracking them across state lines; removing their drivers' licenses, their business licenses, and often their credit rating and their ability to conduct business or hold a job; is involuntary servitude, is unconstitutional, and shall end.
"AMENDMENT XIV Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868 Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;"
"NCJ 143498- Murder in Families - 12pp, 7/94, 14 tables This BJS Special Report, a survey of murder cases disposed in 1988. Women were over half of the defendants (55%) in ... family murder: parents killing their offspring."
Taking a man's children, home, current and future income, savings, car, self respect, drivers' license, business licenses, and ability to earn a living is an abridgement of his privileges or immunities, particularly if he has not committed a crime, and when the parent most likely to murder their children is the mother. The vast majority of fathers have not committed any crimes. This language provides a responsibility to the Supreme Court to assure that neither the states nor the federal government violates these privileges or immunities. Volumes of laws and regulations, millions of lawsuits, hundreds of billions of dollars in legal fees from the filing of millions of individual law suits have failed time and time again, across the entire face of the nation, to assert basic, clear cut Constitutional rights, and this shall end.
"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,"
A man's family is precisely the "life, liberty, or property" referred to here. A man who does not commit a crime, has as his highest priority in his life the welfare of his children, is capable of raising them, has the financial resources prior to the state removing them in the name of divorce to provide shelter, food, care, and love for them, as well as his children, shall be assured that the State will not deprive "any person" of this basic Constitutional right to his life, liberty, or property.
Children of divorce shall also be provided their Constitutional right to life, liberty, or property by assuring that they remain in the household with the optimum psychological, moral, spiritual, financial, and educational environment.
"without due process of law;"
"Due process of law" prohibits this destruction of a father's family and life, and it is for good reason in the face of the overwhelming evidence that the court itself is the catalyst which created the problems of divorce and illegitimacy, which led to our 40% rate of fatherlessness, which created our social pathology.
"nor to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Application of this "equal protection of the laws" requires compensation for at least 3 decades of chronic and unconstitutional past discrimination against men. This requires federal programs and laws which provide a legal advantage to men for the next 3 decades which is comparable to that for women for the last 3 decades.
"In 1988 divorces filed involving families with children, 64.9% were filed by women, which is down from 71.4% filed by women in 1975; 28.8% were filed by men, which is up from 25.6% in 1975; and 6.3% were filed jointly, which is up from 2.6% in 1975." National Center for Health Statistics, Monthly Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 38, No. 12 (S) 2, May 21, 1991.
1) Marriage, divorce, illegitimacy, and child custody laws have been structured to allow removal of 92% of the children of divorce and illegitimacy from fathers and placed with their mothers. Those who file for the majority of the divorces which destroy American families shall no longer be provided "equal protection" to those who do not file and instead attempt to keep families together. Compensation for this unequal, unconstitutional application of the laws requires federal programs and laws which assure that 92% of the children of divorce and illegitimacy remain in the custody of fathers who:
Bureau of Justice Statistics - 1994 murders: Men = 21,233, women = 5050, a rate 4.2x higher than for women.
BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS FACT SHEET - ADVANCE FOR RELEASE AT 5 P.M. EDT - WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1995 - Moreover, convicted husbands were more likely to receive a term of imprisonment (94 percent of the husbands vs. 81 percent of the wives), and the average prison sentence for husbands was much longer--16 years for husbands vs. 6 years for wives.