Published On: August 10th, 2022

In Reign of Terror, I gave examples of executive overreach that both attempted and succeeded in overwhelming the Rule of Law. Whether Franklin Roosevelt claiming he is not “packing” the Supreme Court, he is “helping” the Supreme Court, or current federally announced health and other “emergencies” that amount to national administrative despotism, the imaginative tactics used by those who desire to squeeze the life out of Liberty know no bounds.

One of those tactics is turning Supreme Court rulings into forced ideological conformity – the very definition of tyranny. The Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) Opinion was written by Justice Gorsuch, Justice Roberts concurring.

This case is about the definition of “sex” in a Congressional statute – Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII prohibits discrimination in employment based on race, color, religion, national origin, and sex. “Sex” in 1964 means biological sex – male and female. The idea is equal treatment for men and women in employment.

Congress has attempted to amend Title VII to include not only biological sex but sexual orientation and sexual identity in the definition of “sex.” These attempts have failed. The Court decided not to wait for an elected Congress to re-define statutory language and legislated the changes for them.

In altering the authority of the Supremes from saying what the law is rather than what some on the Court think the law ought to be, the Court is engaging in an “updating” of statutes that is the prerogative of Congress. We have the Constitutional doctrine of Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances for this very reason. Each branch is to stay in its lane.

What has happened since this decision? What has happened is a foreseeable transition to the autocratic through Rules of the administrative state.

Bostock was decided in June 2020. On his first day in office as President, in the slew of Executive Orders presented to him, Biden signed one called “Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation” based on the Bostock decision. Presidential Executive Orders apply to federal agencies, among other entities. The Department of Agriculture wasted no time in turning the Bostock Opinion, then the Order, into Rules that have the power of enforceable Law.

The Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, explains. “[The]USDA is committed to administering all its programs with equity and fairness, and serving those in need with the highest dignity. A key step in advancing these principles is rooting out discrimination in any form – including discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. At the same time, we must recognize the vulnerability of the LGBTQI+ communities and provide them with an avenue to grieve any discrimination they face. We hope that by standing firm against these inequities we will help bring about much-needed change.”

What does this mean? Are these just general statements of compassion? What does “providing an avenue to grieve” mean? What change is “much-needed”?

The answer of the Secretary of Agriculture is to change every program offered by the Department to conform to the Bostock decision regarding discrimination on account of sex. One of these programs, within the Department’s Food and Nutrition Services division, is the National School Lunch Program, participated in by 100,000 school districts across the country, some non-profit private schools, and some residential child care facilities.

30 million + school lunches are served every day to America’s children. 75% of all lunches are free or cost reduced. The directive by the Secretary of Agriculture is that if any school does not participate in elective bathroom and locker room choice, based on “identifying” with a particular sex, that school will be seen as discriminating based on Title VII and federal funds for that school’s lunch program will be terminated.

Since the majority of public schools in America are now in high or moderate poverty areas, this means federal help in feeding these students would have to be picked up by state and local governments, charities, the families themselves, or some combination of them all.

From a decision of the Supreme Court to re-define a word in a Congressional statute (without a public hearing regarding the consequences), to an Executive Order by the President bypassing Congress, to an Administrative Rule created by a Cabinet Secretary – we have transitioned from a Constitutional Republic by the consent of the governed to an authoritarian state.

Parents whose children are in public schools are waking up to the fact that their schools are being forced to promote the agenda of an extreme minority or lose their school lunch program. What are natural inclinations of modesty and privacy for children are now subject to unnatural inclusion. One child in Virginia has already been sexually assaulted in the girl’s bathroom. The same issue is affecting Title IX programs that promote girls and women’s sports. What was a touted advancement in the development of athletics is now in shreds.

What do we need to know?

1. We need to know that our Constitutional Republic is under internal attack by the very entities that were designed to protect it. Those entities are supposed to be: a restrained and disciplined Supreme Court; a fiscally responsible and serious Congress; and an exemplary and charactered President.

2. We need to know that government itself, whether national, state, or local does not exist to take care of every slight. Legally protecting minorities is not a license to destroy majorities. Parents, not the state, have primary authority regarding their children and their children’s education and upbringing.

3. We need to know that when all else fails and the forces within and without the nation overwhelm and destroy, the Founders had the answer. “It is the right of the People to alter or abolish it [destructive government], and to institute new Government. . .” Decl. Of Independence, 1776.

Of the many confusions facing our culture, one is about civil rights, not political rights, and protections for those who feel a sting of discrimination. Our Rule of Law welcomes all to a seat at the table but gives no permission to overturn that table or raze the culture to address a personal concern.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to uplift people whose status precluded such a seat. It was never intended to be used as a weapon to take school lunches away from a majority of the nation’s children or competitive sports away from girls and women. Such, unfortunately, is the state of our nation in Transition to Tyranny. We the People need to put a stop to it.

Ask Miss C

Miss C is taking questions you have about the US Constitution. Simply submit your questions and she’ll reply to you with answers. Great questions may be featured in her blog as well as added to an FAQ page. 

    Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!

    About the Author: Miss C

    M.E. Boyd, "Miss Constitution" is an attorney, author, and instructor in Business, Educational, and Constitutional Law. She has appeared on television and radio and speaks publicly on American history, the founding documents, and current political issues. Her mission is to help citizens understand the Founding philosophies behind the system so that we can-together-help preserve the blessings of liberty and prosperity. Read more about Miss C