The Commander-In-Chief: Transgender Representations In The Military

In America, the Commander-In-Chief decides where troops will be stationed, where the ships will be sent, and what weapons they will use. The Commander-In-Chief does NOT decide who can join the military. Our president tweeted out that having transgenders in the military would be too expensive and would derail their focus, presenting a transgender ban in the military. Not only is this not backed up by facts, but it is unconstitutional as well. As stated in the Fourteenth Amendment, “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...” transgenders have the right to join the military unless their personal actions violate any other restrictions. In addition, there is no real

This case came from Louisiana where in 1890 had a law passed that stated “equal but separate accommodations for the white and colored races” on its railroads. Plessy in 1892 had bought a first class ticket and was confronted and was forced to sit in what they called “Jim Crow train”. When Plessy refused, they sent him to the Criminal Court in New Orleans who stayed true to the state law, the case was then sent to the Supreme Court. It was also brought up that it violates the 13th and 14th amendments. That idea was brought down when the vote came to 7-1 and said that the law only “implies merely a legal distinction” between the two races and that it didn’t go against the 13th amendment forbidding involuntary servitude. Justice John Marshall Harlan was the only dissenter saying that “The white race deems itself to be the dominant race,” but the Constitution recognizes “no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens.” Harlan continued: “Our Constitution is color-blind…. In respect of civil rights all citizens are equal before the law.” This law stayed around until the Brown v Board of Education case came

“No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” this illustrates that no matter what kind of person you are, you should be equal to everyone else, whether it be skin color, or sexuality. It also states that no state will take away these privileges without due process of law. This applies to both the transgender ban and the Plessy case. The transgender ban discriminates against the transgenders trying to join the army, which is taking away the privilege of enrollment in the military. This applies to the Plessy case because the Plessy case violates the equality of race and the ruling expresses that separate facilities are fine as long as they’re equal. Even though it’s very obviously not equal, it then violates the 14th amendment. Another connection is the fact that people actually agreed with these outrages statements. 7-1 was the final ruling in the Supreme Court, and 27 % of Americans (according to https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/8/3/16090380/transgender-military-ban-poll) agree with the transgender military ban. It shows how no matter how obviously unconstitutional a statement is, you will still find people who agree with