Political Pistachio
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Little v. Hecox, a case pitting a transgender Boise State University student against an Idaho law prohibiting biological males from competing on female sports teams from elementary school through college, has now reached the United States Supreme Court. The High Court heard oral arguments on January 13, 2026. The case carries enormous weight because it tests whether state laws barring males who identify as females from participating in women’s sports violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The final ruling regarding the law at issue, the 2020 Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, could shape national policy on sex classification, athletics, and the legal status of transgender identity in sports.
The legal battle began in 2020 when a federal district court blocked the law as unconstitutional. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the injunction in 2023. The Supreme Court took up the case in 2025 and began hearing arguments in 2026. Idaho contends that the state has a compelling interest in preserving fair competition and athletic opportunities for women, interests long recognized under Title IX, which has always distinguished athletes based on biological sex, not gender identity.
Hecox argues the law unfairly targets transgender women, triggering heightened scrutiny under Equal Protection. Without saying it directly, Hecox is arguing for Civil Rights Law protection. The respondent further claims Idaho has not demonstrated that transgender athletes pose a systemic threat to women’s sports, that the law is overbroad (reaching even children and intramural sports), and that it violates both the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX.
But, the Equal Protection Clause does not require states to enact special protections for any group. It simply forbids laws that violate Equal Protection. The central question, then, is whether Equal Protection applies when a claimed identity departs from biological reality and exists solely in the mind of the claimant.
Based on the justices’ questioning, the Court appears inclined to affirm that states have broad authority to define sex categories in athletics. The Court may also revisit Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), which held that discrimination based on transgender status is discrimination “because of sex” under Title VII. One wonders if Justice Clarence Thomas’ opinion in 2019 Garland v. United States, as well as being a recurring argument that surfaces often that courts should overturn wrong precedents if they conflict with the Constitution, not just follow them, will become a part of the discussion. He has said a number of times, “It is not the job of judges or justices to abide by wrong precedent, but by the Constitution and existing law”, viewing precedent as non-binding if it lacks constitutional grounding, urging courts to correct errors rather than perpetuate them.
The ruling of Little v. Hecox will clarify whether Title IX’s use of the word “sex” includes gender identity in sports. With many states enacting similar laws, the Court’s decision will likely settle their constitutionality nationwide.
Although I cringe when federal courts decide whether state laws may continue to exist, given that striking down legislation is a legislative power and the judiciary was meant to only wield judicial powers as per the concept of a Separation of Powers, I also recognize the need for national clarity on this issue.
One moment in the oral arguments was particularly striking: Justice Samuel Alito’s exchange with Kathleen R. Hartnett, attorney for Hecox. His questioning cut through political rhetoric and landed squarely on legal ground, exposing the ideological and mental contortions required to deny biological reality. It echoed the “What is a woman?” question raised in Matt Walsh’s documentary and posed to Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in 2022. For both Justice Jackson and the activists in Walsh’s film, the answer amounted to a circular claim that a woman is simply anyone who says they are. In a recent street interview, a transgender individual gave the same answer: I am a woman because I think so “In my mind.”
Justice Alito asked Hartnett, “How can a court determine whether there’s discrimination on the basis of sex without knowing what sex means for equal protection purposes?”
Hartnett responded that the statute’s definition was tied to “birth,” which “categorically excluded” her client from women’s teams. Yet her argument attempted to accept biological reality for practical purposes while still claiming discrimination.
Alito then offered a simple hypothetical: a student with male genes, male reproductive anatomy, no puberty blockers, no hormones, no surgeries – who simply declares, “I am a woman.” Could a school bar this student from the girls’ team?
After frantic circling around the question, Hartnett finally conceded that the school could.
Alito pressed further: If the student sincerely believes he is a woman, is he a woman? Hartnett replied that she would “respect their self-identity,” but ultimately admitted that such a person would retain a “sex-based biological advantage” making competition unfair.
In other words, identity in the mind does not override biological reality.
Alito then delivered the decisive point: “So what you seem to be saying is yes, it is permissible for the school to discriminate on the basis of transgender status…” because barring a transgender-identifying male from the girls’ team is, by definition, differential treatment based on transgender status.
Hartnett struggled to reconcile her position, insisting the case did not require the Court to decide whether transgender women who went through male puberty could play on men’s teams.
Ultimately, the arguments made clear that the Equal Protection framework, like weight classes in boxing and wrestling, exists to protect those at a disadvantage. It was never intended to apply in reverse, nor to validate differences grounded solely in subjective identity. Cultural Marxism’s notion of “equity” collapses under biological reality. One cannot invoke biology for fairness while denying it for identity.
Equal Protection applies to biological realities, not to self-declared identities formed in one’s mind.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Since the beginning of his current presidential term, President Donald Trump has made no secret of his interest in acquiring Greenland. He views the island as vital to national security and essential to preventing China from gaining a foothold in the Arctic. The region is no longer a remote wilderness visited only by explorers. It has become a central arena of global competition. With Russia and China expanding their Arctic presence, thanks in part to advanced icebreakers and new navigable sea routes, Greenland’s strategic and economic value has surged. President Trump recognizes that reality and believes the United States must secure meaningful control over the island to protect American interests and maintain energy dominance.
Trump’s rhetoric on Greenland has sometimes sounded blunt, but that is a familiar feature of his negotiating style. His public comments are often the opening bid, not the final objective. Like any seasoned dealmaker, he starts high to draw the other party to the table and force them to reveal their bottom line. It’s the same logic as pricing a car well above what you expect to receive: the goal is not the sticker price, but the negotiation it triggers. Trump’s approach to Greenland follows that pattern.
I do not believe President Trump intends to purchase or seize Greenland by force, though he would certainly welcome a purchase if Denmark were willing. More realistically, he appears to be aiming for an agreement that grants the United States broad, long-term access to Greenland’s land and resources. In classic Trump fashion, the pitch is simple: work with us, and everyone profits.
The growing interest of America’s adversaries in the Arctic only heightens the urgency. Securing the northern approaches to the United States requires strategic assets in places like Greenland. Trump has spoken of a “Golden Dome,” an American counterpart to Israel’s Iron Dome, and Greenland is a key component of that vision. From a financial standpoint, cooperation makes sense for both Greenland and Denmark. Denmark currently sends roughly $3.4 billion annually to support Greenland’s population of 56,000. Neither Denmark nor Greenland has the technology or capital to exploit the island’s vast mineral wealth or to develop the defensive infrastructure the region demands.
A straightforward agreement could benefit all parties: the United States gains access to unused land for missile defense and strategic installations, along with rights to mine and process Greenland’s abundant resources. Greenland receives substantial compensation. Denmark offsets or eliminates its multibillion-dollar subsidy. America strengthens its national security and reduces dependence on foreign minerals. Everyone wins…except China.
Greenland’s mineral riches, combined with its unmatched geographic position, make it indispensable for Arctic defense, power projection, monitoring rival activity, and securing emerging shipping routes. Control of Greenland’s strategic landscape allows the United States to counter Russia’s militarization of the Arctic and China’s growing influence in the region.
But Greenland’s importance does not justify reckless action. The island is part of Denmark, a sovereign European nation and NATO ally. President Trump understands this, which is why, despite his forceful rhetoric, he is not going to use military force to secure Greenlandic access. Constitutionally, Denmark must consent to any agreement, and that consent must take the form of a treaty ratified by two-thirds of the U.S. Senate. With the Senate’s current composition, that threshold is unlikely.
Which is why the 2026 midterms matter. President Trump can negotiate the framework, but ultimately the Senate must approve the deal. To secure that supermajority, he will need not only a strong Republican showing but also a handful of Democrats willing to acknowledge that this is a once‑in‑a‑generation opportunity.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
| ALERT: Be a sponsor or advertiser (contact me at constitutionspeaker@yahoo.com to discuss terms) Donate (https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/douglasvgibbs) Become a $9 per month Patron Member at my website (https://www.douglasvgibbs.com/membership-account/membership-levels/) Purchase my books! Scroll down to the list and all of the links at www.navigation2liberty.com Saturday Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs “Mr. Constitution” Constitution Radio: With Doug, Alan and Dennis – KMET 1490 AM, Saturday 1:00 pm – 2:00 pm Pacific http://www.kmet1490am.com |
  |
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear the Trump v. Slaughter case, which revolves around the constitutional concept of separation of powers; a constitutional concept not seen anywhere else in the world. The United States Constitution established three branches of government through Articles I, II, and III. Each branch is “vested” with its own powers, a word that signals the principle of separation of powers. This design ensures that the legislative, executive, and judicial branches operate independently, except where the Constitution explicitly authorizes overlap.
President Trump is the head of the executive branch, and as the chief executive, possesses all powers over the agencies under the executive branch. However, over time Congress has established agencies considered “independent” of the executive branch’s control. The argument is that by ruling in favor of President Trump, such a ruling could destroy the structure of government, giving the President “near-unlimited power” over agencies traditionally insulated from politics. Such a decision would also sharply reduce Congress’s ability to create insulated regulatory bodies.
To determine constitutional boundaries, we first need to answer a couple questions.
While Congress has the authority to create agencies, does the Constitution provide an allowance for Congress to create agencies tasked with serving them administratively?
No,
What is the purpose of regulatory agencies?
According to Article II, the task of executing the law of the United States belongs only to the President of the United States. The executive branch exists to assist the President in executing the law. Therefore, if a regulatory agency has been created, it falls under the executive branch, and therefore under the President’s executive authority.
Within the federal government, independence is between the branches, not within them.
• Legislative staff answers only to Congress.
• The Supreme Court supervises the lower courts.
• The President, vested with executive power, is the head of the executive branch.
Which brings us to the fallacy of agency independence. There is no constitutional clause granting executive departments or agencies pure independence. The President is their boss. Claims that a president is “authoritarian” for exercising control over agencies are therefore misguided.
Congress’s role regarding agencies solely rests upon creating them. Once the agency is established, the agency falls under executive authority in the same way when once a lower court is created by Congress it falls under the supervisory powers of the Supreme Court since it is the High Court which is vested with judicial powers.
The idea of the existence of division between “executive agencies” and “independent agencies” is a false dichotomy. The Constitution does not recognize such a distinction. Agencies may communicate directly with Congress for efficiency, but this does not diminish the President’s ultimate authority.
Granted, no president can fully control the vast bureaucracy, simply because it is not humanly possible. Priorities and styles differ: some presidents take a hands-off approach, while others, like President Trump, have sought to rein in agency independence to combat corruption, waste, and unconstitutional practices.
Critics argue this is interference, but in reality, it is the President fulfilling his constitutional duty. Agencies are tools for executing the law, and the President may direct them as long as his actions remain constitutional and lawful.
The “independent agency” label misleads the public. Agencies are not separate branches of government. They don’t belong to the deep state administrative leviathan. They are a part of the executive branch. Laws that attempt to insulate agencies from presidential oversight conflict with the Constitution. Congress cannot legislate away the President’s authority over his own branch.
The Constitution does not empower Congress or the judiciary to micromanage the President’s execution of the law. If Congress disagrees with presidential actions, its remedies are limited to defunding agencies or agency operations or initiating impeachment. Ultimately, the people decide through elections whether a president’s approach should continue.
The executive branch belongs to the President of the United States. Agencies, regardless of their alleged design, are not independent in the constitutional sense. They exist to serve the President in his Article II duty to faithfully execute the laws. Any argument to the contrary is a false one, unsupported by the Constitution.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
A recent ruling on Oregon & Washington v. Trump (2025 Executive Order on Elections) by U.S. District Judge John H. Chun where the judge issued a ruling blocking Trump’s order regarding mail-in-balloting was technically correct regarding the mail-in-balloting part. The problem is that a lower court judge has no authority to be ruling on the case. According to Article III of the Constitution, whenever a state (or states) are parties in a lawsuit, the United States Supreme Court has original jurisdiction.
As for the ruling, the reality is that without a federal law being passed disallowing vote-by-mail, the President of the United States may not by executive order outlaw the practice. Executive orders are for the purpose of declaring proclamations which are not legally binding, and to instruct the executive branch regarding executing an existing law on the books. Executive orders may not create, modify, or repeal law. Legislative powers are assigned to Congress by Article I, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.
I understand the reason the President issued an executive order regarding vote-by-mail balloting practices. It opens up the opportunity for fraud. But, as established by Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution, “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations.” Based on that language, the manner of how a state holds its federal elections are up to the state unless Congress chooses to pass law that alters those practices. The manner in which a state conducts its local elections totally belongs to the state as long as they don’t violate any constitutional provision directed at the states regarding elections, or pass laws that would be contrary to federal laws made in pursuance of the Constitution.
The executive order in question was issued on March 25, 2025. Executive Order 14248, titled: “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections.” The order broadly seeks to reshape how elections are administered in the country by, among other things, purporting to enforce a requirement that all voters prove their citizenship by way of formal documentation and by putting a stop to vote-by-mail systems that count ballots postmarked by, but received after, Election Day. A month later, Oregon and Washington sued because the default voting mechanism in each state is a postal ballot. In Oregon, the vote-by-mail system has been in place since 1998.
In May 2025, those two Pacific Northwest states moved for summary judgment, asking U.S. District Judge John H. Chun, a Joe Biden appointee, to permanently enjoin multiple sections of Trump’s order as unconstitutional and ultra vires, or, beyond the president’s power. Last Friday, the court ruled in the plaintiffs’ favor.
According to the judge, the primary issue is one of a separation of powers. “Separation of powers was designed to implement a fundamental insight: Concentration of power in the hands of a single branch is a threat to liberty,” wrote the judge in one section of the judicial opinion regarding the order.
While constitutionally Congress may seek to codify President Trump’s desire to get rid of mail-in-balloting for federal elections, the only way that the practice can be eliminated throughout the electoral system (even at the local level) would be by amendment to the Constitution banning the practice, and giving Congress the authority to have the power to enforce the amendment by appropriate legislation.
While the ruling prevents the federal government from requiring proof of citizenship when voters register using federal forms, Congress can override that limitation through legislation. The Constitution states five separate times that only citizens may vote, and it makes no distinction between federal and state elections. Therefore, a federal law requiring proof of identification and/or other ways to prove citizenship for all elections, including local ones, is entirely consistent with constitutional authority.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
We the People Unity versus Leftwing Collectivism
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Collectivism lives and breathes in the Democratic Party. Zohran Mamdani praises the “warmth of collectivism.” Hillary Clinton offered “It takes a village.” Barack Obama gave us “You didn’t build that” and “We are our brother’s keeper.” Joe Biden repeats “We’re in this together” and “This is about the collective good.” Bernie Sanders insists “Nobody makes it alone” and urges America to “move away from a society in which everyone is out for themselves.” Elizabeth Warren adds, “There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own.” Pete Buttigieg declares, “The era of the individual alone is over.” Cory Booker often frames policy in collective moral terms, saying, “We rise together or we fall together.” Anthony Fauci emphasizes that “Individual choices affect everyone.”
The Founding Fathers also believed in community and standing together, but they understood that true community arises naturally from free individuals, not from state‑directed conformity. The delegates of the former English colonies knew they needed to “hang together, or surely hang separately,” as Benjamin Franklin famously put it. And while “We the People” and E pluribus unum (“Out of many, one”) are treasured parts of our national heritage, they are not synonymous with the collectivism promoted by the modern Democratic Party.
As a constitutionalist, I love my community. Working together is both rewarding and essential to the American experience. If a dish is to be prepared properly, a team of chefs must work in harmony, but the success of that dish depends on unity around a proven recipe, not on each chef chasing personal whims. In the same way, a community of sovereign individuals with distinct cultures, churches, trades, opinions, and backgrounds can unite as one republic under the United States Constitution without surrendering their liberty to collectivist ideology.
Unity in America’s foundational system is the product of liberty, not a substitute for it. The Founding Fathers believed in unity by consent, not absorption.
Modern collectivism seeks not only to reverse what the Founders built, but to counterfeit it. Where E pluribus unum means “out of many, one,” their model flips it to ex uno, plures – out of one, many. The progressive wing of the Democratic Party advances a worldview in which central authority defines which identities are acceptable. Individuals cannot simply be individuals; they must be sorted, labeled, and managed.
Unity, in this system, is not voluntary. It is enforced through policy, speech codes, and mandatory compliance. Differences are tolerated only when they fall within the boundaries of the approved ideology. Instead of a liberty‑based system where free people choose to unite under the Constitution, modern collectivism manufactures diversity while imposing uniformity.
The Founders created a republic grounded in the consent of the governed, a bottom‑up order. Modern collectivism replaces that with a top‑down collective enforced through coercion. Where the Founders affirmed equality, that all are created with the same Natural Rights, collectivism substitutes equity, demanding predetermined outcomes. Where the Founders valued individual conscience, collectivism elevates the group above the person. Where the Founders limited government to specific, delegated powers, collectivism expands it into a managerial state that oversees life from cradle to grave.
The Founders trusted free people to form community. Modern collectivism distrusts free people and replaces virtue with administration. We the People was never a call to sameness. It was a declaration that liberty can produce unity without destroying the individual. The Founders never meant one belief, one ideology, one approved way to live, or one moral authority above conscience. They meant one people and one country, precisely because we are many, free, and different but choose to all live under the same system created by the U.S. Constitution. If unity must be enforced, liberty has already been lost.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary