Wendy Larsen, Raised a point, could I investigate other countries human rights act and laws regarding the transgendered. I realy don't have the knowledge or resources to do this. It would be very silly of me to attempt it, could end up misleading people,
Basically this is a UK law forum, its hard enough trying to read up all the precedents and rulings that alter the UK laws. It was hoped that a few members from the USA would set up a forum relating to their own laws, where the laws differ from state to state, making it even more complex. Anyone wishing to take part in commenting on their own laws, could post in this forum, All I ask is you head up the subject regarding country, this could be very interesting, comparing different countries attituded to human rights and laws relating to the transgendered. also entice people to read some of the entries on UK law, perhaps now one of the most advanced pieces of legistlation worldwide affecting the rights of the transgedered. A good basis for perhaps repealing other countries laws?

Wendy Larsen

A number of European members have questioned why federal laws, protecting GLBT rights and against hate crimes, have not been passed in the US. This post is just to explain the Constitutional issues that make this difficult or impossible BY THE LAW OF THE LAND.

"If enacted, the law will almost certainly be challenged in court. The Constitution does not grant the federal government any general police power - prosecuting crime is primarily a state and local responsibility - and it is far from clear that the Supreme Court would go along with a congressional attempt to federalize such a broad swath of criminal law."

http://www.boston.com/bos[...]others/

Blame George III (ok it wasn't his fault really, he was disabled). The Constitution of The United States of America was designed to limit central, Federal power and to reserve powers to the States. It was to avoid those situations that were seen as problems with centralized power to the British government. In doing so, America also limited the power of the central government to do good. We still have not passed the Equal Rights Amendment for women. Our form of government is, unsurprisingly, not perfect.

I hope this helps some of you understand what seems, on the surface, to be an inexplicable deficiency with the American form of government. Change is slow here. It was designed that way to foil usurpation of power from the people. It has good and bad points. Like guns, it is our heritage from our history and culture. We can trace the American devotion to firearms back to the Colonial period, the American "Revolution" (it wasn't, we screwed up, the war was an accident) and the French Revolution (it was, they intended to revolt).

It is not a question of humanity, or what is "right" or "moral". It is a question of Constitutional Law and our system of checks and balances. An Equal Wardrobe Amendment will be a long time coming.

As far as George the III goes the disability, was he was brain dead, should have been laws regarding the inbreeding of royalty, lol

The only thing I deduce from state laws in the USA, As bizzare as it may seem, if you had a house built on a state line. In theory if you murdered somone in a bedroom that was in one state you could face the death penalty but if you murdered them in the kitchen then it would be life in prison. How true that is I realy don't know.

Now you come to mention it Marsha your right.

eg, England and Scotish laws are very different. In england we only have two trial verdicts, guilty or not guilty, if your found not guilty, even if they then unearth overwhelming evidence or you stand on the court steps and admit your guilt, you cannot be tried again for the same crime. Double jeopody.
But in Scotish law there are three verdicts available to a court, guilty or not guilty and a verdict of not proven, whereby if further evidence is submitted a person can be re-arrested and retried. So if someone had a house on the English/Scotish borders I suppose the same edict would apply.