CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATIONS

Substantive Due Process

August 21, 2026

RE: The Right to Sue States for Interference With Parenting Children With Gender Dysphoria

Statutes in the State of Washington authorize “gender transition” counseling and other therapies to certain children who have run away from home for the purpose of obtaining “gender transition” services against their parents’ will. A group of parents who are opposed to “gender transition” therapy for their children who are having signs of “gender dysphoria”… Continue reading

Constitutional Law

Federal Courts, Gender Transition Therapy, Substantive Due Process

ABOUT THIS SITE

In the case of Marbury v. Madison, Vol.5 U.S. Reports, p.137 (1803), the United States Supreme Court ruled that “a law repugnant to the constitution is void.” 5 U.S. at p.180. The Court based that ruling on arguments made by one of the original Constitution’s draftsmen, Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist Paper No.78 (published in 1788). Hamilton argued that the document he was then promoting to become the federal “Constitution” would require the “courts” . . . “to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.” In other words, Hamilton, and later the Supreme Court argued that whenever the text or the purpose of an ordinary statute irreconcilably contradicts the text or opposes the clear purpose of the Constitution, the Constitution must prevail and the subordinate statute must be declared void. Today, the Supreme Court no longer follows these original standards for the judicial review of the validity of statutory enactments. At this site, I offer my understanding of how they should apply to modern issues of Constitutional Law. Supporting and opposing comments are welcome here, as long as they are relevant and civil.

Dan D. Rhea

Substantive Due Process

RE: The Right to Sue States for Interference With Parenting Children With Gender Dysphoria