Appeals court orders military to recruit from the mentally ill

A Federal Court of Appeals has ordered the armed forces to begin recruiting so-called "Transgendered" individuals starting January 1.

The ruling was another legal blow for the president, who surprised military leaders when he announced in July in a series of tweets that the U.S. government "will not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military."

His order reversed an Obama-era policy allowing transgender people to serve openly and receive funding for sex-reassignment surgery. That order was promptly challenged in federal court by active-duty transgender service members who say it violates their Fifth Amendment rights to equal protection.

At this point you may be asking, what is the Fifth Amendment?  Did the Founding Fathers create the Fifth Amendment to protect the right of mentally ill people to join the military and get free surgery to pretend to change their sex?  Not surprisingly, that wasn't foremost on their minds.  Here is the actual text:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The Fifth Amendment basically talks about giving people due process when they are charged with a crime and protection against taking of private property.  What does that have to do with mentally ill people joining the military?

The answer: absolutely nothing.

But the judiciary is so riddled with hardcore leftists that they are creating imaginary rights as easily as they ignore actual ones they don't like, like the ones protected by the Second Amendment.

Here are some interesting facts.

1) During most of the Obama administration, it wasn't legal for transvestites to join the military.  Right before President Obama stepped out the door, he issued an executive order saying the military should permit transvestites but should start admitting them only after he had left office.  Perhaps Obama was rightly worried about the disruption that would be caused by a whole platoon of Mary Poppinses or Corporal Klingers and didn't want to take the heat when his efforts at social engineering in the military went bad.

2) Before Obama issued this executive order, transvestites didn't have the right to join the military.  And yet until that time, not a single court found the "right" for cross-dressers to join the military.  This "right" was discovered only after Obama legalized it, and his ability to legalize it, without an act of Congress, was questionable at best.

3) This "right" is a lot more than just allowing cross-dressers to join the military.  It is a way for them to get free surgery and hormones so they can "Dr. Frankenstein" themselves at taxpayer expense.

Our country has laws against racial discrimination.  Our country also has laws against gender discrimination.  But we have no federal laws against discrimination involving people with red hair, people who wear bandanas, people who ride skateboards, people who eat vanilla ice cream...or men who dress up as women.  These are not what the law calls "protected classes," as with race or religion.  There is no prohibition on discriminating based on these characteristics.  In fact, from a public policy standpoint, one would hope the government discriminates against the "transgendered" because they are severely mentally ill.  Liberals don't want the mentally ill to have guns, but they are full-throated in their demands for the "transgendered" to be given "military-style" assault weapons.  This can end only in tragedy.

The Trump administration must now plead with the Supreme Court if it wants to fight this further.  But if the president were gutsy, he would announce that he is going to disregard this appeals court decision because it is so blatantly unconstitutional on the face of it.

I think when the executive branch kowtows to every unreasonable decision a court makes, it only encourages courts to do more of the same.  Courts are given so much deference that they effectively have unlimited power.  It would be refreshing if the president stood up to them, in a case that most people would immediately recognize as ridiculous.

Ed Straker is the senior writer at