How is this not unconstitutional?
How is any of this not unconstitutional?
But it is. All of it. And it doesn't matter anymore.
What text in the federal (or state, if that's what you meant) constitution would you say prohibits it?
4th Amendment, the right against unreasonable searches.
While yes I agree this is Nazi shit put up by MAGAts. I just wish to play a bit of devil's advocate because I like law and constitutional law in particular.
While much like the stupid bathroom laws. Are they going to have someone check people before they enter? I would agree searching, without a warrant to figure out if someone is trans or not would be a violation of the 4th.
Just playing devils advocate. How would having a list of trans or/and just people be violation of someone's 4th? The government keeps all kinds of lists of people, taxes, drivers license, voter registration.
Edit: I do see the view that seizing the info from a doctor, when you should have a expectation of confidentiality with them, would violate the 4th.
IMO (and IANAL especially not of constitutional law) the executive branch has to prove to the courts that it has a compelling interest to keep such registries and that its need is such that less invasive recordkeeping would not serve that justifiable purpose. E.G., it needs a registry of voters to determine if someone is eligible to vote and in which jurisdiction, because without it the pollworkers would have no way to tell.
Under Strict Scrutiny, laws enabling such registries must be "narrowly tailored" (E.G., voter registration doesn't need to know how much taxes you pay and your tax record doesn't need to know which party you're registered to) and employs the "least restrictive means" necessary to satisfy its compelling interest (E.G., they can't charge you a fee to update your voter registration and there will always be a free option for filing your tax paperwork).
Keeping lists of trans folks serves no compelling interest, is not narrowly tailored to the interests it supposedly serves, and there isn't even a civil means of determining whether or not one is on the list (to say nothing of correcting it for the folks that have undoubtedly been added to it in error). As such, it is prima facie unconstitutional.
Even the lowest bar of constitutional scrutiny, "Rational Basis", would require that the law allowing the list be "rationally related" to a "legitimate goverent interest", and I can't think of anything less legitimate than a government's claimed need to get into everyone's pants.
As always:

I think the over/under is 1 year for someone unironically floating the idea of a tattoo or microchip any "undesirables".
No need; people already voluntarily carry these "microchips" at all times.
Fucking hillbillies
Leave my trans homies the fuck alone!
Combined with the shooting in Virginia last week, this is starting to turn even more ugly
Seriously time for some really bad things to start happening to the fucking lawmakers passing this shit.
I'm past the point of wanting them to understand.
I want these fascists to get hurt.
Registries of Undesirables? This is like the OPPOSITE of Nazis!
-Republicans!
News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.