Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Citizen status was defined in the 14th
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. The definition of person is still the same today as it was when the 14th was ratified.
The thing is it depends on who is doing the discrimination, and what is meant by protection.
In most cases the discrimination that is being discussed is not the discrimination of the government (which the 14th Amendment and Constitution applies to).
Scalia is right, the 14th affords only the protection of equal protection on people classified as citizens from government discrimination. Any other form of protection can only be afforded by statute.
To say that the 14th Amendment affords all people freedom from discrimination from any source all of the time would be legislating from the bench. Clearly this cannot be the case, as the Constitution is only legally binding against actions and law that is issued by governments. Thus is in and of itself cannot protect people from discrimination by other people, or business as neither of these are bound by the Constitution.
Where the article falls down is that Marcia Greenberger states
Scalia didn't say that at all, because by definition, if government sanctioned discrimination against women, then it would violate the 14th Amendment equal protection clause, clearly women are citizens as defined by the 14th Amendment. That said it undercuts all of her other examples hysterically used to illustrate this non-point.
And yet women were not afforded the full privileges of citizenship. Married women, in particular, were restricted in terms of owning property, of suing, etc. Why? Because women weren't considered full-fledged citizens. We've evolved, not in how we define citizen, but in how we consider women to be citizens. Which is why Scalia is wrong. If, as you state in your first paragraph, that the definition of a citizen is the same then as it is now, then a strict Constitutionalist has to read the Constitution as written, with the word "citizen". What has changed is which classes of people are accorded full citizenship status, and which are not. That doesn't change the Constitution. Scalia is wrong.
The Constitution doesn't say that discrimination against women is okay.
The Constitution DOES say that citizens of the United States are afforded equal protection under the law.
It doesn't say it isn't OK either.
Then make a law.
The law on the people, or the chains that don't authorize the federal government to decide one way or the other, call the US Constitution.
Then make a law.
The law on the people, or the chains that don't authorize the federal government to decide one way or the other, call the US Constitution.
I don't need to make a law. The Constitution is law. It is the foundation for all American law. And the 14th Amendment accords "citizens" equal protection under the law. "CITIZENS". Women are citizens. Scalia is arguing that the Constitution should be INTERPRETED according to what the writers intended. And frankly, that flies in the face of strict Constitutionalism. That's why Scalia is wrong. The 14th Amendment gives equal protection to "citizens" Women are citizens. Therefore, women are entitled to equal protection under the law. And if you don't believe me, then you should familiarize yourself with the numerous court rulings on women's equality.
Rather then just throw stones, why don't you explain the distortion, and link to the context. I for one would be interested in your reply. I truly dislike when people and news do what you describe.
Any thinking person could within two paragraphs of the original referenced Huffington Post article to see that the OP took Scalia not just out of context, but was incapable of understanding the argument being made. Well, after all, one can lead a liberal to the library, but one cnnot make them think
PS if the Constitution did not permit discrimination against women, why did it require and amendment to give women the vote? Apparently the 14th amendment did not give women equal rights.
Also, there is a difference between constitutional rights, civil rights, and human rights. Scalia, IMHO, was indirectly pointing this out.
Any thinking person could within two paragraphs of the original referenced Huffington Post article to see that the OP took Scalia not just out of context, but was incapable of understanding the argument being made. Well, after all, one can lead a liberal to the library, but one cnnot make them think
PS if the Constitution did not permit discrimination against women, why did it require and amendment to give women the vote? Apparently the 14th amendment did not give women equal rights.
Also, there is a difference between constitutional rights, civil rights, and human rights. Scalia, IMHO, was indirectly pointing this out.
Since this thread was such a failure, can we just say that Scalia likes to stomp on puppies. We can't just end this thread without vilifying him after all.
At it's ratification, it was meant to be specific to the former slaves, that happen to be Black.
It was not a catch all amendment.
Scalia is correct in his interpretation at the time of ratification and the arguments on the House & Senate floor, during the reconstruction era.
Bet you didn't know... The entire Civil Rights Act can be null and void at a moments noticed.
Until it is an amendment to the US Constitution, it is just statutory law. Not constitutional common law
If the 14t Amendment applies to women or sexual orientation or religion, etc,. what was the purpose of our various federal and state civil rights acts ? Why are gays so concerned about getting sexual orientation added to ant-discrimination laws ?
I don't need to make a law. The Constitution is law. It is the foundation for all American law. And the 14th Amendment accords "citizens" equal protection under the law. "CITIZENS". Women are citizens. Scalia is arguing that the Constitution should be INTERPRETED according to what the writers intended. And frankly, that flies in the face of strict Constitutionalism. That's why Scalia is wrong. The 14th Amendment gives equal protection to "citizens" Women are citizens. Therefore, women are entitled to equal protection under the law. And if you don't believe me, then you should familiarize yourself with the numerous court rulings on women's equality.
Protection of what? Government?
Got news for you. The Constitution are not laws place upon the people.
The constitution are the laws we the people placed upon them the government.
We the People didn't authorize them the government anywhere in the Constitution to punish any person for discrimination. We the people told them the government, they cannot discriminate. Although that hasn't been the case(Affirmative Action)
The Constitution doesn't limit the people... We are a free nation.
The US Constitution, limits All forms of government(the 14th amendment) Before the 14th, the State Constitutions were supreme... Because they all had the bill of rights incorporated.
Any thinking person could within two paragraphs of the original referenced Huffington Post article to see that the OP took Scalia not just out of context, but was incapable of understanding the argument being made. Well, after all, one can lead a liberal to the library, but one cnnot make them think
PS if the Constitution did not permit discrimination against women, why did it require and amendment to give women the vote? Apparently the 14th amendment did not give women equal rights.
Also, there is a difference between constitutional rights, civil rights, and human rights. Scalia, IMHO, was indirectly pointing this out.
Go look at the OP. note that it was edited, and the link was added. I read the original version of the post, and did not reread it after the link was added apparently.
To paraphrase you......Any thinking person might have noticed that.....
And yet women were not afforded the full privileges of citizenship. Married women, in particular, were restricted in terms of owning property, of suing, etc. Why? Because women weren't considered full-fledged citizens. We've evolved, not in how we define citizen, but in how we consider women to be citizens.
Were women allowed to own property? Were they allowed to sue? Were women not afforded the full protection of the laws? Were the limitations purely placed on married women? Voting was never a fundamental indication of citizenship (nor is it still).
Marriage is an entirely different topic, and voluntary, there are legal rights, responsibilities, and liabilities. For instance if I get married and the person I'm marrying has debt, that debt becomes a shared liability also (unless there is a prenup), that cannot become my liability unless I choose to marry, if my sister runs up $100,000 in credit card debt that's her problem not mine, and any credit company attempting to recover from me will be dealt with accordingly. Historically people entered marriage and agreed to the terms of marriage of that time, its no different to how it's done today, certain rights responsibilities and liabilities are given, and certain rights responsibilities and liabilities removed. The marriage laws have changed, or law on dealing with married couples has changed, the citizenship of women has not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
Which is why Scalia is wrong. If, as you state in your first paragraph, that the definition of a citizen is the same then as it is now, then a strict Constitutionalist has to read the Constitution as written, with the word "citizen". What has changed is which classes of people are accorded full citizenship status, and which are not. That doesn't change the Constitution. Scalia is wrong.
All persons born or naturalized are citizens, it does not say all persons born with blonde hair and blue eyes, or not persons born with webbed toes. All classes of people from the 14th Amendment per the Constitution have had full citizen status, and limitations for whatever reason had no constitutional basis. Do not conflate Constitutional equality with statutory equality, any class that was not afforded full citizenship status had grounds to sue for relief under the 14th Amendment.
Got news for you. The Constitution are not laws place upon the people.
The constitution are the laws we the people placed upon them the government.
We the People didn't authorize them the government anywhere in the Constitution to punish any person for discrimination. We the people told them the government, they cannot discriminate. Although that hasn't been the case(Affirmative Action)
The Constitution doesn't limit the people... We are a free nation.
The US Constitution, limits All forms of government(the 14th amendment) Before the 14th, the State Constitutions were supreme... Because they all had the bill of rights incorporated.
Got news for you. The Constitution does place laws upon people. 100% freedom is a world ruled by bullies. While those who don't have power or might have no freedom at all. The Constitution is the instrument that balances freedom. We all give up a little freedom in order to maximize freedom for everyone.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
