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.
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.
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.
Married women weren't allowed to sue. Their husbands had to initiate lawsuits. They weren't afforded the full protection of the laws. Their husbands, fathers, male relatives were allowed to assault them, beat them, even rape them. Some limitations were placed on married women. Some limitations were placed on unmarried women. Marriage wasn't even always voluntary, even into the 20th century. Even today, there are people of certain cultures who live in the United States but who coerce young women into arranged marriages.
If you have no standing in court, if your husband or father is entitled to beat you, if your husband is entitled to rape you, then clearly you are not afforded full citizenship status. While the definition of "citizen" may not have changed, our society has changed in regards to which groups enjoy the benefits of "citizenship". Sadly, at the time of the 14th Amendment, women did not enjoy the benefits of being citizens. They fought for those benefits. But the 14th Amendment itself, as written, does not preclude female citizens, it is written inclusively, ALL citizens. And women have relied on that inclusion to gain the benefits of citizenship, of equal protection. Scalia is wrong.
This here is a great example of what the Republican Party stands for these days. According to our loud and proud Republican Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, it's just fine and dandy for the government to pass laws discriminating against women. I can't say I'm surprised considering that this is a party that wants to force women to receive invasive and unnecessary vaginal ultrasounds. Considering that LEADERS in this party have openly questioned womens' right to access birth control- while Viagra is covered by their own medical plans. Considering that Republicans have ADMITTEDLY done everything in their power to keep American citizens who they don't like from voting.
There are several reasons why I'll vote for Hillary. But THE single most compelling reason for me is that we can't allow the GOP to appoint more guys like Scalia. They're making every effort to drag us back into the 19th century. I don't agree with the Democrats on everything, but I will NOT support the GOP's repeated attempts to maintain, defend, and even reinstate discrimination.
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.
Says who? The Constitution is ALL about the delineation of the rights of state versus the federal government, and rights of individuals versus the federal government. Folks like you really need to READ the constitution and re-read it until you understand it. I can guarantee you will be surprised!
Married women weren't allowed to sue. Their husbands had to initiate lawsuits. They weren't afforded the full protection of the laws. Their husbands, fathers, male relatives were allowed to assault them, beat them, even rape them. Some limitations were placed on married women. Some limitations were placed on unmarried women. Marriage wasn't even always voluntary, even into the 20th century. Even today, there are people of certain cultures who live in the United States but who coerce young women into arranged marriages.
Again conflating issues.
Being the victim of unjust laws does not make the person so victimized a non-citizen. What demonstrates that such a person or class of people so victimized are not citizens is that statutes are not amended, or added to protect their rights as citizens. Do you agree that women are now far more protected in law than they were? Therefore we have enacted through statute the intent of the 14th.
The fact that almost all of these things are now no longer in existence means that society is catching up to what the 14th Amendment stated. It's not a failure of the Constitution that law takes time to catch up, we have a lot of law, and a slow legislature.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
If you have no standing in court, if your husband or father is entitled to beat you, if your husband is entitled to rape you, then clearly you are not afforded full citizenship status.
How do you determine that?
Were the Japanese interred during WW2 not afforded full citizenship status? Again it was an injustice but that does not mean that they were not, clearly as there have been reparations paid for the action, it has been determined that indeed their rights as citizens were violated. Were they not citizens then they may not have the rights to be violated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
While the definition of "citizen" may not have changed, our society has changed in regards to which groups enjoy the benefits of "citizenship". Sadly, at the time of the 14th Amendment, women did not enjoy the benefits of being citizens. They fought for those benefits. But the 14th Amendment itself, as written, does not preclude female citizens, it is written inclusively, ALL citizens. And women have relied on that inclusion to gain the benefits of citizenship, of equal protection. Scalia is wrong.
Scalia cannot be wrong, he clearly states that women have the right to equal protection of the law. They do. That does not mean that the 14th Amendment can be applied to everything because it does not apply to everything, it purely applies to Federal and State Governments.
Look the Constitution is pretty simple, it describes how the government is formed and how laws will be created, or amended. Therefore it can only apply to the groups that create, amend or adjudicate law. Those laws are statutes (or precedents which are clarifications of statute), and are legally binding on the people governed by the government. However as those governed cannot create laws directly the constitution is entirely transparent to them.
If you want to guarantee equal pay for equal work regardless of your sex, race, sexuality, hair color, eye color, or toe webbing, then it's not going to be constitutionally protected, it's going to be a statute.
If you want to guarantee non-discrimination in businesses, regardless of your sex, race, sexuality, hair color, eye color, or toe webbing, then it's not going to be constitutionally protected, it's going to be a statute.
If you want to guarantee non-discrimination in hiring practices regardless of your sex, race, sexuality, hair color, eye color, or toe webbing, then it's not going to be constitutionally protected, it's going to be a statute.
Because the Constitution does not bind the people from doing such things (and by inference business), it merely defines how the government is formed, and how laws are created.
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.
Who gave up my rights? You?
I didn't consent to be oppressed. Maybe you did, but not I.
This here is a great example of what the Republican Party stands for these days. According to our loud and proud Republican Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, it's just fine and dandy for the government to pass laws discriminating against women. I can't say I'm surprised considering that this is a party that wants to force women to receive invasive and unnecessary vaginal ultrasounds. Considering that LEADERS in this party have openly questioned womens' right to access birth control- while Viagra is covered by their own medical plans. Considering that Republicans have ADMITTEDLY done everything in their power to keep American citizens who they don't like from voting.
There are several reasons why I'll vote for Hillary. But THE single most compelling reason for me is that we can't allow the GOP to appoint more guys like Scalia. They're making every effort to drag us back into the 19th century. I don't agree with the Democrats on everything, but I will NOT support the GOP's repeated attempts to maintain, defend, and even reinstate discrimination.
No, the Fourteenth Amendment does not address sex or sexual orientation.
Are we debating whether it does or are you too ****ing lazy to get an amendment ratified by the states?
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.
