<p>OK. 14th Amendment: “[no state shall] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Equal protection of the laws. John can mary Jane, and enjoy a variety of legal rights and responsibilities which follow from that. Sue can’t marry Jane. Where’s the equal protection in that?</p>
<p>Plain language. Strict construction. You will undoubtedly have a very tidy justification for why the 14th Amendment doesn’t require the states to allow gay marriage - but you won’t find it in a strict construction of the text of the Amendment itself.</p>
<p>Scalia would say that there’s nothing in the Constitution about marriage, period. Of course, different states have come out differently on the issue of gay “marriage,” so that sets up a potential Supreme Court case involving “full faith and credit,” wherein one state’s marriage and divorce laws must be honored by another. But that hasn’t happened yet. And different states don’t honor each other’s gun laws, either–that’s never been adjudicated by the Supremes. Which is why some state legislatures are dealing with the issue of gay marriage on their own. Democracy is messy, but having every dispute resolved by the robed ones, while (supposedly) neat, isn’t democracy. It simply moves tough issues out of the realm of democratic discourse.</p>
<p>Not to mention that gender has always been an acceptable division (or are you trying to say that gender specific bathrooms, showers, dorms, schools are the moral equiv of Jim Crow, as well?) Once again, niether here nor there.</p>
<p>There’s nothing in the constitution about marriage. The only place it even really comes into play is full faith and credit. Rest assured, the equal protection clause was not added to “guarantee gay marriage.” You have to look at intent as well as words (as Scalia does). Just like I don’t want 9 people making laws by their own judgement, I don’t want them making laws because contemporary (often partisan) rhetoric puts two things in the same camp (eg “equal protection” protecting against segregation and homosexuals rights). It’s just not their job, and I’m not willing to add it to the description, either.</p>
<p>Maize&Blue22, if affirmative action was unconstitutional, why hasn’t it been thrown out?</p>
<p>Have you ever read John Ogbu’s article “Caste and Education and How They Function in the United States”? African Americans are still getting the short end of the stick, even with affirmative action.</p>
<p>I’m familiar with Ogbu, but it doesn’t seem like you are. He places the blame for African underperformance on the black culture and disdain for scholarship - not the lack of AA. He’s the father of the “Acting white” thesis.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>because using the “living document” idea - 5 justices completely disregarded the text and intent of the constitution (read the scathing dissent).</p>
<p>In short, they said that giving certain races different protection under the law was not “denying to any person […] the equal protection of the laws”. (eg allowing for Universities - even public unis - to admit only blacks or give blacks and admissions boost, but not allowing universities to do the same for white students).</p>
<p>Counter-intuitive, huh? Think about it for a second. The idea of a living constitution said that giving certain races different protections under the law was not denying some people equal protection under the law.</p>
<p>under the authority granted by this ruling, everyone who agrees with this ruling will now be evicted from their property for the betterment of the economy.</p>
<p>-</p>
<p>marriage is not a right that is explicitly granted in the constitution therefore theres nothing for the supreme court to interpret. meaning that the states have the right to make their own laws regarding gay marriage under the 10th amendment.</p>
<p>dstark, I’m sure you’ve read this article, but perhaps forgot about it. It pretty much explains the short end of the stick. It’s a different issue, though, warranting its own (yet again) thread.</p>
<p>Driver, how does that link explain the short end of the stick? It’s a great link, but how does that explain the short end of the stick.
Maize&Blue22, Ogbu doesn’t always blame the African American culture.</p>
<p>Umm, one of his papers so harshly condemned the black culture in America it was protested and nearly caused a riot outside the Berkeley soc department in the mid 80’s.</p>
<p>Uh, hello? Marriage is governed by laws. If it wasn’t, no problem. But it is. Married people have legal rights, granted by the state, which establishes those rights by passing laws. The 14th Amendment doesn’t say <strong>which</strong></p>
<p>laws have to provide equal protection, it says “no law” can deny it. Simple language, really.</p>
<p>But M&B says “You have to look at intent as well as words (as Scalia does)” So now we’re reading the minds of people who died over a hundred years ago. <sarcasm on=“”> No room for “activism” in that, is there? <sarcasm off=“”></sarcasm></sarcasm></p>
<p>Like I said, pretending that your favorite legal theory is mandated by “strict construction” of the Constitution is BS.</p>
<p>Maize&Blue22, That’s true. However, he has also written work that explains the difference between immigrants that come to this country voluntarily and those that don’t.</p>
<p>Guess which group feels part of society and guess which group doesn’t?</p>
And the states have defined “marriage” in a particular way, which precludes all sorts of unions from using the term. Harems, for example. Brother marrying sister. Cousin marrying cousin. Mother marrying son. Most people appear to favor gay legal unions that would give them all the (extraconstitutional) employment benefit “rights” that currently drive the issue. And a Scalia Court would have no problem with states that chose to grant “gay union” rights, although the full faith and credit stuff might still have to be worked out, I suppose. Look, everyone who disagrees with someone on a social issue doesn’t have to be cast as Darth Vader.</p>
<p>exactly, laws. not a right granted by the constitution. its not a constitutional right to marry, its something covered by laws, meaning that the 10th amendment not the 14th amendment covers it</p>
<p>Uhhm, of course you have to look at what the words meant when they wrote them…</p>
<p>Are you really trying to say that using a careful, reasoned approach to studying what the words meant when they were written and ruling based on <em>gasp</em> what’s actually in the constitution is activism on par with making up whatever suits your ideology?!?</p>
<p>we can’t declare capital punishment unconstitutitonal as “cruel and unusual punishment” because capital punishment was around when we came up with the idea of no cruel and unusual punishment and was obviously not procluded under that provision.</p>
<p>is “activist” on par with saying:</p>
<p>It doesn’t matter that the wording and intent of the constitution says no affirmative action. Social justice demands that we toss what the actually constitution says and do, uhhm, the exact opposite on this one.</p>
<p>I just don’t get how you’ve come to that conclusion.</p>
<p>Actually, the words “affirmative action” do not appear in the Constitution. And I seriously doubt that the framers had any thought about those words might mean hundreds of years later (many of them owned people, remember?) So your confidence in what the “wording and intent” of the constitution says, based on its text as illumunated by what you think the framers really meant, as applied to a situation which didn’t exist and which they could hardly have even imagined, strikes me as less than convincing. You’re just as blinded by your own beliefs and prejudices as those you criticize; you just don’t see it because it’s <strong>your</strong> set of beliefs and prejudices. I may agree with you on some points, not on others, but I don’t believe that they are somehow based on a “purer” vision of Constitutional interpretation. My 2 cents.</p>
<p>The words of the 5th Amendment clearly and unequivocally mean that the government has the right to take private property for public use, as was done at the time the writers of the Bill of Rights wrote those words. The only limitation they placed on the taking was that there be just compensation.</p>
<p>They had no concept of corporations, and certainly no idea that corporations would ever be treated as “legal persons”, able to use bankruptcy laws to void their debts and with owners not held liable for any damages caused. (Hey, I wish activist Scalia & Co. would take that one on - especially as corporations are “private entities” created by legislatures for “public benefit”.) They had no concept of airports, baseball parks, or community or economic development corporations. They did, however, understand that property could be taken for public use that would benefit private parties. They knew that as it was already frequently done in areas around harbors when town fathers wanted to expand them. And they also knew that it was being done by towns and cities without any recourse to the federal courts.</p>
<p>So it was really a very narrow decision. It already being established clearly that private property could be taken for public use, and public use already being broadly understood at the time the Constitution was written, the only remaining question was whether the federal courts should intervene in decisions by state and local legislative branches regarding what constitutes “public use”. I imagine that a similar decision could be rendered regarding what compensation is “just”, with activist justices like Scalia calling for broad, new federal powers to intervene in such decisions. </p>
<p>As to whether it was a “wise” decision on the part of the local municipality to take private property for just compensation for this purpose, that’s an another matter entirely.</p>
<p>Mini, how dare you spoil a perfectly good shouting match by staying on topic, being rational, and making perfect sense? Go to your room and don’t come back until you’ve written “I’m going to flog my favorite hobby horse in response to every post I see” 100 times!</p>
<p>the question at hand boils down to whether taxing corporations consists of public use of land or if the public actually has to have access to the land and be able to use it, i.e. it be owned publicly for the land to be considered under public use.</p>