Virginia AG and the 14th Amendment

[Alferd_Packer]

Virginia’s attorney general Ken Cuccinelli has come out and publicly stated that the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment doesn’t apply to gays.

“State universities are not free to create any specially protected classes other than those dictated by the General Assembly,” Cuccinelli said. “Your question is, why is that not a violation of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause. Frankly, the category of sexual orientation would never have been contemplated by the people who wrote and voted for and passed the 14th Amendment,” he said.

While the basic premise might be true, it fails based on a simple “so-what?” The beuty of our constitution is that we don’t have to rewrite it every time to re-interpret it due to changing and evolving issues.

This is almost the exact same argument used by his predecessors in justifying the anti- miscegenation laws that were struck down by the Supreme court in Loving v. Virginia. The fact that the authors of the 14th amendment were most likely against miscegenation didn’t stop the application of that amendment toward those laws.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/06/28/cuccinelli-14th-amendment/

 

[TraneWreck]

Virginia’s attorney general Ken Cuccinelli has come out and publicly stated that the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment doesn’t apply to gays.



While the basic premise might be true, it fails based on a simple “so-what?” The beuty of our constitution is that we don’t have to rewrite it every time to re-interpret it due to changing and evolving issues.

This is almost the exact same argument used by his predecessors in justifying the anti- miscegenation laws that were struck down by the Supreme court in Loving v. Virginia. The fact that the authors of the 14th amendment were most likely against miscegenation didn’t stop the application of that amendment toward those laws.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/06/28/cuccinelli-14th-amendment/

That's sort of fascinating from a historical/political perspective. You rarely hear about the intent of people amending the Constitution. Somehow the original intent of people who were correcting problems with the original intent of the Constitution determines how we can apply that law?

The 14th amendment exists because the framers couldn't anticipate (or more accurately, didn't care) that states would deny their citizens liberties guarded by the Bill of Rights. Yet the people correcting for such a lack of anticipation must be followed because they couldn't anticipate states denying their citizens liberties guarded by the Bill of Rights.

What an odd perspective.

 

[KingMerv00]

"Your question is, why is that not a violation of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause. Frankly, the category of sexual orientation would never have been contemplated by the people who wrote and voted for and passed the 14th Amendment...”



And a mere 52 years later, women were allowed to vote.

The people who wrote and voted for the 14th amendment apparently sucked at contemplation.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

And a mere 52 years later, women were allowed to vote.

only after the passage of the 19th amendment.

That is the AG's arguemnt, that a new amendment needs to be passed to protect gays.

The opposing argument is that the 14th does exactely that, just like it protects the civil rights of different races, no new amendment is required.

 

[KingMerv00]

only after the passage of the 19th amendment.

That is the AG's arguemnt, that a new amendment needs to be passed to protect gays.

The opposing argument is that the 14th does exactely that, just like it protects the civil rights of different races, no new amendment is required.

My point was that many things were far from the minds of the authors of the 14th amendment because they weren't exactly normal by today's standards.

 

[ponderingturtle]

"Your question is, why is that not a violation of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause. Frankly, the category of sexual orientation would never have been contemplated by the people who wrote and voted for and passed the 14th Amendment...”



And a mere 52 years later, women were allowed to vote.

The people who wrote and voted for the 14th amendment apparently sucked at contemplation.

BUt think about what it means for getting rid of womens rights, the 14th amendment does not apply to women either. Genius!

 

[Grizzly Adams]

The beuty of our constitution is that we don’t have to rewrite it every time to re-interpret it due to changing and evolving issues.

Translation: the Constitution means whatever we can twist it to mean at any given time.

That's not beauty. That's a hideous monster. With tentacles and compound eyes. And a proboscis.

If the meaning of the Constitution can be changed without changing the Constitution, why even have it? What purpose can it possibly serve if it really means nothing at all, which is the only thing it can mean if its meaning is not fixed until we change it via the amendment process?

 

[quixotecoyote]

Translation: the Constitution means whatever we can twist it to mean at any given time.

That's not beauty. That's a hideous monster. With tentacles and compound eyes. And a proboscis.

If the meaning of the Constitution can be changed without changing the Constitution, why even have it? What purpose can it possibly serve if it really means nothing at all, which is the only thing it can mean if its meaning is not fixed until we change it via the amendment process?

Enjoy your second amendment protected muskets.

 

[Jekyll's Guest]

Enjoy your second amendment protected muskets.

Someone would convert them to full auto.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Enjoy your second amendment protected muskets.

BS. I didn't say the only things protected by the Constitution were the things that were around at its writing. I said the meaning of the text cannot be changed except by the people via Article V. It would take a real imbecile to believe the framers were so ignorant that they thought no advances in technology would occur.

 

[KingMerv00]

BS. I didn't say the only things protected by the Constitution were the things that were around at its writing. I said the meaning of the text cannot be changed except by the people via Article V. It would take a real imbecile to believe the framers were so ignorant that they thought no advances in technology would occur.

Doesn't matter anyway. If we can't "rewrite the Constitution" then incorporation never happened and the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to the states. Do you think states should have the power to ban guns?

 

[Gazpacho]

BS. I didn't say the only things protected by the Constitution were the things that were around at its writing. I said the meaning of the text cannot be changed except by the people via Article V.

It's the text, not the precise meaning of the text, that cannot be changed without an amendment. The constitution is not a formula and never has been. It's a framework.

The first paragraph of the 14th amendment is one of the more loosely worded parts of the constitution, and this was no accident. Congress could have limited its provisions to slave ancestry if that's all they intended.

 

[ponderingturtle]

BS. I didn't say the only things protected by the Constitution were the things that were around at its writing. I said the meaning of the text cannot be changed except by the people via Article V. It would take a real imbecile to believe the framers were so ignorant that they thought no advances in technology would occur.

So you agree then that women have no constitutional protection to equal rights, just the right to vote? No one ever gave women those rights. So they have to constitutional right to own property.

 

[KingMerv00]

So you agree then that women have no constitutional protection to equal rights, just the right to vote? No one ever gave women those rights. So they have to constitutional right to own property.

Incorporation never happened! Jim Crow is back!

 

[Beerina]

Virginia’s attorney general Ken Cuccinelli has come out and publicly stated that the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment doesn’t apply to gays.



While the basic premise might be true, it fails based on a simple “so-what?” The beuty of our constitution is that we don’t have to rewrite it every time to re-interpret it due to changing and evolving issues.

This is almost the exact same argument used by his predecessors in justifying the anti- miscegenation laws that were struck down by the Supreme court in Loving v. Virginia. The fact that the authors of the 14th amendment were most likely against miscegenation didn’t stop the application of that amendment toward those laws.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/06/28/cuccinelli-14th-amendment/

You can call up horror tales of what wouldn't have been applicable, given a more strict, non-evolving view. But there are also serious issues with that viewpoint, too.

Namely: Passing things that do not, in fact, have true widespread support. The amendment process was deliberately difficult, to make sure big changes were not just the result of spur-of-the-moment winds of political passion, touted by the latest person best at lying*.


If the big change is so great, most people will think so, and will still think so five years from now.






* A recent study showed politicians were the best at lying. Of course, your politician is honest and doesn't misuse the ability. I'm talking about the other guy's.

 

[Beerina]

"Your question is, why is that not a violation of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause. Frankly, the category of sexual orientation would never have been contemplated by the people who wrote and voted for and passed the 14th Amendment...”



And a mere 52 years later, women were allowed to vote.

The people who wrote and voted for the 14th amendment apparently sucked at contemplation.

Also, they were foolish for amending the Constitution to allow women to vote.

They should have done it a few years earlier by just proclaiming society has evolved, and therefore it's unconstitutional to prevent women from voting.


After all, how can bypassing the difficult amendment process cause problems?

 

[AvalonXQ]

Under federal law, sexual orientation is not a suspect classification. It falls under rational basis scrutiny.
Under state law, the attorney general is correct; the state doesn't have to give sexual orientation any higher scrutiny than the federal government does.

 

[KingMerv00]

Under federal law, sexual orientation is not a suspect classification. It falls under rational basis scrutiny.
Under state law, the attorney general is correct; the state doesn't have to give sexual orientation any higher scrutiny than the federal government does.

I don't think anyone is saying that isn't the current state of affairs.

In any event, I think discrimination based on sexual orientation should almost always fail rational basis review. In fact, I'm having trouble thinking of and example where I would find it to be rational.

 

[KingMerv00]

Also, they were foolish for amending the Constitution to allow women to vote.

They should have done it a few years earlier by just proclaiming society has evolved, and therefore it's unconstitutional to prevent women from voting.

It's an interesting debate actually. Which is worse? Giving women the vote without an amendment or treating women like **** for 52 more years?

 

[KingMerv00]

It's an interesting debate actually. Which is worse? Giving women the vote without an amendment or treating women like **** for 52 more years?

I should clarify.

I do not condone the subversion of the Constitution but I understand the moral dilemmas that lead people to stretch it.

If a country refused to grant women's sufferage, I'm not sure what I'd do. Clearly women deserve the right to vote, so do I start an armed insurrection to secure that right or do I use weasel words to make it happen? Are they or are they not morally identical? I don't have an answer.