Replies

It really wasn't until the era of judicial activism that the 14th was interpreted to require states to sanction interracial marriage and to integrate the schools.

Plessy set the standard that the courts would ignore the very discrimination that was at the heart of ratifying the 14th Amendment. That decision was wrong, and showed that at that time, justices did look at what the majority would want rather than whether or not someone's rights were being violated. Plessy led to 60 years of segregation and completely ignored rights violations. That the court finally found its cojones in the 60's does little to justify it's long history of ignoring its constitutional duties.

We should amend the constitution to protect the right to interracial marriage and to ban "Jim Crow" segregation. The amendment should contain a clause noting that it was being passed to constitutionalize the Brown and Loving Supreme Court rulings.

There is no need because those cases were clear violations of both due process and the absolute right to equal protection of the law. Now if you want to try and pass an amendment changing the 14th Amendment, fine. Try. Most today would likely say no.

If you had told people in 1960 that the courts would legalize abortion, ban crosses from public property, legalize sodomy, start pushing a gay agenda on us, and many other things, they'd have thought you were crazy, but that's indeed what happened.

I am complete agreement with many of those First Amendment issues that have been, IMO, wrongly decided. I sense this court will turn that around. But don't look to this court to reverse anything involving privacy or other rights issues, other than perhaps Roe. It is because I suspect Roberts and Alito both understand that all Americans have the same rights, and when a religiously conservative part of the Country tries to change that, the courts must step in. But I could be wrong there.

What will the next solidly liberal court do? Order women into combat? Strip churches that don't sanction abortion of their tax exemption? Order nationwide gay "marriage"? Legalize human-animal sex? Lower the age of consent to twelve? Throw the borders open?

I don't know, but I doubt many of those, since a number of those would clearly garner an outcry from most of the Nation. I am of course, less concerned with the outcome of 14th Amendment cases, because with the exception of affirmative action cases, I doubt anyone can show any harm from recognizing the rights of minorities. Has the Texas sodomy case caused any harm to anyone? Has the end of segregation caused anyone harm? You accept some of those but then not others. The USSC cannot operate that way. It cannot look to any group, whether liberal or conservative for guidance. And for rights cases, a tremendous history now exists for decision making using the criteria used over and over again.

There are general clauses in any Constitution that could be interpreted to mean anything.

Therein lies the problem. But since I lean in favor of the 14th Amendment, I will generally accept those decisions, whereas, I don't accept many if not most of the decisions relating to the First Amendment that prevent the reasonable expression of religious beliefs in public. So even there, I am opting for more freedom not less. One reason why I oppose a flag amendment. Restraint kept the courts from stepping in to stop slavery and a host of egregious actions by a majority that saw only white male landowners as any value to America. Times have changed, and we may not like it, but the courts will likely always have a say where the Constitution is concerned. Anytime Congress wants, it can stop it all, by simply passing a law preventing the courts from engaging in certain types of cases. It has done so in the past.

People often justify judicial activism by giving extreme examples of possible laws, such as your law prohibiting hispanics from owning kangaroos.

It was your law you raised. I merely said that in order for it to be a 14th Amendment issue, you had to prevent certain groups from owning kangaroos, not everyone in general.

But you might just as well give the court the power to do everything if that's your concern.

They don't do everything. But according to Article III, they have jurisdiction over everything related to the Constitution. That can always be changed if the Country wants to. Personally I don't. I am comfortable with where they are going, in spite of decisions I don't like.

The people and our legislators may on occasion pass some bad laws, but they usually pale compared to a lot of court rulings.

I have not seen a single court ruling since perhaps Plessy that came close to slavery laws, the black codes, laws permitting children to work 18 hour days for nothing, laws holding back classes of people from participating in the American dream either economically or through the vote. Those laws and many more were clearly done to keep white males in power, and to do an end run around the separation of church and state. The very law that started this thread is a prime example. America still has a way to go before there is true equality, but we are on our way. And to the best of my knowledge, no harm has come to anyone as a result of this transition. Much harm was caused before it though.

The founding fathers only wanted the Constitution to change via amendment. That's how conservatives go about it if we want to change the Constitution. But not liberals. We need to get a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress and three-fourths of the states to go along with any changes we wish to make. That requires overwhelming public consent. But liberals don't need that at all. All they need is a well positioned minority to change the Constitution.

That's because conservatives were in charge, while liberals represented the underclass. Conservatives represented the status-quo, while liberals searched for ways to bring everyone into the mainstream. The courts were the only way, if the ruling conservatives would not budge and permit the integration of all into society. Maybe it's now gone too far. I would submit it has with regard to the First Amendment and the commerce clause. But I'm generally satisfied with the 14th Amendment.

Equal Protection of the Laws, once ripped away from its original meaning, can mean anything.

You tend to get tied to the vague concept of original meaning. Congress didn't pass it with an original meaning. They certainly had an original reason for it, but the language is what is important. If Congress had intended it to sunset after the black codes had been eliminated fine. They should have put that into the wording. Today, we have only the wording to go by.

It's meaning is simple. A state simply cannot treat classes differently without good cause. That's not a difficult concept. The only real issue is how the courts will treat "good cause". We may agree sometimes, other times disagree.

I understand your concerns, but disagree as to the meaning of the 14th Amendment. I simply can't think of a rights issue other than affirmative action that actually causes harm to others. It may outrage your sense of morals such as the sodomy law being rightfully struck down, or it may traumatize those who see segregation as "keeping people where they belong", or it may insult someone's religious beliefs by striking down laws preventing birth control, but for the most part such decisions only help define rights and cause no harm to others. Whereas the First Amendment decisions do cause harm when they prevent simple prayers or expressions of religious belief... and they help no one. They are the polar opposite of the 14th Amendment decisions. I guess it's my turn to let you have the last word.