From: sog@craycos.com (Steve Gombosi)
Newsgroups: co.general,co.politics
Subject: Re: Constitution
Date: 11 Nov 92 19:33:23 GMT
Distribution: co
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation

In article <1992Nov10.233135.6240@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <1992Nov10.171503.412@ncar.ucar.edu> holcomb@sylvester.cgd.ucar.edu (Katherine Holcomb) writes:
>>Amendment XIV, Section I:
>>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.  No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
>>abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor
>>shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without
>>due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
>>protection of the laws.
>
>>from those with power.  An example might be seen in the gradual evolution
>>over the past 124 years (the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868) of the
>>definition of the word "person."  The 14 and 15th Amendments were intended
>>to protect blacks, yet for quite a while after their ratification, "person" 
>>still meant, to the courts, "white male," or, at best, sometimes "male." It 
>
>Actually, the Fourteenth Amendment doesn't refer to "person"s: It refers
>to "citizens" and very clearly defines who "citizens" are. 

Yes, it does, Frank - look at the very first sentence (she's quoting verbatim).
See the second word? Spell it out. P-E-R-S-O-N? What does that spell?
Person! Good boy! You get a gold star for legal scholarship! 

When the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment was not sufficient to
grant women suffrage, it *EXPLICITLY* stated that women were not "persons"
(yes, they used the word) within the meaning of the Amendment. 

>The Court
>was playing games with the meaning of "privilages or immunities" or
>"due process of law" or "equal protection of the law." 

Nope, they were playing games with the meaning of the word "person." ;-)

>In fact, they
>still do that today (the liberal Warren and Burger Courts were the
>worst offenders in this regard, although they invented "creative"
>meanings for the sake of, or against, different groups.)
>
>>required a specific amendment to the US Constitution to guarantee women the 
>>vote, even though a strict reading of the 14th and 15th Amendments should 
>>automatically grant women the vote.  (The 15th Amendment guarantees the vote to 
>>"citizens.")
>
>No, you are confusing sufferage and citizenship. If all citizens could
>vote, this would let 5-year olds cast ballots. The Fifteenth Amendment
>simply said citizens could not be barred from voting on the basis of
>race. A later Amendment said this couldn't be done on the basis of sex
>either.
>
>>The only non-political argument that the sponsors of 2 can make in defense
>>against the 14th Amendment is that their amendment really only prohibits
>>any unit of government from making laws which protect homosexuals, it does
>>not really legalize discrimination against homosexuals.  However, this seems
>>to me a tortuous argument.  It is still legal to make laws to protect, say,
>>religious fundamentalists.  Denial of any chance of protection seems to me
>>to be the same as legalization of discrimination.
>
>I think a court would see it differently: They are not denied any
>chance of legal protection. Amendment 2 can be legally repealed so
>_some_ chance does exist (The Supreme Court consistantly avoids
>questions of easy such things might be, calling them "political
>questions" beyond the scope of the Court's jurisdiction.) 

"This law doesn't discriminate unconstitutionally because it can be 
repealed?" Frank, that has to be the most inane line of reasoning 
I've ever heard. By that argument, Jim Crow laws in the South weren't
discriminatory because they could be repealed, too. You don't really
believe that, do you?

>The
>Court usually considers what laws _exist_ not which laws _might_
>exist. They can't really say for sure what might happen, so they
>don't like to base judgements on this. Also, there is a well
>established doctorine that a government doesn't have to solve _all_
>discrimination problems at once: Anti-discrimination laws against
>racial discrimination don't deny equal protection to women (which 
>could be argued since the law protects one group but not another.)

But laws which protect against racial discrimination don't specifically
exclude women from protection. Amendment 2 singles out one particular 
group of people and states that they cannot seek protection under
state law. That's denial of equal protection. If Amendment 2 prohibited
claims of discrimination based on *any* sexual orientation, that would
be different - but 2 doesn't do that, since it's intended purpose is
to give us heterosexuals privileges that our gay and lesbian fellow
citizens are denied. The language of Amendment 2 doesn't state that
"sexual orientation" can't be a basis for a claim of discrimination,
it states that homosexual or bisexual orientation can't. It would be perfectly 
legal for the City of Colorado Springs to pass an ordinance prohibiting 
discrimination against straights, but it can't (as if it would!) pass 
one extending the same protection to gays. That's just the way CFV wants it:
inequitable as all Hell.

Look, Frank...speaking as a Boulder landlord I appreciate your effort
to spare me the trouble of costly litigation, but it's quite unnecessary.
Honest.

Steve
Newsgroups: co.general,co.politics