Words have established meaning. At least they did when the document was authored. In fact the framers even wrote down their thoughts, explaining what they meant when they wrote those words. Of course that's apparently no longer the case and it's a "living constitution", which means words mean whatever the ayatollahs of the current generation say they mean.
And some folks get absolutely apoplectic when everyone else won't agree with the "rights" they've invented for themselves out of thin air.
And the founders left plenty of leeway in what rights were being protected by the Constitution. The main purpose of the Constitution was to limit the government, not the people, when it comes to the rights of the people. This extended to states via the 14th Amendment. Still limiting the government, not the people, when it comes to rights. So the more rights the people have and the less unjustifiable restrictions in government, the closer we are in reaching what the founders set forth to do, make a country as free as possible.
Not quite. They left no leeway and strove to be clear as was possible in human discourse. Read the Federalist Papers, leeway was the opposite of what they were going for. The major debate over including rights was to enummerate or not enummerate (and leave this leeway you hang your hat upon). They chose to enummerate.
And what makes your interpretation pure and just, while mine is not?
Why is my more expansive interpretation of equal protection tyranny while your narrow interpretation isn't?
No, they choose to enumerate those rights which were most important to them at the time to be upheld. That is why we have the 9th and 10th Amendments, to specifically indicate that those first 8 were not the only rights people have.
Because, again, words have meanings that do not change once written. Those words may mean something else when written today, but the Constitution wasn't written today. "More expansive" is another way of saying that you don't like what the words mean and wish them to mean something different to suit your take on things.
In many cases, the people don't. You know how you can tell? If the people felt the Court was ruling something against their wishes, they could push for an Amendment to counteract that ruling. That is how the people are allowed to overcome Court rulings. If enough people really want it, they are free to make that Amendment.
And equal protection means equal protection, something homosexuals are being denied by not being allowed access to a private contract. The word "equal" doesn't change meaning, clownboy.
And equal protection means equal protection, something homosexuals are being denied by not being allowed access to a private contract. The word "equal" doesn't change meaning, clownboy.
Because, again, words have meanings that do not change once written. Those words may mean something else when written today, but the Constitution wasn't written today. "More expansive" is another way of saying that you don't like what the words mean and wish them to mean something different to suit your take on things.
And to whom do all those other rights fall to? Who determines all those other rights? The states and the people. NOT the feds, the courts, the states and the people once in a while.
What private contract? The contract in question is managed by the government and given by the government. There is no private contract involved in this discussion.
The people are considered to have rights up to the point where one person's rights conflict with another's or til the state can show that restrictions are necessary to further some legitimate state interest.
No, but the words "equal protection" don't mean to you what they did the framers. You're "expanded" them to allow you to have your way.
No, but the words "equal protection" don't mean to you what they did the framers. You're "expanded" them to allow you to have your way.
In many cases people don't know the court even ruled on a subject, but they show disapproval towards the action of the state all the same. There are many laws on the books right now that have been ruled constitutional that have no basis at all to be ruled as such, but that didn't stop the court doing just that. The people are ignored regularly in law and in the court, and it's actually pretty rare that the court ever decides against government power. In this case, they can rule for government power, and because removing government is not on the table, still look like they are ruling for freedom. All they are really doing however is ruling against a ban of an activity in exchange for the government just controlling the behavior instead.
Just because you stayed in a Holiday Inn Express doesn't make you a constitutional scholar. I love how some anonymous characters on an internet chat board think their constitutional scholars.
Tell you what since you think you're an expert and others aren't put your ****ing money where your mouth is and go try a lawsuit if you think your soooo correct.
The states and the people (via vote or whatever) are still restricted by the Constitution. Rights are for individuals. Groups have power to limit rights (to a point), while individuals still have those rights. And those rights are protected by the Constitution, via (in large part) by the Courts.
If they don't know that something has been ruled on, then they must be apathetic to that particular issue in the first place.
And yes, sometimes the Court gets it wrong. We've seen it many times in history. And it takes time to change. But there are always at least two sides in any case brought to the Court.
No, but the words "equal protection" don't mean to you what they did the framers. You're "expanded" them to allow you to have your way.
It's a contract between two private individuals. The government recognizes it and passes legislation dealing with it. The same can be said of an employment contract. Which is all a diversion from the real point:
Tell you what since you think you're an expert and others aren't put your ****ing money where your mouth is and go try a lawsuit if you think your soooo correct.
That is just assumption to your part.
Many things only get worse over time. Just look at how they interpret the welfare or commerce clause for proof that. Or how about how there is essentially fourth amendment free zones that have been sanctioned by the court.