I don't think they wanted anything like that in there.
I agree. I think those that passed the 14th amendment did so without trying to get substantially engaged in terms of what "equal" would actually mean, thus why they did not define it.
The Constitution does not establish the court system, just the Supreme Court.
The Constitution established the Supreme Court, as you say. The lower courts are simply extensions of that, and are utlimately superceded by the SCOTUS.
Well, that's a pretty basic word, well defined
Actually, it's by no means a "pretty basic word".
If I give you a $1 bill and another person a $100 bill, did I treat you equally? Depends on the context one wishes to view it. In terms of MONETARY VALUE, I absolutely didn't treat you equally. However, in terms of QUANTITY of items, I did treat you equally as you were both given ONE bill. Additionally, in terms of actions you could also say I treated you equally, as I both gave you one thing.
Was it equal? Was it not equal? For such a "basic" word, the reality of the situation is that it's far from basic. The inherent problem with the notion of "equal protection of the law" is that determining whether or not a particular thing is "equal" requires the individual making the determination to make a judgement call on the method of how they're determining said equality.
"Equal" is not an inheretly objective term when talking about these type of things. There is not some scientific test where you can feed information in and "ding" it will tell you in an objective and factual way whether the two different things are universally "equal". There is a subjectiveness to the determination based on how one is viewing it.
Like I said, we know what equal means. What are you for, a 75% reading of the Constitution?
Actually, we don't know exactly what equal means in every context, as I've stated above. I'm for a 100% reading of the Constitution, but not a 100% literalistic one.
This is why I don't believe Freedom of Speech applies only to thoughts expressed via sound, but rather also covers thoght expressed via words on an electronic medium like a message board. The constitution, using a 100% literalistic reading, does not actually suggest the government can't restrict your ability to express your thoughts on the internet, becuase the internet is not "speech". Another example would be the right to "keep and bear arms", the 2nd amendment. A 100% literalistic reading of the 2nd amendment would suggest the government can't infringe on one's ability to keep and bear arms, but says nothing of arm
aments or
use. A 100% literalistic reading and interpritation of the constitution would suggest that the government could significantly restrict a citizens right to purhcase or keep ammunition, or even their ability to
USE the arms that they are allowed to keep and bear.
A 100% literalistic reading of the constitution is an asinine one that renders what is an extremely enlightened work rather worthless as a foundational document of a nation.
Well, no, it's not. One has a racial component, and was does not.
That does ont matter. The 14th amendment does not preclude that citizens will have equal portection under the law in matters of race; it simply states they'll have equal protection of the law. Full stop. For someone who was previously arguing from the basis of a purely literalistic interpritation of the constitution it's funny that you now point to something that is in no way present within the constitution.
You are comparing one thing that includes all people, and another that separates them by race. Doesn't work.
Actually, I'm comparing one thing that includes all people, but seperates them by gender, with one that includes all peope, but seperates them by race. That does work. You jsut don't want to address that so you keep misrepresenting what I'm stating.
Well, now you are separating people based on sex.
Actually, I'm not "now" doing it. That's been what this discussion has been about, in terms of my post, for some time now.
And to be clear, my point is that the federal government does not have the power to define marriage, that is something for the States to decide. Whatever they decide, that's cool.
I agree, the federal government does not have the power to define marriage, that's something that the states should decide.
HOWEVER, the Constitution applies to the states as well, and thus the laws that the
states decide must have equal protection of the law bestowed upon all of it's citizens.
As long as the laws they decide on are constitutional, that's cool. If the laws they decide on are NOT constitution, that's not cool. Just as a state can't pass a law that violates the 2nd, nor too can it pass a law that violates the 14th.
