Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,711 posts)
Sun Feb 15, 2015, 11:14 AM Feb 2015

I'm having a fun discussion about marriage equality on a sports board

My interlocutor suggested the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment only applied to the freedman. I have seen that narrow interpretation made many times.

My first retort is the Constitution is a living document.

My second retort was the Supreme Court invoked the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment to stop the Florida recount in Bush V Gore.

The Supreme Court found in Bush V Gore that recounts in select counties violated the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment because some counties were getting recounts and other counties weren't and it was unfair to those counties.


The Equal Protection clause thus has been interpreted to mean what it says; no person shall be deprived of his rights without due process of law.

4 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I'm having a fun discussion about marriage equality on a sports board (Original Post) DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2015 OP
So just what's the debate? Panich52 Feb 2015 #1
He said the Equal Protection Clause only applied to the newly freed slaves. /NT DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2015 #2
Well ... 1StrongBlackMan Feb 2015 #3
He's wrong. Panich52 Feb 2015 #4
 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
3. Well ...
Sun Feb 15, 2015, 12:17 PM
Feb 2015

ask him/her what he thinks about corporate personhood (I suspect he/she supports it), then float the idea that corporate personhood found its life in the 14th amendment.

Panich52

(5,829 posts)
4. He's wrong.
Sun Feb 15, 2015, 07:00 PM
Feb 2015

While Reconstruction and freed slaves were one reason, if they were the only ones covered, it would say so. Instead, it includes 'naturalized.' It tried to help explain just who had Constitutional rights.

As clear as it seems, we still needed 15 Amend to give blacks the vote, and 19th f/ women's vote.

RWers argue it doesn't apply to those it calls 'anchor babies,' or at least their parents -- but while that may be true, it mostly displays their bigotry. IMHO, if their kegal argument was solid, they wouldn't need the euphamism.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»I'm having a fun discussi...