It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Scalia, Supreme Court Justice, Says Women Do NOT Have Constitutional Protection!!

page: 1
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 09:23 AM
link   
NO CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION FOR FEMALES link


WASHINGTON -- The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not protect against discrimination on the basis of gender or sexual orientation, according to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

In a newly published interview in the legal magazine California Lawyer, Scalia said that while the Constitution does not disallow the passage of legislation outlawing such discrimination, it doesn't itself outlaw that behavior:

In 1868, when the 39th Congress was debating and ultimately proposing the 14th Amendment, I don't think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex discrimination, or certainly not to sexual orientation. So does that mean that we've gone off in error by applying the 14th Amendment to both?

Yes, yes. Sorry, to tell you that. ... But, you know, if indeed the current society has come to different views, that's fine. You do not need the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the current society. Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't. Nobody ever thought that that's what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. You don't need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. All you need is a legislature and a ballot box. You don't like the death penalty anymore, that's fine. You want a right to abortion? There's nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn't mean you cannot prohibit it. Persuade your fellow citizens it's a good idea and pass a law. That's what democracy is all about. It's not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society.


Here you go, folks. The Supreme Court says so. Yet we still have people who say we do not need feminists, or people fighting for only women's rights.

Oh we don't?

Yes, now more than ever, us Female Fighters need to stay vigilant, and ever protective of our rights.

Here we have Scalia saying women are not protected under our constitution. On this board we have posters disguising misogyny under the bleat,

Women already have equal rights, they don't need special rights.

There blows that excuse out the water.





I just don't know what to do about this situation, but maybe some discussion on the topic will start some ideas flowing.



+11 more 
posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by hotbakedtater
 


You already said women have equal rights, why would anyone need more retards like modern day feminists?

Since they already have equal rights, what rights do you think they should be "fighting" for?



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 09:29 AM
link   
I'm a male but I consider myself a feminist because I'm strongly against sexism and discrimination towards females. I'm not sure why they're saying women aren't protected by the constitution. They just need to stop the bull**** and deal with the fact that women are needed just as much as men, sometimes more.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 09:34 AM
link   
The 14th amendment says any person, unless Judge Scalia would like to hold arguments that women are not people.

What their intent was, no one can say unless we go back in time and ask them. But, regardless, the wording of the 14th amendment still has the effect of protecting women. It does unless, and I reiterate, Scalia would like to argue that women are not people.

In any case, this is Scalia, who is known to be about a mile right of center anyhow.
edit on 4-1-2011 by gnosticquasar because: clarification and expanding



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 09:42 AM
link   
Sexism hurts everyone - especially broads

(hint - this was a joke)



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 09:45 AM
link   
It's just one sexist, homophobic SC judge, not the entire Supreme Court. And Scalia an idiot if he thinks the 14th Amendment doesn't protect women.

14th Amendment



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.


Women are persons and equal protection under the law is guaranteed.

This is why the Constitution must be seen as a living document. As our society matures and evolves, and true equality remains our goal, we must be reasonable when interpreting the Constitution. Maybe the original intent was to protect only land-owning white men, but that's not how our society functions in modern times. Scalia, come join the rest of us in the 21st Century.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 09:48 AM
link   
Well, there's a dumb argument.

Show me in the Constitution where it says people with the last name of Williams have Constitutional protection. Oh, it doesn't? Then that must mean they don't.

Show me where Scalia said women don't have Constitutional protection. Oh, you can't?

That's what I thought.

Did you even read what he said, or is this just a knee-jerk response? Don't even bother to answer. The answer is already abundantly clear.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic


This is why the Constitution must be seen as a living document. We must be reasonable when interpreting the Constitution.


Lol who decides what reasonable is? The Constitution does not need an interpretation, the words are right there on the paper for everyone to see.

Scalia is 100% wrong, but the entire notion that the Constitution is a living document is laughable. There is a reason we have an amendment process.

It seems every time someone wants to jam some freedom restricting assbackwards idea down our throats, said idea is preceded by the word "reasonable". Why is that?


edit on 4-1-2011 by BigTimeCheater because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by hotbakedtater
 


Explanation: S&F!


Here you go, folks. The Supreme Court says so. Yet we still have people who say we do not need feminists, or people fighting for only women's rights.

Oh we don't?

Yes, now more than ever, us Female Fighters need to stay vigilant, and ever protective of our rights.


OL stands beside you and will fight with and for equal rights for all!

But let me Caveat that 1st.

1stly Disclosure: OL is a male.

2ndly Having assertained from reading the linked article that Justice Scalia's constituitional law point of veiw is about equality but it is an equality that make us all POORER as a result of the fact the the Government [a facet of TPTB] could also just as easily discriminate against men as well as any other demographic they pick and choose to their whims delight.


3rdly I choose and equality that ENRICHES us all!

Scalia doesnt have the balls or the stomach for either us all or the ENRICHMENT! He seems to be a selfish sort and equality is severely dimished in both his eyes and his inherent capacity to be a decent human being as a result!


Personal Disclosure:
OL is an Australian and so this doesn't affect me in a national sense but as a human being I'm completely OUTRAGED at this kind of
as its effects are DEVESTATING!



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigTimeCheater
Scalia is 100% wrong, but the entire notion that the Constitution is a living document is laughable.


Scalia believes in original intent. In other words, he takes the framers' intent into account when interpreting the Constitution. According to the framers, the INTENT of the 14th Amendment was to grant citizenship and protection to slaves, not to protect women against discrimination.

If the Constitution isn't a living document, why was there built in a means to change it and rework it as we mature? It's not a dead document.



edit on 1/4/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 10:23 AM
link   
The 14th Amendment Original Intent



The rights granted by the 14th Amendment are still codified to this very day in Title 42 of the United States Code, at §1981:

All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.

You will see from the emphasized phrase that §1981 (which codifies the intention and limits of the 14th Amendment) makes it clear that "persons" ["a separate class of person" - Dred] are to be treated the same as "white citizens". The meaning is so clear that it is amazing anyone would contend otherwise.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   
The judicial system is corrupt. Anyone with a half wit of sense could figure that out. And the comments that the Constitution is a living document is laughable at best. Those whom have difficulty reading comprehension skills shouldn't be attempting to interpret the constitution to begin with.
Lastly, anyone knows that the 14th protects all whom are citizens.


1. 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.


No where in the Constitution does the 14th Amendment specifically identify gender.

Laughable at best~



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic


If the Constitution isn't a living document, why was there built in a means to change it and rework it as we mature? It's not a dead document.



edit on 1/4/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)


It's not a living document in the sense that it simply doesnt change meaning over time.

That is precisely why there is an amendment process. If the passage of time warrants a change, the process is there to do exactly that. The words of the document themselves do not change over time.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigTimeCheater
It's not a living document in the sense that it simply doesnt change meaning over time.


When the 14th Amendment was written, it was to grant and citizenship and protect the rights of slaves (as has been shown). That's what it meant. Today, it means ALL citizens. The meaning changed, while the words did not.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by BigTimeCheater
It's not a living document in the sense that it simply doesnt change meaning over time.


When the 14th Amendment was written, it was to grant and citizenship and protect the rights of slaves (as has been shown). That's what it meant. Today, it means ALL citizens. The meaning changed, while the words did not.




Therein lies the problem.

The same could be said about how the feds perverted the general welfare clause to include the plethora of unconstitutional social programs.

Applying modern day definitions to centuries old writings is the signature of a fool.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   
I don't understand why he would say such a thing if he did not mean thats how he would judge a case if it came across his desk. ??

I admit I am not the brightest bulb when it comes to the particulars of the law, but he is saying women are not protected under the constitution. So, is he saying if I were fired from my job for being a female, that I cannot fight this under the constitution?
Is he saying it is legal to discriminate against me on the basis of my gender? And is he saying he would not entertain cases of female discrimination? Is he saying we need a law to protect women?



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigTimeCheater
The Constitution does not need an interpretation, the words are right there on the paper for everyone to see.

Scalia is 100% wrong, but the entire notion that the Constitution is a living document is laughable. There is a reason we have an amendment process.


Really?

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." Thomas Jefferson



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by hotbakedtater
 


Is Title VII of the Civil Rights Act not enough for you?


That provides the protection you think doesnt exist.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


Yes really.

Which is exactly why there is an amendment process.

Perhaps you've heard of it?

Constitutional Amendment Process



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by hotbakedtater
 


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Redundant. Check Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He's making an academic point. Judges shouldn't be saying what they want it to be, or think it should be, but interpreting (as strictly as possible, in my opinion) what they believe it is.

If the 14th Amendment did it all, why would we need the above Act, or the 19th Amendment for that matter?


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join