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

reply to post by Magnum007


With your example, that is the clear and cut reason of the Amendments. Amendments allow for the " change " of the times. Not the changing of the establish rule. The amendments specifically point out cases, ( using your example ), the amendments would address the felons and prevent them form owning firearms legally. Thus the reason why Amendments prevent the greater group from being infringed by a few morons.

In addition, Here is an excerpt from Federalist No. 78 that Alexander Hamilton penned.

If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

en.wikipedia.org...

Here is an interesting tid bit, which supports my previous post:

"no scholar to date has identified even one participant in the ratification fight who argued that the Constitution did not authorize judicial review of Federal statutes. This silence in the face of the numerous comments on the other side is revealing."

Source: Yoo, John C.; Prakash, Saikrishna (2003). "The Origins of Judicial Review". University of Chicago Law Review 69.

reply to post by hotbakedtater


S&F

imho - if we don't have rights, we don't have responsibilities.

So why do we pay taxes, follow laws? ...Any way to go on strike, challenge the Constitution according to Scalia's terms?

Scalia is correct.

The 14th Amendment does not apply to sexual discrimination, nor racial discrimination, nor orientational discrimination, nor age discrimination, nor any other specific form of discrimination. It establishes citizenship for all persons (the last I heard, "person" was non-gender-specific) born in the United States and prohibits any legal discrimination against any citizen intrastate. If any citizen, male, female, otherwise, black, white, purple, green with yellow polka-dots, etc. move from California to Alabama, Alabama must recognize them as a citizen of the United States of America just as California did and cannot deny them the rights which they possess as such a citizen.

Just because pumping the gas pedal in my car does not start the motor, it does not mean the car has no method for me to start the motor. That's why there's a starter key. If I started complaining that my car wouldn't start because I was just pumping the gas pedal, you'd think I was crazy! But it's the same thing as this thread. Just because the 14th Amendment does not specifically apply to gender, it does not follow that such discrimination is legal. Instead, as has already been mentioned several times in this thread, there are laws on the books that prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender, and these laws, as long as they do not violate the Constitution, constitute the very basis of our legal system.

The Constitution does not establish law; it provides the framework under which law may be established. The Constitution also does not say speeding is illegal; the law does. It does not say rape is illegal; the law does. It does not say fraud is illegal; the law does.

So no, the Constitution does not say gender discrimination is illegal. It doesn't have to; the law does. The Constitution also does not say that gender discrimination must be legal, so the law is therefore Constitutional and valid

Might I suggest actually trying to understand what someone says before slamming them? I'm sure Scalia has plenty of things he has done which are well-worthy of complaint; trying to twist his words just makes those who understand them think you have no idea what's going on.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


You stole my thunder. You are precisely correct.
Many, many applause for someone who understands the constitution and it's amendments.

Just relax ladies. When Obama intrduces Sharia Law, any rights you thought you had will be gone.

Just a thought to ponder, trying to put things in perspective. . . . . .

The meaning of the words in the constitution are made clear in the founding documents.
www.usa.gov...
All courts refer to these documents when handing down a ruling on Constitutional issues. There are too many cases to cite where they are specifically used to render a judgment.
Legal terminology is not defined in the same way as normal speech. This is the dictionary to use in understanding the Law: en.wikipedia.org...; also www.burtonslegalthesaurus.com...
Online at www.thefreedictionary.com...

Um, I clearly admitted I am not well schooled on this issue. Thus the reason for the thread, for discussion and learning, and hopefully understanding.

I guess the hillbilly learned us!

can't help but wonder why he said it though...

is he and his neocon pals planning on stripping away women's rights?
or is he and neocon buddies hoping now will realize that hey the lord giveth, the lord can taketh away, and bring up the era again. I remember when the era was in debate some, but if I am remembering right, the most notable argument against it was that it would lift any protections in the law women had from the draft. it was during the viet nam war, and well, the idea of women being drafted into such a combat wasn't that pleasing to most women, not to mention the men who were in the armed forces!

so, well, could he be hoping that they bring it back up, and it gets passed, so the policies his neocon buddy bush put into office that put women into a combat situation even though military policies still prohibit it?

one thing is for sure, if they bring it again, that one argument has been made null and void, women are in the military and in a combat setting, there's a better chance that it would be passed!

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
I guess the hillbilly learned us!

Who is the hillbilly?

reply to post by hotbakedtater


Redneck guy~

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
Um, I clearly admitted I am not well schooled on this issue. Thus the reason for the thread, for discussion and learning, and hopefully understanding.

Ya see little lady? Everythings ok so dont trouble your head little girl..

Run along now sweetcheeks and get the dinner on


*runs out the room very quick as hotbakedtater gets her gun*

reply to post by hotbakedtater

Your OP was worded so as to cast shame on Scalia, when in this case he is obviously correct according to Constitutional Law.

Look, I don't exactly worship Scalia either, but I have to say that compared to some of the other justices (who have admitted on occasions to use opinion, foreign law, unratified treaties, etc. to make decisions), he is a very well-educated, patriotic, and intelligent person. Conservative? Yes, but isn't that what we need on the Supreme Court? Remember that in ages past, and in some countries even today, none of us would be able to browse the Internet freely, or perhaps even own a computer. It is the Constitution that prohibits the removal of these rights and liberties we tend to take for granted today. It has worked well for over 200 years, and has provisions, albeit properly difficult, to be amended to adapt to changing conditions if needed.

'Re-interpret' the Constitution, even one word of it, and you open the door for the rest of it to be 're-interpreted'. And if the entire document is then open to someone's 'interpretation', then it comes down to the fact that a Royal Class of 9 robe-wearing individuals, every one of them just as fallible as the next man or woman, has been instituted, appointed through an election process which is already skewed to reflect two broad unpopular agendas instead of the actual desire of the citizenry. And considering that the Bill of Rights itself is a part of that Constitution, that should be an extremely scary scenario for anyone who values freedom.

Royalty has the disadvantage that sooner or later, someone will come into ultimate power that does not like you. History teaches us that.

I do not want to see American Royalty. Do you?

TheRedneck

Then its time the judge retire.. The Constitution applies equally to ALL CITIZENS .. Not just a chosen few..

Originally posted by beezzer
Just relax ladies. When Obama intrduces Sharia Law, any rights you thought you had will be gone.

Just a thought to ponder, trying to put things in perspective. . . . . .

And yet again for the slow group..
Sharia law applies to muslims ONLY ... Non-muslims ARE NOT subject to sharia law.

Originally posted by Expat888

Originally posted by beezzer
Just relax ladies. When Obama intrduces Sharia Law, any rights you thought you had will be gone.

Just a thought to ponder, trying to put things in perspective. . . . . .

And yet again for the slow group..
Sharia law applies to muslims ONLY ... Non-muslims ARE NOT subject to sharia law.

suppose that would apply to all but their victims ... muslim or not

OP, i don't understand your fuss. The 14th has nothing to do with individual rights or discriminatory actions based upon them. The 14th addresses citizenship and the refrain of the states to impede, deny or discriminate citizenship status granted by the Fed.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
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.

Scalia is either being misquoted, or has suffered a stroke or gone insane.

Clearly the 14th applies to all citizens.

If someone says it excludes you ladies, then I volunteer my firearms and my life to support and defend your rights.

We men have screwed up this world enough; the worst thing imaginable would be to exclude women from the political process.

Originally posted by yeahright

If you can find me a valid link anywhere that describes the duties of a judge that doesn't include interpretation of the law, I'd like to see it.

Easy.

Judge -
a public officer authorized to hear and decide cases in a court of law; a magistrate charged with the administration of justice.

Dictionary.com source

judicial [jü-'di-shel] Latin judicialis, from judicium judgment, from judic- judex judge, from jus right, law + dicere to determine, say 1 a: of or relating to a judgment, the function of judging, the administration of justice, or the judiciary b: of, relating to, or being the branch of government that is charged with trying all cases that involve the government and with the administration of justice within its jurisdiction

Findlaw.com Source

judged judging Old French jugier, from Latin judicare, from judic- judex judge, from jus right, law + dicere to decide, say 1: to hear and decide (as a litigated question) in a court of justice Example: 1judge a case 2: to pronounce after inquiry and deliberation

Findlaw.com Source part Deux

Judge : a public official vested with the authority to hear, determine, and preside over legal matters brought in court

Oops, another findlaw.com source

judge
1) n. an official with the authority and responsibility to preside in a court, try lawsuits and make legal rulings. Judges are almost always attorneys. In some states, "justices of the peace" may need only to pass a test, and federal and state "administrative law judges" are often lawyer or non-lawyer hearing officers specializing in the subject matter upon which they are asked to rule. The word "court" often refers to the judge, as in the phrase "the court found the defendant at fault," or "may it please the court," when addressing the judge. The word "bench" also refers to the judge or judges in general. Judges on appeals courts are usually called "justices." Judges of courts established by a state at the county, district, city or township level, gain office by election, by appointment by the Governor or by some judicial selection process in case of a vacancy. Federal judges are appointed for life by the President of the United States with confirmation by the U.S. Senate

Law.com Source

It shall be the duty of the Judge to conduct a fair and impartial hearing, to assure that the facts are fully elicited, to adjudicate all issues and avoid delay. The Judge shall have authority with respect to cases assigned to him, between the time he is designated and the time he issues his decision, subject to the rules and regulations of the Commission

OSHA's defintion of what a judge does

Odd, OSHA doesnt say anything about interpreting the law.

Even the Dept. Of Justices' own website has a kids glossary of terms, and interpretation isnt listed as the function of a judge.

Government official with authority to decide lawsuits brought before courts. Other judicial officers in the U.S. courts system are Supreme Court justices

DOJ Kids Glossary


I can provide more sources if need be, I just figured you would accept those as being "valid".