NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/alt/fan/rushlim/11744

Text File | 1993-01-06 | 5.0 KB | 98 lines

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Path: sparky!uunet!stanford.edu!kronos.arc.nasa.gov!butch!LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM!J056600
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: What is the 14th Amendment?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 93 12:36:13 PST
Lines: 87

In <[e-mail]>, Robert Johnston writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
>>
>>   I've seen too many people here who claim to understand the Constitution
>>also state that Colorado's Amendment 2 violates the 14th Amendment to the U.S
>>Constitution.  Well, it doesn't.
>>   Back in the Civil War era (Civil War?  There's an oxymoron), rights were
>>being systematically denied to blacks by state and local governments.  The
>>Bill of Rights guaranteed that the *federal* government (Congress, actually)
>>could not deny the protections of the Bill of Rights to anyone.  That still
>>left that ability to the state and local governments. The 14th Amendment was
>created primarily to keep the Bill of Rights binding at state and local levels
>of government.  It did not--and still does not--apply to private entities. The
>>14th Amendment is *only* binding on state and local governments. Read the text
>>of it again.  It does NOT address private discrimination at all.
>>   That doesn't mean that private discrimination is a good thing.  In fact, th
>>Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1991 would be a redundant waste of time if the
>>14th Amendment covered private discrimination.  But in no way can it be said
>>that the Constitution provides protection against discrimination by non-
>>governmental entities.
>   You can say that CO 2 violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (though I don't
>>think that sexual orientation is covered by it), but certainly not the 14th
>>Amendment.  If you re-read the Bill of Rights and the other amendments, you
>will see that the Constitution was written to limit the powers of the *federal
>>government* only--with later amendments (such as the 14th) which also force
>>state and local *governments* into compliance.  There is nothing--repeat,
>>NOTHING--in the Bill of Rights or subsequent amendments about limiting the
>>powers of *private* businesses or *private* citizens.
>>   Perhaps allowing discrimination against gays is wrong, but it isn't a
>>Constitutional question.  It will take either a Constitutional amendment or a
>>law passed by Congress which is found to be constitutional to legally prevent
>>it.  Sorry, folks.  That's just the way it is.  Try to change it if you don't
>>like it.
>>
>>

>Let me read the 14th again

>" Nor shall any state deprive any person of life,liberty, or property,
>witout due process of law,"

>You are right so far, BUT there is more:

>"nor deny to any person within its juristiction the equal protection
>of the laws.

>The colorado amendment directly contradicts this clause, as it prohibits
>equal protection.

Preferential treatment and affirmative action laws are not *equal* protection.
Equal opportunity, yes.  Affirmative action, no.  From what I can tell, it
doesn't deny *equal opportunity*--just *affirmative action*.  There is a
difference in those two terms, though they are often (mistakenly) used inter-
changeably.

In fact, in light of the passage you quoted above, laws which give special
protected status to some groups and not others could also be seen as a viola-
tion of the 14th Amendment!  In other words, we could make a case that
Affirmative Action is unconsitutional by your interpretations.

It does not (as written) *prohibit* equal protection.  It prohibits "victim
status" which is *more than* equal protection.  And besides, it isn't the
state government doing the so-called discrimination--it's individuals and
private entities within the state.  Yet the state of Colorado isn't doing the
discrimination "within its jurisdiction."  It merely prevents private entities
from being forced to give gays special treatment.  I'm not claiming for a
moment that it will be treated as such; some will see it as an excuse to
discriminate.  It may be against the spirit of the 14th, but not the letter.

I realize that sounds like doublespeak, but when we're talking about law and
the legalese language, splitting hairs really is in order.  Don't make it
sound like I favor the Colorado action--I don't.  Yet at the same time let's
be careful about cheapening the Constitution with overly broad interpretations
which basically make it a worthless document.

>Literacy is a wonderful thing. Try it sometime.

Thanks for the non-substantive ad-hominem attack.  It sure makes you a better
debater and gives you loads of credibility.  I'm sure it makes you feel better
too, so have a nice day.


Tim Irvin
******************************************************************************
"In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that
 for religious rights." -- James Madison, Federalist #51