Forgive me rumination on American legal politics.
Antonin Scalia of the US Supreme Court has recently stated that the Constitution (of the United States of America) does not protect against gender discrimination and further, that the 14th amendment cannot be applied.
Scalia states that protecting the rights of women was not the original intention of the drafters of the legislation and therefore the 14th cannot used when it comes to inequality.
This is an important amendment; it was used in many important landmark cases involving equality, including Brown v. Board of Education. I would like to see Scalia argue how that one was constitutionally incorrect because no one intended it to be used for “separate but equal” education.
Here’s the actual language of the 14th relating to equality:
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.
So for this NOT to apply to women you would have to argue that women are not citizens or not people. Interesting. Scalia is being weasely however. Since the 14th amendment was made in response to overrule the Dred Scott decision (which stated that those who were slaves [black of course] could never become citizens), that somehow the 14th could only be applied to former black slave populations. Basically Scalia believes the drafters of the 14th were too stupid to realize that they wrote “person” and “citizen” instead of “former black slave” and “NO GIRLZ ALLOWED”.
Of course Scalia is “personally against” gender discrimination, the problem is the constitution.
Want to know when someone is A-OK with gender discrimination? When they try to disqualify women as persons and as citizens through the convoluted misinterpretation of the constitution. Just sayin’.
Then again how a man who believes that the Constitution should only be interpreted in direct relation to the conditions of the time it was written could ever be on the Supreme Court is probably the most disturbing aspect. It flies in the face of everything the US Constitution stands for.
The Constitution has stayed relevant because it is a living document. It can be updated and it is interpreted according to the world now, not 220 years ago. If the Constitution is to be interpreted according to a world long gone, it’s dead, and it’s only value is historical, not legal.
