l****z
发帖数: 29846 | 1 美国最高法院大法官Antonin Scalia：宪法当然没要求基于性别的区别对待，问题是它
是否禁止区别对待，答案是没有；如果当前社会不喜欢，可以通过立法来解决
By Emi Kolawole
Justice Antonin Scalia has weighed in on the 14th Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution, leaving women's rights activists seething.
In an interview with California Lawyer, Scalia said that the Constitution
itself does not protect women and gay men and lesbians from discrimination.
Such protections are up to the legislative branch, he said.
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.
This is not the first time Scalia has weighed in on the 14th Amendment as it
relates to the protection of women's rights. In September, Scalia told an
audience at the University of California's Hastings College of the Law that,
"If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex...you have
legislatures."
In 1996, Scalia was the only justice to dissent in the Supreme Court
decision that ended the 157-year tradition of state-supported, all-male
education at Virginia Military Institute. In his dissent in the case United
States v. Virginia, Scalia wrote:
...the tradition of having government funded military schools for men is
as well rooted in the traditions of this country as the tradition of
sending only men into military combat. The people may decide to change the
one tradition, like the other, through democratic processes; but the
assertion that either tradition has been unconstitutional through the
centuries is not law, but politics smuggled into law.
(Source: California Lawyer) | l****z
发帖数: 29846 | 2 What is so vague about "equal protection?" Seems preety simple; if you're a
human being in the USA, you are entitled to equal protection. Men, women,
children, black, white, red, yellow, tall, short, fat, sick, old, young,
cripple. All are covered, Scalia. What is so confusing?
Posted by: ScottChallenger | January 4, 2011 9:45 AM
++++
Well Scott, then how about affording me equal protection with regard to
income taxes. Why should I pay 39.6% and others only 10% of their income.
+++
Posted by: Hawaiian_Gecko | January 5, 2011 4:04 PM |
|
