Quote:
|
Originally Posted by greymule
Wreckless Endangerment
I love it.
the constitution is a "living" document
Translation: Judges ignore the intent of the framers and legislate from the bench.
|
1st... Obviously, the founding fathers did not have ANYTHING to do with the 14th Amendment, considering it wasnt ratified until after the civil war, with the south only agreeing to vote for it virtually at the point of the bayonet.
So no more "founding fathers" stuff regarding the 14th Amendment.
2nd .. virtually the very first supreme court 14th Amendment ruling said "separate but equal" is legal..
women didnt get the "right to vote" until much later... which required its VERY OWN amendment... after even the _15th_ amendment was ruled not to grant the right to vote.
So lets not get to nostalgic about this Amendment in terms of History.
We MUST get modern with this amendment (living document part), since nothing in the past concerning libertarian "But the founding fathers..." type arguments apply to this Amendment... in fact, until Brown Vs Education, argument can be made this Amendment didnt mean jack squat.
NO rights of an individual citizen are DEGRADED by this law. Therefore IMO, the constitutional argument in opposition to this is entirely moot.
If the law read "All sports officials except black sports officials", then you might could make some argument.
It is an enhancment concerning a position, similar to the ones involving Firefighters, peace officers etc in the performance of their duties.
Furthermore, it is a state law.. not a federal law.
I would certainly concur that the country today is in no way as it was envisioned by the Founding fathers, especially interms of the the Federal Government.. but rational argument must be made against this law.. and a statement concerning "Founding fathers and the 14th Amendment" is more than laughable.. not only considering the date ratified, but the rights supposedly protected during those times by the constitution as a whole .
A law that said "Umpires MAY be attacked" would violate equal protection, because Umpires would then have their rights degraded.
What is granted to umpires here that all others are denied?
Nothing.
The test the court wants to apply is: who is discriminated against by the law?
If the answer is "no one" - then the 14th amendment argument falls on its face.
Im not arguing for or against the law.. the law is obviously just lip service.
Im addressing the constitutionality of the law.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dakota
Fine, but why does assaulting an official over a game ejection result in a greater penalty under the law than assaulting your neighbor because he asks you to leave his property? Does your neighbor not deserve the same protections as a game official? Is the fan a greater threat to society than the hot-tempered neighbor?
|
Dakota's argument above is obviously without merit, since it IS NOT legal to assualt your neighbor and the neighbor has every "protection" (i.e. state recourse against the person) that an umpire does.
The 14th Amendment doesnt restrict the state from passing laws, additional laws, attempting to protect certain jobs through laws... its restricts the state from passing laws designed to allow the state to descriminate against PEOPLE.
Very simple.