Quote:
|
Originally Posted by wadeintothem
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.
|
You are either not reading carefully, not a student of constitutional law, or just fond of reading your own writing.
Your first statement I've quoted is obviously false since the very point of sports official protection laws is to afford sports officials a measure of protection under the law that is not available to others.
Second, reading the plain meaning of the words in the constitution, including its amendments, and applying them is something modern courts have forgotten how to do, or at least refuse to do.
Third, your argument is circular. Are not the perpetrators of assault also citizens worthy of equal protection under the law? If the only difference resulting in differing punishment is the status of the victim, would it be legal to write into law a greater punishment for assaulting a movie star? A CEO of a corporation? A union head? A worker crossing a picket line? Where does the definition of "protected class" end? And, your example is ironic, since do not "hate crimes" place differing penalties based on the race of the victim?
Nice red herring with the legality of the 14th amendment, by the way.
As in another thread on a consitutional issues, obviously the law is consitutional as defined by the courts. It is just my view that it is not in agreement with the plain language of the consitution. But, then, when faced with a court that will use European law to support a ruling, then what does the plain language of the consitution have to do with anything.
It is ironic, indeed, that the leaders of the revolution were throwing off the divine right of kings only to have that replaced 230 years later by the divine right of judges.