[wadeintothem]

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.

No it doesnt, not at all.

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.

Well, lets talk about what you want to talk about then, because you are off base with applying the 14th amendment here.

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?

Actually, and in general, you'd be hard pressed to make a legal argument that if the People of a state decided those persons were worthy of a law such as the officiating law, that it would be inherently unconstitutional.

It wouldnt be a 14th Amendment issue at all, as long as it didnt address a person, but a position, in the performance of their duties as that position and as long as it didnt discriminate against a class of persons.. ie.. no black shall attack a white...

Your problem is you think you are an umpire, and as such, the law applies to you as a person.

it doesnt and you ARE NOT an umpire. It applies to your position, when you are performing duties in that position of umpire or related to that position.. performing in the capacity as an umpire.

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?

You havent made a single argument that there is a protected "class" in terms of the officiating law.

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.

You make good points to a larger scope argument, but you are not applying the 14th Amendment incorrectly. Really, I could agree with you on many things I'm sure.. but you are using a very weak argument to bolster a much larger and more arguable position. In law, it typically works the opposite way, many times attorneys will use a stronger position to bolster a weaker position.. which is why often motions to sever, etc are granted.. but you chose the low road.. a weak position. thats comedic.


You've yet to make a single argument to support your statement that others are not afforded the same protections. Not a single one.

Someone can attack you in your home unrelated to officiating and not be charged with the "officials" law. That law relates to officiating in their capacity as officiating. Not a person. It has noting to do with the rights of people. It doesnt degrade their rights.

Talk about straw man.. this is absurd dakato, you actually wrote:

Are not the perpetrators of assault also citizens worthy of equal protection under the law?

They dont have a "right", more or less, to assault anyone. They dont have an equal "right" to attack an umpire as they do an old lady. They are entitled to Habeous Corpus, trials..etc .. they dont have the right to commit any crime and certianly not an equal right under the 14th Amendment.

Dakota, dont ever assert Im not a student of the constitution, then make an argument like that.

You have a backwards view of the 14th amendment. You are EXPANDING the scope of it, extremely progressive in the application. Far from the intent of protecting the state from discriminating through legislation.. you are using it to expand the scope of protections to include the perpetrator as such:

Why should a firefighter be protected while performing the course of his duities? Well the perpetrator should have as much right to attack a firefighter as he does everyone else.

Well, the reason is the people have determined that those people deserve more punishment if they attack a firefighter for some real/percieved public reason... and criminals dont have a RIGHT to commit a crime.

Furhter, there is nothing precluding degree of punishment.

Homicide is not all the same.

There is justifiable, manslaughter, 2nd degree murder, 1st degree etc..

Different levels.

What in the 14th Amendment could possibly preclude the courts from considering/legislating enforcing varying penalties based on circumstance and law so long as it does not discriminate against specific groups of people?

"Well the perpetrator has as much right to shoot a store clerk as they do to run down someone who ran in front of them on the freeway or kill someone who was threatening them in their home"

I aint buying the extraordinary Progressive Expansive view you are selling with your argument... that all assault is the same and the rights of the "assaulter" in assualting whom they choose, in the manner they choose, under the circumstances they choose, with equal penalty.. and that they are entitled to that under the 14th Amendment.

Where on earth have you come up with this?

It is certainly not through any constitutional, legal, or common law study whatsoever.

It is manifestoish, thats about it. There is no real argument you can make and no substantative support for your position you can provide.