|
Equal protection under the law is to protect those who would be prosecuted by the law. It is to protect the alleged violator of the law, not the victim. All violators of the same crime are to be treated equally under the law.
You can nuance the term "protected class" all you want, but in the context of this discussion, I am referring to a class that is treated as a special class of victim in that the same offense against a member of the class will be punished to a greater extent that against the public at large. No, I am not personalizing it; maybe you are and are therefore extending that onto me, but I have been and continue to talk about the "class" of sports officials, not me individually. Again, the individual that is being treated differently under these laws is the accused. It is the rights of the accused that the constitution protects, whether that accusation is publishing inflamatory articles, attending an illegal worship service, or commiting an assault. The constitution is there to limit the power of the government. There just don't seem to be many limits that have survived the last 230 years.
That fact that our modern courts do not agree with my view on this and other matters of the constitution does not make me "wrong." It may make me a Don Quixote character, or a voice crying in the wilderness, but it is my political philosophy and is, I believe, true to the clear meaning of the words in the constitution.
Ratchet back the vast powers usurped by the Federal government in general and the Federal judiciary in particular to the view of the courts and the government (and the people) by 100 years and most of us would not recognize it as the same country operating under the same constitution.
__________________
Tom
|