Here we go again...

[greymule]

I wasn't referring to the 14th Amendment. Obviously the Constitution can be changed by amendment.

If the intent of the framers is irrelevant, or if we can decide to ignore the intent of the framers because we can point to imperfections that existed in the past, why have any constitution at all? If we don't respect original intent, we have nothing. We simply let whatever 9 supreme justices are on the bench at the moment decide what they think is right.

Yes, standards can change. Cruel and unusual punishment in 2006 has nothing to do with the standards of 1806. But the intent of the framers shouldn't be turned on its head, as it is routinely today.

"Let's see," says Mr./Ms. Justice Roll-Your-Own, "the framers wanted to be sure we didn't have a Church of America to which everyone paid taxes. But through my superior wisdom and general good will, I can ignore the intent of the framers and instead consider various penumbras of my own imagination. I thus rule that the kindergarten teacher who put decorative snowflakes on the classroom windows in December is in violation of the First Amendment."

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by greymule

I wasn't referring to the 14th Amendment. Obviously the Constitution can be changed by amendment.

If the intent of the framers is irrelevant, or if we can decide to ignore the intent of the framers because we can point to imperfections that existed in the past, why have any constitution at all? If we don't respect original intent, we have nothing. We simply let whatever 9 supreme justices are on the bench at the moment decide what they think is right.

Yes, standards can change. Cruel and unusual punishment in 2006 has nothing to do with the standards of 1806. But the intent of the framers shouldn't be turned on its head, as it is routinely today.

Im just not sure the argument you are trying to make, because its so out of the scope of the discussion. The founding fathers intent was so far removed from whether or not an official in a game got beat up by a coach as to be alien to their thought process. They were trying to form a country.. In fact, most of the founding fathers would probably concur that the possible method to deal with an umpire is a challenge to a duel to the death.

.

I do agree as a general principle on many issues with what you are say though.. in a rhetorical type "honorable mention" way.

[greymule]

I admit I was thinking very generally and not in the context of coaches.

I think we have to be careful when we make laws that treat the same act as lesser or worse depending on the victim or the motive.

"Did you crush his skull with that baseball bat because he is [name your protected group]?"

"No. I crushed his skull because he likes the Red Sox."

"OK. You get a discount on your sentence."

But I do think an assault on a sports official deserves special treatment. Officials by nature immerse themselves in controversy and cannot operate effectively under fear of violence. Interfering with, threatening, attacking a sports official is much like doing the same to a meter maid or a tax assessor or a court clerk or someone else performing official duties. And for such acts there are penalties beyond what there would be if it was just two citizens involved.

More than 25 years ago, a friend of mine was officiating a high school basketball game here in NJ and toward the end was engulfed by a rioting mob. He suffered severe head injuries, mainly from an attack from behind. He was knocked unconscious and never even saw the blow coming. (From what I gathered, there weren't a lot of controversial calls beyond the usual in basketball. These people simply decided to riot.)

He recovered physically, but it took years for him to shake the mental trauma. I don't know that he ever shook it entirely. He was scared to death, and I can see why. I know he had lawyers working on his case, but I never did learn exactly how it came out.

[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.

[tcannizzo]

I am sure that most on this board remember when fans thought it was simply a humorous gesture to throw glass bottles at umpires. Equally humorous and the ever-innocent, (and legal) "KILL THE UMP!"

I think the intent of the newer interpretations of the rule is to address this special class of individuals, and to put an exclamation point on a necessary and pervasive cultural correction.

[Dakota]

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.

[tcannizzo]

Last year there was a great TV commercial for CapitalOne credit cards.
The final line of the commericial was simply: "The grid isn't perfect."

[CecilOne]

Dakota and Wade,
I'm not sure what either of you think the 14th Amendment accomplishes or intends to accomplish.