SUBSCRIBE:
Error: Unable to create directory uploads/2019/02. Is its parent directory writable by the server?

Hot Post:
  Is Justice Scalia a Constitutionally Incorrect Sexist?

by
Posted on January 8 2011 12:00 pm
A life-long conservative Reagan Girl and conservative feminist, Lisa holds a Bachelors of Science in Political Science from Sacred Heart University, Fairfield, CT. Lisa is a staunch, unapologetic, Christian supporter and defender of Israel, who considers herself a spiritual Jew. Lisa resides in CT with her family and assortment of rescued pets.

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Be Sociable, Share!
Print This Post Print This Post

The originalist justice is accurate in everything he said.  Nowhere in the Constitution, or the Fourteenth Amendment, which is used in all discrimination cases, but was written to outlaw segregation against black Americans, is sex discrimination and gender equality provided for.  The amendment was solely written and adopted to provide constitutional rights to black Americans, who had once been slaves and considered non-citizens though born on U.S. soil, and though freed under the Emancipation Proclamation and Thirteenth Amendment, and who were still being segregated from public places.  The states are denied prohibiting black Americans the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth.  But Americans use the Fourteenth as a way to Plessy v. Ferguson their way into desegregating whatever they don’t like.

Despite this, the Fourteenth is used in all discrimination cases, because, specific wording provides lawmakers a line of attack to enact or abolish laws: “…No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the claws.”  Though the law was written specifically for black Americans denied Constitutional rights and protection, the amendment leaves open avenues for legislators to decide upon laws concerning citizens.

Those angry with Scalia need to take a closer look at his words.  He never made declarations agreeing with sexual discrimination, he never said there should be any prohibition placed upon people; Scalia specifically maintains the Constitution does not “require discrimination based on sex.”  Scalia further points out the Constitution never provided an Amendment or clause outlawing discrimination based on gender, because “nobody ever voted for that” during the Constitution Conventions.  This is true; sex discrimination against women and gays was not the Founders worry.  The Founders were concerned with forming a free government under a Constitution, providing equality through liberty to all citizens, thus enabling legislators to enact individual state laws according to their constituents wants and needs.

Justice Scalia has never expressed any disrespect or contempt for the Constitution.  His words never commit such repugnancy.  Scalia’s remarks articulated  facts many do not want to hear, but are true: the Founders never discussed sex discrimination, nor did they ever vote on such laws.  If the Constitution had provided anti-sex discrimination laws, Susan B. Anthony and the ladies of suffrage would never have marched for women’s right to vote and own property. Nothing exists in the Constitution specifying equal rights to men and women or Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton would not have petitioned the courts about discrimination against women in 1866, or spent their lives fighting against sexual discrimination to get Congress to vote yes to the Nineteenth Amendment, which the Supreme Court  passed into law in 1920.

When Justice Scalia declares: “You don’t need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. All you need is a legislature and a ballot box,” he is not saying Congress can enact sexual discrimination against women as the Huffington Post insinuates.  The Constitution provides natural rights to all.  As a result, being equal in liberty means Americans can take any case to Congress, demanding laws be enacted to protect specific things.

Scalia  notes this when he brings up the death penalty and abortion.  Neither is specified in the Constitution.  There are no privacy laws—the case used for abortion—in the Constitution; the Founders knew anyone can do anything in private. Yet, radical feminists demanded the right to terminate unwanted pregnancies.  The same goes for the death penalty, according to Scalia: whether it should or should not be law: “doesn’t mean you cannot prohibit it.  Persuade your fellow citizens it’s a good idea and pass a law. That’s what democracy is all about.”

Notice Scalia says “persude your fellow citizens,” meaning we the people decide.  The government is of, by, and for us, not the Supreme Court.  This is what Scalia is explaining. But this is not what leftist feminsts want to hear.  They want an evolving Constitution like Great Britain’s, where laws change on a whim.

Be Sociable, Share!

Continue reading page: 1 2 3 4

One Response leave one →

Leave a Reply

Note: You can use basic XHTML in your comments. Your email address will never be published.

Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS

Copyright 2019 NewsReal Blog

The Theme Foundry