Antonin Scalia: The 14th Amendment Should Not Apply To Homosexuals

Speaking on Friday at the University of Richmond, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia denounced the concept of a “living Constitution” and said the 14th Amendment was not written with the intent of granting equal protection to ALL Americans. Just the heterosexual ones.

“The due process clause has been distorted so it’s no longer a guarantee of process but a guarantee of liberty,” Scalia expounded. “But some of the liberties the Supreme Court has found to be protected by that word – liberty – nobody thought constituted a liberty when the 14th Amendment was adopted. Homosexual sodomy? It was criminal in all the states. Abortion? It was criminal in all the states.” “The way to change the Constitution is through amendments approved by the people, not by judges altering the meaning of its words,” he added.

Scalia made similar comments in September when he told a San Francisco law school that the Constitution offers no protection whatsoever to homosexuals or females. Gay people and women, he said, should go to their state legislatures and see if “current society wants to outlaw discrimination” based on gender or sexual orientation. In the landmark 2003 Supreme Court ruling overturning laws against sodomy, Lawrence vs. Texas, Scalia was the most vehement dissenting vote.

The famous “Equal Protection Clause” of the 14th Amendment, upon which entirely hangs the hopes of the federal marriage equality movement, reads: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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 laws.”

RELATED: At 74 years old, Scalia is the longest-serving Supreme Court Justice, having been appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1986. He is thought to be in relatively good health and most court watchers expect him to remain on the bench for as long another decade.

Joe. My. God.

—  admin

Save the 14th Amendment

Gay people have a real interest in fighting the effort to strip birthright citizenship from the 14th amendment, says Immigration Equality executive director Rachel B. Tiven.
Daily News

—  John Wright

Alabama senator asserts ignorance of the purpose of the 14th Amendment

Is this really surprising? From the Seattle Times:

WASHINGTON – Leading Republicans are joining a push to reconsider the constitutional amendment that grants automatic citizenship to people born in the United States.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said Tuesday he supports holding hearings on the 14th Amendment right, although he emphasized that Washington’s immigration focus should remain on border security.

His comments came after other Republicans recently questioned or challenged birthright citizenship, embracing a cause that had largely been confined to the far right.

Senator Jeff Sessions

The senators include Arizona’s John McCain, the party’s 2008 presidential nominee; Arizona’s Jon Kyl, the GOP whip; Alabama’s Jeff Sessions, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee; and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a leading negotiator on immigration legislation.

I’m not sure exactly what the drafters of the (14th) amendment had in mind, but I doubt it was that somebody could fly in from Brazil and have a child and fly back home with that child, and that child is forever an American citizen,” Sessions said.

More below the fold.
As I’m sure most Blenders know, the Fourteenth Amendment addresses racial inequities that were endemic to the Confederate states before and during the Civil War. At issue here is Section 1, which reads:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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 laws.

Dred Scott

This is very easy to understand: all persons born in the United States are citizens, all citizens are entitled to all the rights and protections of the Constitution, and no person — citizen or not — within a jurisdiction of US law shall be denied equal protection under the law.

This text was a direct response to the 1858 Supreme Court ruling, Dred Scott v. Sandford. The Dred Scott ruling held that Africans who had been imported into the United States as slaves, and their descendants, were not citizens and therefore had no right to protection under the law and no standing to sue for their rights in any court. Further, it held that slaves were chattel, and that laws designed to free slaves amounted to illegal seizure of property and therefore unconstitutional. This is what the “honored gentleman” from Alabama has publicly expressed ignorance about. Not surprising, given Sessions well documented racist past.

The repeal of birthright citizenship would open the doors for a return to racial or bloodline based citizenship. More, it creates the possibility — the likelihood? — that other restrictions on citizenship could be imposed. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….” But might it be constitutional for Congress to say that only adherents of a particular religion had the rights of citizenship, as long as religion was neither imposed or restricted?

Do we really want to go there?
Pam’s House Blend – Front Page

—  John Wright

Mitch McConnell: let’s have hearing on 14th Amendment and ‘Birthright Citizenship’

It’s Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell leading the way on this BS. That alone requires examination for a host of reasons…

So instead of coming up with reality-based solutions regarding immigration reform, let’s have hearings on all sorts of things to stir up the Base. Should we take a look at the 2nd Amendment since “modern times” surely requires a different, discriminating eye than when “bear arms” meant a musket, not a stash of AK-47s?

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) officially supports a review of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which grants children of undocumented immigrants status as U.S. citizens, his office confirmed to the Huffington Post on Monday.

…In offering his support, McConnell becomes the highest-ranking Republican figure to call for examining the reach of the 14th amendment. On Sunday, his chief deputy, Sen. John Kyl (R-Ariz.) told CBS’ Face the Nation that he too would back hearings into revising citizenship laws. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) — a one-time proponent of comprehensive immigration reform — has explicitly called for the 14th Amendment’s repeal.

Pam’s House Blend – Front Page

—  John Wright