Full Version: Alito and the 14th Amendment
Diane Feinstein (D-CA) said today in order to explain her opposition to judge Alito...
""If an originalist analysis was applied to the Fourteenth Amendment, women would not be provided equal protection under the Constitution, interracial marriages could be outlawed, schools could still be segregated and the principle of one man, one vote would not govern the way we elect our representatives," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat"
On a similar note, John Kerry (D-MA) said from Switzerland (where he's apparently attempting to justify a skiing trip), that he would try to force a filibuster of the Alito nomination for similar reasons.
The relevant portion of the 14th amendment to the US constitution says the following:
"Section 1. 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."
The questions for debate are:
1. Is Feinstein on target? Or is she using rhetorical hyperbole in order to whip up her left wing base?
2. What is the original intent of the 14th amendment? Shouldn't the issues identified by Senator Feinstein be dealt with via the legislative process?
""If an originalist analysis was applied to the Fourteenth Amendment, women would not be provided equal protection under the Constitution, interracial marriages could be outlawed, schools could still be segregated and the principle of one man, one vote would not govern the way we elect our representatives," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat"
On a similar note, John Kerry (D-MA) said from Switzerland (where he's apparently attempting to justify a skiing trip), that he would try to force a filibuster of the Alito nomination for similar reasons.
The relevant portion of the 14th amendment to the US constitution says the following:
"Section 1. 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."
The questions for debate are:
1. Is Feinstein on target? Or is she using rhetorical hyperbole in order to whip up her left wing base?
2. What is the original intent of the 14th amendment? Shouldn't the issues identified by Senator Feinstein be dealt with via the legislative process?
I think Senator Feinstein's analysis is essentially correct, except where she says "would". If you replace the two "would"s with "could"s, then it would be much more on target, with the exception that the only way any of these things "could" happen is if the people actually vote for it. Judges could not impose these things on their own.
Now if there's anyone here on
who wants to argue that these things would be likely to happen if we go back to an originalist interpretation of the 14th, I'm all ears.
Now if there's anyone here on
who wants to argue that these things would be likely to happen if we go back to an originalist interpretation of the 14th, I'm all ears.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.