Quote:
Originally posted by Arvon:
I thought the 14th amendment didn't allow ANY discrinination in any government supported institution. Oh well I guess once again they found some right that wasn't there.
|
The 14th Amendment, at para. 1, contains:
"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."
This is where the term "Equal Protection clause" comes from in the race cases.
The 15th Amendment, passed for clarification, states:
1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or
abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or
previous condition of servitude.
2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate
legislation.
So, yes, you are correct regarding the text. However, the whole "strict scrutiny" test is really a test to see if a state can derrogate from the constitutional presumption. As I explained, the Court has said a state CAN use race as a classification in a law where there is a "compelling state interest" and the law is "Narrowly tailored" to that interest.
So, as Robert Bork would point out, it is all a creation of an active judiciary MAKING law rather than APPLYING law (and therefore exceeding its place and power in the grand scheme).
Of course, the Executive branch has made broad grabs of power too. Things are not balanced exactly as the founding fathers envisioned.
Tossing this extremely valid but superfluous point aside, and in response to Azred, I note that diversity in education is EXTREMELY important. Opposing views in the classroom, as here on IWF, are exceedingly educational, and people who can cite life experiences different from your own can teach you a lot. But, I guess most people actually prefer to associate with carbon copies of themselves and tell each other how they are great and everyone else is less great.
And, yes, this applies to poor/rich and "from Alabama"/"from Hawaii" as much as it does to black/white/yellow/red skin. However, the STRICT SCRUTINY test only applies where race is an issue. Unless you're denying voting, using economic status as a classification is perfectly fine in the law and done all the time. Think taxes. Think Stafford Loans. Think Fannie May. So, if a state wanted to use affirmative action for poor folks, absolutely nothing is stopping them.
[ 06-25-2003, 01:09 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]