
In any case, the original rationale for excluding women from the protections of the Fourteenth Amendment did not hold and has never held any water from the moment it was ratified until now. (By the bye, one of Sally Reed’s lawyers was Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg I wonder what Justice Ginsburg, who was photographed riding an elephant with Justice Scalia, for the two are said to be close friends, thought about his recent remarks.) Reed, 1971, the Fourteenth Amendment has provided an explicit basis for granting women equal rights as American citizens. And ever since the Supreme Court case of Reed v.

Oh, god! There were substantial problems with the original text of the Fourteenth Amendment. Okay, so it is true that the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment took pains to ensure that women were excluded from its protection, by introducing the word “male” into the constitution for the first time. I guess he thought that these superannuated judges only get to haul in the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when it benefits the likes of George W. Bush. It’s not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society.” Persuade your fellow citizens it’s a good idea and pass a law. But that doesn’t mean you cannot prohibit it. You want a right to abortion? There’s nothing in the Constitution about that. You don’t like the death penalty anymore, that’s fine.

All you need is a legislature and a ballot box. You don’t need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. The only issue is whether it prohibits it.

Here is what Justice Scalia told California Lawyer: “Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. Back in January of 2011, the late Supreme Court judge Antonin Scalia decided to revive the crazymaking debate regarding the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection for women-or lack thereof.
