Originally Posted by iella
Specific rights ARE enumerated in the Bill of Rights and other amendments. The idea of a "federally protected class" didn't even really come into play until 1964 with the Civil Rights Act.
This is the text of Section I of the 14th Amendment:
Nowhere is there a propensity to categorize based on race or anything else that is now considered "federally protected." This statement is actually much broader and more powerful than it would have been if the text stated, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States on the basis of color, ethnicity, or religion." There is absolutely no reason for these provisions to be included since every person of every color, ethnicity, and religion belong equally under "citizens of the United States" (assuming they are, of course).
People of certain color, ethnicity, and religion are already protected because they fall under "everyone." Why was there a need to define "federally protected classes"? If states were enacting laws that endangered the life, liberty, and property of ANYONE, the original text of the 14th Amendment should have been enough for the federal government to step in and strike those laws down. The Lawrence vs. Texas case you cited is a perfect example of this.
I still think the issue we're primarily disagreeing on is the matter of which rights ought to be protected by the federal government. I'm sticking by my statement that the "right to eat at any restaurant you choose" should not be federally protected.
Also, the interstate commerce cause is used to justify all kinds of abuses of power by the federal government. The fact that the precedent exists doesn't mean it's correct. Last year, Congress was thinking about forcing a change in the college football bowl system under the auspices of the commerce clause. It's gotten a little ridiculous.
Consider also the example of a mom-and-pop restaurant that sources all ingredients and other materials locally. How do they fall under the jurisdiction of the commerce clause? Shouldn't they be subject to the business laws of their state and not to the federal government?
The Constitution was put into place to DEFINE the power of the federal government. Defining something can either make something stronger where it was once weak (as in the case of the Articles of Confederation), or it can weaken something that has become too strong (as I believe it should be used now). It's a big jump to go from "the Articles of Confederation are too weak, we need a stronger federal government" to "the Constitution gives the federal government the right to step in wherever and whenever it wants to enact whatever laws they see fit." If the latter were the case, why did we bother to fight and die to separate ourselves from the British monarchy in the first place?
I also find your claim that I "want to bring us back to the dark ages when the U.S. was on the brink of disaster" to be rather incendiary hyperbole. I am not proposing a return to the Articles of Confederation. I am, in fact, quite fond of the Constitution as it currently stands. You claim that a more limited federal government would bring us to the brink of disaster. I would counter that our current bloated, debt-ridden, politically deadlocked federal government, as well as our public culture of entitlement and state-dependence, IS currently bringing our country toward economic, political, and international disaster. We can discuss these things without straw man attacks.
If you read the actual text of the Constitution, how much of what the federal government does today is explicitly spelled out? A lot of the federal government's current power is derived from interpretations of things like the commerce clause. So yes, it is absolutely a matter of interpretation.
|