« Eugene Volokh on the increase in gun sales | Main | Charges against X-Caliber Guns dismissed »
Comment on 14th Amendment cases
Here, in the Wall Street Journal Online. It would be better if the writer didn't think of the right to arms in liberal vs. conservative lights.
2 Comments | Leave a comment
In his 1997 book, "A Matter of Interpretation", Scalia had this to say WRT to the 14A equal protection:
"I certainly do not assert that it permits discrimination on the basis of age, sex, 'sexual orientation', or for that matter even blue eyes and nose rings. Denial of equal protection on all those grounds is prohibited - but that still leaves open the question of what *constitutes* a denial of equal protection. Is it a denial of equal protection on the basis of sex to have segregated toilets in public buildings, or to exclude women from combat? I have no idea how Professor Dworkin goes about answering such a question. I answer it on the basis of the 'time-dated' meaning of equal protection in 1868. Unisex toilets and women assault troops may be ideas whose time has come, and the people are certainly free to require them by legislation; but refusing to do so does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment, because that is not what 'equal protection of the laws' ever meant."
I'm not sure why the author thinks that an originalist like Scalia would insist on reading a 19th Century amendment with an 18th Century voice? Surely Scalia would interpret the 14th Amendment with the original understanding of post-reconstruction era just as he interprets the Bill Of Rights with the original understanding of ratification era.