User Tag List

Results 1 to 6 of 6

  1. #1
    Freaking Ratchet Rail Tracer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,041

    Default Justices are amazing....

    I feel like this should be a blog post of some sort...

    Anyways, I've been reading old cases of the American past, and I can't help but feel amazed by how articulate the majority and the dissident viewpoints are when it comes to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Whatever the viewpoint is when it comes to people, most Justices bring into the fold a detailed reasoning as to why he/she/they determined the ruling to be a certain way. Sometimes, even breaking the fold and creating instances that brings me in awe.

    So far I am only reading a part of the 14th amendment, but the amount of cases using only a section of the 14th amendment can span dozens of pages of why a law or bill was constitutional or not.

    The idea that I am most in awe in? The Constitution does not require that things that are different in fact or opinion to be treated the same. Treating these things to be as equals is creating another injustice to the inherent differences that they have, and it goes both ways. A person that is blind should not be flying a plane while a person's skin color should not be the determining factor of whether the person should be flying a plane or not.

    Ok, not groundbreaking but...eh.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,628

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rail Tracer View Post
    The idea that I am most in awe in? The Constitution does not require that things that are different in fact or opinion to be treated the same. Treating these things to be as equals is creating another injustice to the inherent differences that they have, and it goes both ways. A person that is blind should not be flying a plane while a person's skin color should not be the determining factor of whether the person should be flying a plane or not.
    Could you explain some more?

  3. #3
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,582

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rail Tracer View Post
    Anyways, I've been reading old cases of the American past, and I can't help but feel amazed by how articulate the majority and the dissident viewpoints are when it comes to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Whatever the viewpoint is when it comes to people, most Justices bring into the fold a detailed reasoning as to why he/she/they determined the ruling to be a certain way. Sometimes, even breaking the fold and creating instances that brings me in awe.
    300 million people, and we can come up with 9 at any one time who can reason themselves out of a paper bag and explain it clearly. Obviously cause to be impressed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rail Tracer View Post
    The idea that I am most in awe in? The Constitution does not require that things that are different in fact or opinion to be treated the same. Treating these things to be as equals is creating another injustice to the inherent differences that they have, and it goes both ways. A person that is blind should not be flying a plane while a person's skin color should not be the determining factor of whether the person should be flying a plane or not.
    Yes. There never was (and still isn't) anything wrong with discrimination. It is discrimination based on irrelevant criteria that has become increasingly outside the law.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  4. #4
    Freaking Ratchet Rail Tracer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,041

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nihilogen View Post
    Could you explain some more?
    I'll see what I can try explain (or only explain the part I am discussing about.) Many of the laws that set the standard were during the gilded age when there was a lot going against monopolization.... anyways.

    Under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment, "No state shall deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law."

    In the 1930's and 1940(when the case went to the Supreme Court) A guy by the name of Tigner brought a case against the state of Texas. Tigner being some person who was a brewer, decided to create a group-wide price fixing conspiracy because the state of Texas decided to make monopolization by farmers and stockers (basically herders) to only face Civil Charges if they were to do such a thing. On the other hand, everyone else were to face Criminal and Civil Charges if they were to price fix the market to their advantage

    Tigner, believing that the law violated the 14th amendment, made the case that it was violating his rights because farmers and stockers were only going to face Civil Charges for something while he would face Criminal and Civil Charges for the "same" thing. So basically, he was being treated differently from how a farmer/stocker were going to be treated if they were to do the same thing.

    Thus, we return to this phrase the majority of the supreme court asserted: "The Constitution does not require things which are different in fact or opinion to be treated in law as though they were the same." During the ruling, they saw that farmers and stockers were inherently different from brewers and similar other professions outside farming. Farmers had a harder time trying to make a living because their very livelihood depended on many interferences outside of their control (the weather, sick herds, long commute times to sell their product, too many produce in the market, or not enough produce.) Not only that, the farming profession did not make as much as other profession.

    Their ruling basically said that, yes, Texas can create this law that treated farmers and stockers differently from brewers and co. because there were many things that were inherently different in fact between the two that it was justifiable that farmers and stockers only faced civil charges because they went through different challenges then do brewers.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,628

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rail Tracer View Post
    Thus, we return to this phrase the majority of the supreme court asserted: "The Constitution does not require things which are different in fact or opinion to be treated in law as though they were the same." During the ruling, they saw that farmers and stockers were inherently different from brewers and similar other professions outside farming. Farmers had a harder time trying to make a living because their very livelihood depended on many interferences outside of their control (the weather, sick herds, long commute times to sell their product, too many produce in the market, or not enough produce.) Not only that, the farming profession did not make as much as other profession.
    In this case I call States' Rights, but in general this clause sounds a little too much like pragmatism.

  6. #6
    Freaking Ratchet Rail Tracer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,041

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nihilogen View Post
    In this case I call States' Rights, but in general this clause sounds a little too much like pragmatism.
    Well these amendments are basically telling what a State (the other way of how "state" is being used) can or cannot do. State can refer to the federal government, state, county, or local governments. So yes, state rights would be appropriate.

    In this case, we ask "May a state differentiate between farmers and stockers over other disciplines by giving violators different penalties under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment?" (there are many different ways to ask the question... but this is just one of them.)

    And the answer according to this case is yes. It was settle using the rational basis review.

Similar Threads

  1. strange taste combos that are amazing
    By prplchknz in forum Home, Garden and Nature
    Replies: 76
    Last Post: 08-08-2017, 09:28 PM
  2. ROCK ON! These Kids Are Amazing! [Music Video]
    By Mal12345 in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-15-2014, 11:31 AM
  3. [E9] These 9w1 instinctual stacking descriptions are amazing
    By brainheart in forum Enneatypes
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 03-08-2011, 11:02 PM
  4. Amazing Inventions and Scientific Phenomena That Are Taken For Granted
    By LunarMoon in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 10-22-2010, 08:33 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO