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.