Let's start off with something that has slipped away as completely accepted in this day and age due to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on it just to show the colossal impact on society such decisions make.
Brown V. Board of Education (1954)~Segregation of races in schools is inherently unequal and in violation of equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Can any of my fellow Americans even imagine what this day and age would be like without this court case? When just 58 years before Plessy V. Ferguson (1896) had said segregation is allowed when accommodations were separate as well as equal. White, let's call them supremacists, found a way around this "accommodations must be equal" clause of the ruling, by passing off second-hand textbooks and teachers with lower pass rates on to schools specifically geared toward teaching Black Americans.
Now, how about something a little more controversial, abortion. In Roe V. Wade (1973) the U.S. Supreme Court declared that a woman had a right to choose whether or not to get an abortion under the privacy clause in the 14th amendment under the condition that the pregnancy was terminated within the first trimester of the pregnancy. So, anyone who says abortion is wrong or morally ambiguous, it is. However, it's also completely within a woman's rights, and it is not illegal or unconstitutional. In fact, one could make the argument that anyone protruding on a woman's right to get an abortion is in fact acting unconstitutional considering that your right to free speech does not extend to refusing someone else's rights. For in both Schenk v U.S. (1919) [ Says that any reason to believe you are under clear and present danger is sufficient to deny free speech] and Brandenberg V. Ohio (1969) [which says free speech is protected unless it is producing imminent lawless action, like a doctor refusing an abortion to a woman he knows will not survive the pregnancy but knows she can pay for the medical bill] would seem to mean that your actions as a protester or activist could be in violation of another person's rights.
Finally, one of my favorite cases, Romer v. Evans (1996) guarantees equal protection under the law for homosexuals, but for reason some members of society think that means they can't marry. Just because your bible may say homosexuality is an abomination (which by the way it says about playing football too and I don't see any football players as pariahs in some societal circles do you?), doesn't mean it's law. In fact, you or any in the societal group that believes what you do (if you believe that) is inconsiderate of a homosexuals rights guaranteed in the Constitution of the United Sates of America. Just because a homosexual person's pursuit of happiness is different than yours doesn't make it suddenly incorrect and not covered in the constitution, so please anyone who reads this, pass it on. Let people know this issue has been decided already.
Comments
Post a Comment