Its not so cut and dry. Its not that modern liberals moved away from classic liberalism… it was a recognition a government wasn’t the only threat to liberty but that so could corporations be. It was a response to the way these large corporations essentially denied workers liberty by creating conditions that were dangerous, unfair, and made it hard for the lower classes to escape poverty. It was a rejection of the laissez-faire capitalism that led to the exploitation of the worker.
So basically they moved away from the aspect of liberalism that was anti-government while still embracing the idea of individual liberty… a balance between personal freedom and letting capitalists do whatever they want.
1 Like
You supported someone who tried to circumvent an election. That makes you not a liberal. Sorry.
Maybe it makes him a leftist. Since most of you leftist tried to circumvent an election for four years.
1 Like
Going after a criminal isn’t circumventing an election.
Trump supporters seem to have trouble discerning reality.
1 Like
You mean the vision where only white men were equal?
And even after the 14th was ratified, it took over 100 years for it to really take effect.,…
and in some ways, it still hasn’t? That vision?
They formed a union, that would continue it’s journey to be more perfect.
We are still on that journey.
No, you reached the point of diminishing returns in 1976.
Please elaborate.
The Promise was fulfilled.
Many disagree.
Why all the marches? If there was true equal protection, as the 14th states, BLM would not be viable.
Has the SCOTUS ruled the 14th applies to women in all cases?
Of course they disagree, The Narrative must continue.
Does it need to?
9
19
Same people who now run around chanting, they are a private business, they can do what they want.
1 Like
For 100 years or so, it ruled it did not apply to women.
Today, sometimes it applies, depending on what SCOTUS is ruling
Hence the reason for the ERA amendment.
Do you think it applies to women?
Different people, different situation.
Of course it does. It says “persons” and “citizens” not “men”.
What ruling do you feel says it doesn’t apply to women?
Same situation. It’s hypocrisy.
What about it?
It, like Obergefell v. Hodges, is unnecessary.
Myra Bradwell arguing that Illinois violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection provision. The Supreme Court saw otherwise, ruling that the amendment did not require states to open the legal profession to women. One justice wrote: “The paramount destiny and mission of women are to fulfill the noble and benign offices of wife and mother.”
Almost 100 years later the U.S. Supreme Court changed its tune. In the 1970s the country’s highest court began to apply the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause to sex discrimination cases, finding it prohibited unequal treatment on the basis of gender. By 1976, the Supreme Court ruled that under the 14th amendment, men and women could be treated differently under the law only if it served an “important governmental objective.”
As recently as 2010 Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia publicly stated that the 14th amendment does not prohibit against sex discrimination.
Ah, you are arguing execution, not application. The 14th always applied to all persons and citizens. That it was not applied is a different question all together.
A good example of why we shouldn’t allow ourselves to be ruled by a nonumvirate in bath robes.
