The advertising above is just a source of revenue. If the ads get offensive enough, I may drop them.
Clayton Cramer's BLOG |
|
|
Clayton's commentary on news and events of the day. Broadly speaking, I'm a conservative with libertarian sympathies (getting more conservative as my children get older).
 Never forget! I ran for Idaho state senate in 2008--didn't win I've written a number of history books, as well as scholarly and popular articles, (see my web page). Relocating to Boise? Use my realtor, neighbor, and friend, Cindy Smith csmith@1realtyone.com.
Magazines for cheap!
PayPal members: to make a contribution
Email me at blogmail at claytoncramer dot com. Sorry to be so indirect, but all spambots must die! But they haven't died yet! Include the word spamIamnot in your subject line to make sure that my spam blocker lets you through. |
Saturday, March 10, 2007
Amazing Grace (The Movie) I'm very pleased. I don't know a great deal about the history of how Britain's abolitionists ended the British slave trade (although not the holding of slaves in the Empire--that took a couple decades longer), but what little I do know about it conforms to the movie. This film follows the efforts of William Wilberforce, Member of Parliament, as he and other abolitionists attempted to rouse the conscience of the nation against the slave trade. There is one rather powerful sequence that is certain to infuriate liberals (who believe that Christian beliefs should have no place in influencing public policy), where Wilberforce, having felt the stirring of God on his conscience, approaches his friend William Pitt (soon to be Prime Minister) and indicates that he is thinking of going into the ministry--that he feels the need to choose between God's work and politics. Pitt suggests that he can do both--make the world a better place by pursuing the policies that Wilberforce cares about: free public education; ending cruelty to animals; abolishing slavery. One thing I do know a bit about is the practice of slavery in the British West Indies--and this movie pulls no punches in describing how slaves were worked to death in the sugar cane fields. (Similar problems with getting the harvest in quickly--and working to death slaves because the cane was more valuable than mere people--was common in the Louisiana sugar cane plantations of the American South.) It also discusses the circumstances of slave ships, with the male "cargo" chained in their own dysentery-encouraged excrement for weeks on end, while female slaves were sometimes released from the chains for rape by the crew. Banastre Tarleton, who was a cruel and barbarous officer in the British Army during the American Revolution (only slightly falsified in The Patriot) was one of the many MPs who helped to maintain the slave trade, and this film portrays him as part of the crowd that had been bought off by the slave traders, and those business interests that made their money on the sugar trade. There's a lot here that I would have liked discussed: the role of sugar in creating the wealth of eighteenth century England; the manner in which the Industrial Revolution started to supplant the importance of the West Indies sugar plantations to the English economy; the interplay of the Dissenters who play such a prominent role in the Industrial Revolution and of the abolition movement; how American (at first, Quaker) abolitionist ideas play a crucial role in nurturing English abolitionist sentiment; how Jamaican plantation owners would throw newborn slave children into ditches to die, because it was cheaper to buy new adult slaves from Africa than to feed a baby to adulthood; how passage of the 1807 Abolition of the Slave Trade Act dovetailed with the U.S. prohibition of the slave trade the following year--but this would have made for a very long movie. (Eventually, both Britain and the U.S. used their navies to actively interdict the slave trade.) There's one interesting part of the movie that I don't know if it is fact or fiction, but since Wilberforce and friends are unable to pass a direct abolition of the slave trade over the objections of MPs in the pockets of the slave traders, they pass a law that authorizes the seizure of American-flagged vessels carrying slaves, since French vessels were flying American flags to avoid seizure. (France and Britain were at war at the time.) Since large numbers of British vessels had adopted a similar strategy--to prevent seizure by the French, the net effect was to bankrupt many of the slave traders. Wilberforce and friends learn a lesson from their opponents, and sneak the bill through the Commons while many members are off at the races--with free tickets provided to encourage their opponents to go. Without the money to influence MPs, Wilberforce and his allies were able to turn the tide against the slave trade. I think this may have been something of a fictionalization of a more complex set of actions. This history of the British slave trade suggests that the decline in sugar prices because of Cuba's movement into the sugar business played a bigger role by causing a decline in the willingness of the sugar planters to keep fighting for more slave imports. This text of 46 Geo. III c. 52 suggests that an 1805 Order in Council might have played the role that the movie suggests was done by statute. I can't find any history of the British slave trade that shows this devious measure, at least directly. If this is really what happened, there's a lesson there. I remember last year that Instapundit made the point that Republicans in Congress who were doing the entertainment industry's bidding on copyright questions were making a terrible mistake: helping an industry that overwhelmingly funds Democrats. I must confess, I scratched my head about that one as well. The parallels to the situation depicted in Amazing Grace are pretty obvious. I didn't recognize any of the actors--except one: Albert Finney, playing John Newton, the slave ship captain who finally repents of his involvement in the evil, and writes the hymn "Amazing Grace." His performance is powerful because he both conveys the evil that he participated in, and that as great an evil as he participated in, the power of Jesus Christ to transform and forgive us for our sins is greater still. This is a film that does not run from its Christianity. Nor is it particularly preachy. I'm sure that there are going to be Christians frustrated at how lightly it touches on Wilberforce's conversion--but many non-Christians may be sufficiently intrigued to start asking questions. There is one memorable scene where Wilberforce and John Newton talk about Wilberforce's conversion, and Wilberforce says that it was not like a lightning bolt had hit him, and Newton observes that sometimes "a steady drizzle" is quiet as sufficient as a storm. I can only hope that a steady drizzle of films such as this, built on the indisputable history of how Christianity has transformed our world, will start getting a message across to American society--one that has largely forgotten how important the faith of men like William Wilberforce was in destroying a system built of brutality, greed, and debauchery. Labels: slavery Clear Skies! The 8" f/7 reflector is out cooling right now--I'm going to try and take some astrophotographs of the Orion Nebula (M42) in another 20 or 30 minutes. UPDATE: And by the time the mirror had cooled...the clouds were coming in. Labels: telescopes Cool Use of Internet Mapping Technology A friend sent this web page to me. You enter an address, and it plots registered sex offenders and other known convicted felons on a map. Click on the boxes, and you see their picture and criminal convictions. Where we live there is no one within many miles, but once you get down into Boise, it's another matter. Friday, March 09, 2007
Book Tour to New York I am still utterly amazed at how expensive hotels are in Manhattan. I don't recall it being anywhere near this absurd when I went to Columbia in April of 2001. I don't need to stay at a fancy hotel, but something midtown or farther south that doesn't have rats in the rooms. Labels: my books Dumb Unix Question I want to do something that must come up pretty often, and I suspect that there's either some filter, or combination of filters, that does this. I have a file with thousands of lines in it, many of which are duplicates. I want to know how many copies of each line I have. So, if there are 40 lines that are "dog" and 32 lines that are "cat" and one line with "horse" I want a filter that lets me produce a report that says how many of each line there are. There's gotta be a way to do this with uniq, sort, wc, and perhaps some other tool. I would prefer not to reinvent the wheel on this because I have better things to do. UPDATE: I spoke too soon: cat filename | sort | uniq -c produces such a report. This Is HUGE! The DC Court of Appeals has ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms--and struck down at least parts of the DC gun control law. I'm reading the decision right now. UPDATE: This is a major victory. DC's ban on having a loaded, operative handgun in the home? Overruled by the Court of Appeals, which recognizes that handguns are protected arms under the Second Amendment! UPDATE 2: More thoughts: this is very nearly the perfect decision, for the following reasons: 1. Because it struck down key parts of DC's gun control law, DC governnment either has to appeal it to the Supreme Court, or actually deal with DC's violent crime problem by going after criminals, instead of non-criminals. (Hard decision for them, I'm guessing.) 2. Because the decision recognizes that the right is individual in nature, this isn't a technical win for us, but opens up the door to challenging other federal gun control laws to help determine what are the limits of Congressional and Executive branch authority. For example, if I'm camping in Yellowstone, does the Second Amendment protect my right to have an appropriate grizzly bear discouragement device in my tent? There's a plausible argument based on this decision that I do. 3. The decision acknowledges the "right of the militia" argument, but points out that even if this were the case, because the militia included effectively all white men at the time, "right of the militia" isn't so terribly different from a general right--and the courts are not going to buy a limited right for white men: In sum, the phrase “the right of the people,” when read intratextually and in light of Supreme Court precedent, leads us to conclude that the right in question is individual. This proposition is true even though “the people” at the time of the founding was not as inclusive a concept as “the people” today. See Robert E. Shallope, To Keep and Bear Arms in the Early Republic, 16 CONST. COMMENT. 269, 280-81 (1999). To the extent that non-whites, women, and the propertyless were excluded from the protections afforded to “the people,” the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is understood to have corrected that initial constitutional shortcoming.In essence, they are telling the gun control crowd that if they want to make the "right of the militia" argument, they can have it--but by allowing DC to prohibit gun ownership to females and blacks, which they aren't going to do (at least, not openly). 4. Unlike many of the right to keep and bear arms cases that have worked their way up through the courts over the years, where the defendant is a criminal of some sort, or at least an unsympathetic character, such as Dr. Emerson in USA v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001), we have squeaky clean plaintiffs on this case, so the Court doesn't have to worry about releasing a criminal if they make the right decision. 5. Rather than directly challenging the bearing of arms, or the right to own some rather unusual or exotic weapon, this case involves the right to have a loaded and functional handgun in your home for self-defense. This is about as much of a no-brainer as there can be for the courts. While the decision doesn't directly challenge the constitutionality of a handgun registration law, it does make it clear that the current DC strategy of prohibiting new registrations for handguns is unconstitutional. 6. They mention a Beretta 92 semiauto pistol, as I recall Dr. Emerson's weapon that got him in trouble, and in the context of U.S. v. Miller (1939) to demonstrate that even if you want to use the argument that only arms relevant to militia duty are protected, a handgun like the Beretta 92 (which is currently used by the U.S. armed forces) is clearly protected. They must be having a cow over at the Brady Campaign right now. More importantly, they mention that the Militia Act of 1792 requires at least some members of the militia to arm themselves with handguns. Excellent! This is a good day! UPDATE 3: One of the more alert readers noticed that the Idaho Attorney-General was one of those who signed a brief on the side of the District of Columbia. What? Now, they have his name misspelled as "Walden" not "Wasden" but why? Opposing the individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment is political suicide in Idaho. I just requested Attorney General Wasden explain his reason for this: I see that you signed a brief in Parker v. D.C. on the side of the District of Columbia. You can read the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision which ruled against DC at http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf this morning. I am a bit mystified why you did this, and I would like some sort of explanation for this. Remember that the Idaho Supreme Court has consistently held that the Second Amendment is not only an individual right, but one that limits both federal and state authority. See In Re Brickey, 8 Ida. 597 (1902), the reasoning of which was upheld in both State v. Woodward, 58 Ida. 385 (1937) and State v. Hart, 66 Ida. 217 (1945), which cited Brickey without distancing themselves from its broad claim that both the Second Amendment and Idaho Const. Art. I, sec. 11 limited state authority.Over here, someone who apparently was involved in the case says that Idaho's appearance on that brief was in error. UPDATE 4: The A-G's office confirmed that they joined the brief in error. Here's the withdrawal. Labels: gun rights Thursday, March 08, 2007
Mental Health Court Idaho has been working on coming up with a way of dealing with the problems of mental illness that allows some flexibility with crimes committed by the mentally ill, but not at the cost of ignoring problems (as has been a common problem in the post-deinstitutionalization period): A Caldwell grandmother's sentencing has been postponed so she can be considered for a new court program that deals with mental health cases in Canyon County.One of the difficulties is that for some mental patients, failing to take their medications increases substantially their likelihood of committing more serious crimes. The goal is to have some mechanism for requiring such criminals to take their prescribed medications, with the potential of being locked up if they fail to do so. It is not an ideal solution, but the alternative is the mentally ill person who continues down a path of increasing escalation. There's plenty of examples of what can happen, such as Richard Baumhammers, and Russell Eugene Weston, Jr. These are tragedies that didn't need to happen. Labels: deinstitutionalization Retailers For ScopeRoller Products See here. And Anacortes Telescope is, I think, test marketing the ScopeRoller G11 caster assemblies. Labels: machining Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Book Tour: New York City I will be in the New York City area April 19 through April 21 or 22--well, I'm a little unsure how long, and that's what this is about. I have two dates nailed down: April 19th in the evening for the Joey Reynolds show on WOR, and April 20th at 8:00 PM at Ramapo College of New Jersey. I have not yet made my plane reservations, so if you have either media opportunities available, or a speaking engagement in the greater New York City area around that weekend, please let me know immediately, so that I can schedule around that. I'll make final travel plans on Saturday. Labels: my books Clear Skies Didn't Last A bit after sunset, I was able to get Big Bertha collimated and aimed at Saturn--and the new focuser really makes a difference. The fine focus knob let me bring Saturn in to a very sharp focus at 222x. It still isn't quite as sharp as the 5" refractor, because fundamentally, Big Bertha's mirror is only so-so, but still, I could see at least one cloud band on the planet itself. Cassini's Division was only visible at the ansae of the rings, partly because Saturn was still not terribly high in the sky. Then the clouds came in. Maybe I'll get lucky tonight. Labels: telescopes Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Ann Coulter I've often mentioned that she can be quite funny, in an unfair sort of way. She can be quite thoughtful as well. Unfortunately, her nasty and unfair remarks, as funny as they are, distract from the thoughtful things she has to say--as this latest flap shows. My wife and I have been talking about this for a day or two. It took a while for my wife to nail down exactly what bothers her, but it comes down to this: Ann Coulter's sometimes cruel or vicious statements aren't terribly effective at persuading people in the middle--mostly, they reinforce her fan base, and sell more books. There's a need to sell books, of course--boy, I wish that I could sell books like Ann Coulter does--but her remarks at CPAC distracted attention from what should have been the real issue: who will conservatives nominate for President next year? You see, if Ann Coulter turned the pH of her writing down from 0.7 (makes your skin smoke when the acid hits it, followed by yellowing or browning) to about 2.0 (you can feel the acid bite into the skin), she could be more effective at persuading people in the middle--but I suspect that she would be far less noticeable, and sell less books. If she turned the pH down to about 3.0, she would be rather like Michelle Malkin--one of the vast swarm of incredibly smart, pretty conservative women writers out there. Now, Michelle Malkin doesn't avoid controversy, nor is she reluctant to raise important issues. She does enrage liberals for raising issues that matter--for example, her book about the Japanese internment during World War II. But Michelle Malkin enrages the left with the content of her arguments--not the way that she phrases them. Michelle Malkin is putting conservative ideas front and center, unlike Ann Coulter, who is largely putting Ann Coulter front and center. The conservative movement isn't about personalities, or about selling books (but don't let that stop you from buying at least three copies of my new book), but about ideas. I would forward this to Michelle Malkin, so that she realizes how much I respect her, but her email box is either full or no longer receiving emails. If you are one of the select few that has a way of contacting her, let her know about this. Poor Scooter Libby He should have perjured himself about something unimportant--like allegations of rape by an important White House employee. Then, no one would have cared. Spring Is Coming! The sky is blue, the outside air temperature was in the 50s, so I took the top off the Corvette when I drove into work today. (Some operations that should have been doable over the Internet, but there are some quirks of the internal networking that sent me driving into the office.) I actually had to open some windows today because the sunlight had raised temperatures high enough that the thermostat turned off the furnace. There's a downside to spring, of course, and that is the wasps again. We've found two in the master bathroom, which suggests that they may have nested in the rafters, and found an opening into one of the heating vents. The solution: 1. We found a couple of holes where the satellite dish cabling comes in that were not closed up--and that we suspect that the wasps have been using to gain entrance to the airspace under the roof. So we sealed them up with silicone. 2. We bug bombed the master bathroom, and left the exhaust fan running. I noticed that there were lots of dead wasps in the snow on that side of the house afterwards. 3. I set up two bug bombs in the garage rafters earlier today. Now that we have sealed up what we believe is their only exit, we will repeat, in the hopes of killing the queen, assuming that she is up there. They Warned Us Against Horseplay in Shop Class But then again, back when I took Wood Shop, there were only boys--girls took home economics. And amazingly enough, this didn't happen in Sonoma County: Shop class gives students a chance to learn outside of the book. But at Warren Township's Raymond Park Middle School, two students engaged in illicit acts in view of goggled eyes.My, how things have changed. When I was in sixth grade, two guys I knew and a gal had reached the point of going over to one of their houses to get naked. By seventh grade, Lance and Vicki had progressed to the point of using Baggies in place of condoms. But no one would have thought of sex in a classroom in front of an audience. I do not think this is a positive sign for our culture. Labels: decline and fall of Western civilization Record Snow in China; Record Cold in Canada From one of the Chinese papers (which thankfully has an English page): THE strongest March snowstorm to hit northeast China's Liaoning Province in 56 years has left at least one person dead and seven injured after the roof of an agricultural trade building collapsed under the weight of the snow, local sources said.What has me confused is that I didn't realize that Al Gore had been in China talking about global warming! Canada had a remarkable February: Frigid conditions made the month the coldest February in 28 years, according to Environment Canada’s senior climatologist David Phillips.Now, a series of remarkably cold days or even months doesn't prove much by itself--but this isn't the first time that I have brought to your attention record cold in various parts of the world. After a while, it should at least make you skeptical of the...overheated...claims that some are making. Labels: Al Gore, global warming Monday, March 05, 2007
An Amazing Self-Defense Story Pete Drum and I blog civilian gun self-defense news stories every day--often, multiple stories a day. Only occasionally do I bring one over that seems especially interesting or astonishing. This is one of those stories. From the March 5, 2007 Jackson Clarion-Ledger is this amazing story of what would have been a horrifying death--except for a bystander with a handgun: As customers watched in horror Sunday afternoon, a man stabbed a woman and attempted to set her on fire in the parking lot of a Jackson store, witnesses said.I can't think of too many ways to die worse than being doused in gasoline and set afire. Usually, you don't die quickly. It can take hours to days, and the pain is intense. Victims sometimes die from damage to their lungs, so they slowly suffocate. I am so glad that someone had a gun on him--and it is part of the reason that I try to have a gun with me whenever I can, and I encourage other licensees to do likewise. Labels: gun self-defense Oh Yeah, Global Warming Is Settled Science... So why is one of the original scientists who sounded the alarm now changing sides? Claude Allegre, one of France's leading socialists and among her most celebrated scientists, was among the first to sound the alarm about the dangers of global warming. Labels: global warming This Really Is a Revolution If, in 1977, you had told me that I would someday seriously consider a Cadillac, I would have thought you were nuts. Cadillacs were everything that I found detestable in automobiles: softly sprung behemoths designed to isolate the driver from the outside world, too large and inefficient to justify the reasonably good acceleration (at least, in a straight line) that their engines could offer. They were popular among certain status seeking ethnic groups where I grew up as a way of saying, "Hey! I've made it! I'm rich enough to buy a top of the line car!" Consequently, when I was in high school, Cadillacs were variously called (by others, not by me) a "Jew Canoe" or "Kosher Cruiser" or, with lowered suspension and the stereo turned up too loud, "Pimpmobile." But General Motors seems to have learned a few lessons over the last few years--and Cadillac is part of the revolution. This review of the 2005 Cadillac STS will shock people that haven't been paying attention: Cadillac's latest effort, the rear-wheel-drive STS luxury sport sedan, is looking to woo customers away from the Lexus LS 430, Mercedes-Benz E-Class and BMW 5 Series. And it has the hardware to do so. It looks good on paper and, more importantly, it feels good on the road. It's all here, and it's wrapped up in signature styling that unabashedly states, "I'm a Cadillac, and proud of it."Or this Canadian review of the 2006 STS V6: The most important point of departure in today's STS is its rear-wheel-drive, or all-wheel-drive configuration. Gone is the front-wheel-drive format that led the previous gen STS, and I couldn't be happier. Along with sending power to the "correct wheels," GM engineered a very rigid body structure for the latest STS. When encountering beat-up pavement, the solidity of the car's unibody construction becomes immediately noticeable thanks to the absence of suspension noise, body-flex and cabin shudder. The fully independent arrangement smoothly absorbs bumps and potholes while keeping the vehicle stable and connected to the road. There is no float or excessive rebound to suggest the chassis under foot is anything but sound. The placid, but well-controlled ride of the STS enhances the sense of relaxation that comes with driving a refined luxury car.Or this review of the 2006 CTS-V (the more compact sedan): It seems a particularly wicked act to shoehorn a six-liter Corvette engine into a Cadillac CTS, so where better to put this high roller through its paces than in the original Sin City - Las Vegas.Unfortunately, the CTS or CTS-V don't have all wheel drive (yet--but in 2008), so there's no chance of finding a used CTS that could deal with my snow problem. I'm not sure that I would be willing to spend the money for a used STS with AWD. Unfortunately, the 2007 CTS-V only comes with a six-speed manual transmission--an automatic isn't even available. Hmmm. As much as it would be nice to have the power of the Corvette engine, I'm not sure that I want it that badly. Labels: cars Sunday, March 04, 2007
Mitt Romney Yeah, yeah, I know, a lot of people say that he's a liberal. You wouldn't know it from this speech. I look forward to seeing a bit more of what Romney has to say. Maybe he really is a closet liberal, and is just talking conservative now--I don't know. There are a lot of people who aren't comfortable with having a Mormon in the White House. All things being equal, yes, I would be more comfortable with someone who is a bit closer to my religious beliefs. But the First Amendment provides sufficient protection against establishment of religion or violations of my freedom of worship. What I do know is that those who insist that no Christian should vote for a Mormon for high public office had better come up with a Christian alternative that conservatives can vote for, and very quickly. Above all, if someone argues that Christians should not vote for a Mormon because of their rather...unique religious beliefs, then they better supply us a viable candidate who actually manages to live his Christianity. Newt Gingrich is smart as a whip. The circumstances and apparent reasons for the divorce from his first wife leave me seriously disappointed. If there is a religious argument for not voting for a Mormon, then voting for Gingrich isn't a valid alternative. Labels: 2008 presidential candidates Winter is Almost Over! It was in the 40s today, intermittent sunshine (although not clear enough skies to roll out the telescope this evening), and the Corvette could easily get in and out if I needed it to today. I think I can delay action on 4WD/AWD at least until the fall. I have this fantasy, you see. The fantasy is that Armed America sells 100,000 copies, and instead of buying a slightly used Subaru or Jeep Cherokee as a winter-only car--I buy the new 2008 Cadillac CTS-V AWD as a four season replacement for the Corvette. Rumor is that it will use the 500 hp Z06 Corvette engine, but even if it was the 400 hp engine from the standard Corvette, that would be okay. Labels: cars Telling the Public Health Experts What to Work On Instapundit points out that the public health crowd--who seem to be full of ideas on what the government should be doing with respect to what foods we eat, whether we should be allowed to own guns, etc., are falling down on the job in one important traditional public health area: keeping rats out of restaurants: Before they start with their bureaucrat-empowering agenda of 21st-century health initiatives, maybe they should get a handle on the 19th-century health problems first. . . .Hey, I've the solution--issue .22 caliber handguns to all the public health Nazis, and tell them to go rat hunting in New York City! (Perhaps we should only let them have the snakeshot loads until they get the hang of it.) Did The Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause Guarantee Equal Rights to Women? I've been arguing with the usual liberals over at Volokh Conspiracy, and they got rather indignant when I pointed out that the "equal protection clause" of the 14th Amendment doesn't mean what they think it means: Nearly all of our laws discriminate. The laws against robbery discriminate against those who take the property of others by force or the threat thereof. Our gun control laws discriminate against convicted felons, against minors, against U.S. citizens that have given up their citizenshp. School attendance laws discriminate against (or you might argue, in favor of) minors. They discriminate based on geography--you can't send your kid to a certain school unless you live in that district. Our laws discriminate based on age as to what public offices you may hold. Our laws discriminate against people who drive with more than a certain amount of alcohol in their blood--even if they haven't hit anyone yet!I pointed out that the evidence is quite clear that the primary focus of the 14th Amendment, as demonstrated by statements from both proponents and opponents, was protecting the rights of blacks, and secondarily, the rights of Unionist whites who either already lived in the South, or had moved there after the Civil War. (Amusingly enough, I have seen liberals defend the racism of affirmative action on the grounds that the 14th Amendment was intended to protect blacks--not whites. There's some merit to such an historical analysis, as offensive as the results might turn out to be.) So, one of the liberals commenting over there decided to show his superiority over me by asking if the 14th Amendment prohibited discrimination based on gender. The answer is very clearly, "No." If it had, there would have been no need for the later amendment to the Constitution granting women the right to vote, and all this discussion of an Equal Rights Amendment a couple of decades back would have been completely pointless. It is not that no one thought of this argument. There was a challenge in 1872 to Missouri's law limiting the vote to men that ended up before the Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874). This was specifically raised on the "privileges and immunities" clause of the 14th Amendment, so it isn't strictly an equal protection argument, but the Court's position on this is essentially an original intent argument based on the fact that Congress passed the 15th Amendment to guarantee the right of male citizens to vote--something that suggests that the right to vote was not one of the "privileges and immunities" that the 14th Amendment protected. A similar argument, and a similar response, shows up in Bradwell v. Illinois, 83 U.S. 130 (1872), where a woman challenged an Illinois law that only licensed men to be lawyers. As late as Goesaert v. Cleary, 335 U.S. 464 (1948), the Supreme Court upheld a Michigan law that prohibited woman from being licensed as bartenders unless they were the wife or daughter of the owner, and decided that this was no violation of equal protection: The Constitution in enjoining the equal protection of the laws upon States precludes irrational discrimination as between persons or groups of persons in the incidence of a law. But the Constitution does not require situations 'which are different in fact or opinion to be treated in law as though they were the same.' Tigner v. State of Texas, 310 U.S. 141, 147 , 882, 130 A.L.R. 1321.In short, as long as the statute's distinctions between different women in different situations had some connection to a perceived public need, there was no violation of equal protection--and certainly, the mere fact that the law discriminated against women as a sex was not an equal protection violation. Labels: equal protection |
