Liberal judges tend to be expansive about things like equal protection, while conservatives read more into ones like 'the right to bear arms.'
I do accept that, with - with respect to those vague terms in the Constitution such as equal protection of the laws, due process of law, cruel and unusual punishments. I fully accept that those things have to apply to new phenomena that didn't exist at the time.
When the 14th Amendment, equal protection clause was enacted, the galleries in the Senate were segregated. Now we have integration.
There is no proportional representation requirement in the Equal Protection Clause.
Full participation in government and society has been a basic right of the country symbolizing the full citizenship and equal protection of all.
Equal protection under the law - for race, religion, gender or sexual orientation - should not be subject to the most popular sentiments of the day.
I just want to believe that, as a citizen in this country, that I have equal protection under the law and that I can have a situation assessed fairly, that people can look at it, and that a court of law can determine what the outcome is.
The language of the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection of the laws did not change between 1896 and 1954, and it would be very hard to say that the obvious facts on which 'Plessy' was based had changed.
The Constitution has a good share of deliberately open-ended guarantees, like rights to due process of law, equal protection of the law, and freedom from unreasonable searches.
Syria, for all its problems, at least has a constitution that guarantees equal protection of citizens. Around the world, we have seen that this is essential where Christians are a minority and are not protected.
