Equal Protection in Principle and Practice

Here’s how it’s supposed to work: Enact a law that’s otherwise constitutional and apply that law. Thus each State has laws about the age at which a person may drink alcohol, drive a motor vehicle, and wed. Those laws (like other ones since superseded by judicial fiat) arise from the constitutional power of each State under Amendment X to legislate on matters that aren’t in the purview of the central government’s enumerated and limited powers.

Here’s how it works when liberal judges get in the act: Devise a “right” that everyone “should” have — because the judges say so — and then strike down as unconstitutional laws that don’t convey that “right” to those who seek it.

Now that the Supreme Court has decreed that States may not outlaw abortion or restrict marriage to persons of the opposite sex, despite the long-standing power of States to do such things — which was understood when Amendment X was ratified — it is incumbent on the Supreme Court to dictate that all persons in the United States may vote, drink alcohol, drive, and wed when they reach puberty. Why? Because there are undoubtedly some “activists” out there who wish it were so. And the Supreme Court can make it so by giving pubescent persons the “right” to vote, drink alcohol, drive, and wed.