A bunch of federal laws prevent discrimination in the areas that the courts have failed to protect, and because federal law supersedes state law, the supreme court (and lower courts) strike down discriminatory laws based on the body of the constitution and the ninth and tenth amendments without even touching the fourteenth or fifth amendments at all. There are of course gaps, (Congress just closed one with regards to disability and sexual orientation) and given the extremely right wing tone of our current supreme court, the three tiered system is unlikely to change.
Actually, according to the site you sent me to, the historical argument isn't good enough, but it's not hard to dummy up an argument that is.
Because of the federal laws (The ADA in the case of disability and numerous others in other cases) the courts end up just stating that the state laws violate federal law and strike them down, so the ruling's modern real world impact is minimal. It is a ruling from the 1930s. If it were put to the test by a supreme court with a slightly more liberal leaning than our currant stacked court, it would likely fall, but because of federal statutes, it's not often put to the test with regards to discrimination.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2010-02-13 01:35 am (UTC)Actually, according to the site you sent me to, the historical argument isn't good enough, but it's not hard to dummy up an argument that is.
Because of the federal laws (The ADA in the case of disability and numerous others in other cases) the courts end up just stating that the state laws violate federal law and strike them down, so the ruling's modern real world impact is minimal. It is a ruling from the 1930s. If it were put to the test by a supreme court with a slightly more liberal leaning than our currant stacked court, it would likely fall, but because of federal statutes, it's not often put to the test with regards to discrimination.