(July 14, 2015 at 9:10 pm)Ace Wrote: On the issue of government discrimination. What is considered discrimination? If something is illegal and changes then those who were affected by the law are a protected group? For example drug users who were arrested, now are they a protected class? If so anyone who is a criminal can argue that the government has persiquted them can fight for protected class. Murders, robbers, car boosters? I.e what is government persiqution/discrimination
Ace;
Regarding your questions:
1. Government discrimination may be consider any varying treatment of persons. With that said it is mistaken to believe the government cannot and does not discriminate. The government can and does so commonly and necessarily. Under the 10th Amendment and legal precedence the States have sovereignty over their citizenry, resources, and local policy. The only times the federal government may get involved is in regards to interstate or international commerce, suit, defense, or national unity. Otherwise the State may commonly discriminate according to rational basis scrutiny which defers to the judgment of the legislature. (Though this most certainly will be challenged given the recent Obergefell v. Hodges ruling arguing a federal right to dignity).
2. Grandfathering of persons in accordance with rule changes is common and applicable only if the act is complete prior to the rule change (so you cannot go back and sue for mistreatment as a slave when slavery was legal) it is unjusticiable to the parties involved to change the circumstances according to the revised law (so if you purchased something legally which is now illegal to purchase you are allowed to keep it because the seller cannot buy it back and it would be an injustice for you to be deprived of that property you acquired legally).
3. Protected class: It is funny you should bring up various criminal groups in regards to a protected class. I did the same when I was in law school because the 4 step criterion certainly seems applicable to murders, rapists, addicts, pedos, etcetera. The general answer I got were; first, no one is fighting to protect these classes or willing to hear their request to be a protected class. So they will not become one. Second, these groups of people do not fit the criterion of an unchanging characteristic making the group determinable (I had a very hard time with this answer as it could be argued the suffer from mental deficiency not unlike a mental disability). Third, even if designated a protected class these groups would be subject to strict scrutiny by which the State's compelling interest would override their rights as a class to permit discrimination of them. (Note: A federal right to dignity was not discussed at the time as it was held the law does not confer dignity. However, it may now be possible to say any law singling out a group for given activity is being persecuted and is violation of their substantive right to dignity).
4. Government persecution is something I am not sure of. As is well known during the Nuremberg trials the subject of a States sovereignty over its citizens become tantamount in discussions of government persecution. The law general holds the Nation/State has final sovereignty over the citizens and may pass laws in regards to how to facilitate/curtail/deal with those citizens. Those acting according to the Nation/State laws in the regard of facilitating/curtailing/dealing with the citizenry may not be said to be in violation of the law. To overcome this difficulty the subject of war crimes and human rights were created to represent rights of Persons that are to be recognized by Nations/States and may not be violated. Even so the subject of war crimes and human rights are tenuous as the Nations/States argue the sovereignty of any given Nation/State means it is not subject to the determination of conduct of another Nation/State. To say otherwise is to say it is not a sovereign Nation/State.
