While the courts have applied a rational review to classifications based on sexual orientation, it has been argued that discrimination based on sex should be interpreted as including discrimination based on sexual orientation, in which case an interim review could apply to homosexual rights cases.  Other scholars disagree, arguing that “homophobia” is different from sexism in the sociological sense and would therefore be an unacceptable legal shortcut to treat it as such.  The current situation, according to Vinson, is the first. In the Sweatt case, the court considered the constitutionality of Texas` law school system, which educated blacks and whites in separate institutions. The court (again by Chief Justice Vinson and again without dissenting) declared the school system invalid – not because it separated students, but because separate schools were not equal. They did not have “substantive equality of educational opportunity” offered to their students. During the debate in Congress, more than one version of the clause was considered. Here is the first version: “Congress shall have the power to enact necessary and appropriate laws to guarantee. all persons in different states have the same protection in the rights to life, liberty and property.  Bingham said of this version: “It gives Congress the power to ensure that the protections afforded by state laws are equal to all persons with respect to life, liberty, and property.”  The main opponent of the first version was Congressman Robert S. Hale of New York, despite Bingham`s public assurances that “no possible interpretation can ever be made to operate in New York State while occupying his present position of pride.”  Warren discouraged other judges, such as Robert H. Jackson, from issuing a consensus opinion; Jackson`s draft, written much later (1988), contained this statement: “Constitutions are more easily changing than social customs, and even the North has never fully adapted its racial practices to its professions.”   The Court again discussed the issue of the implementation of the decision.
In Brown II, decided in 1954, it was concluded that the problems identified in the previous opinion were local in nature and that solutions should be local. Thus, the court transferred jurisdiction to the local school authorities and the courts of first instance that had originally heard the cases. (Brown was actually a consolidation of four different cases from four different states.) Magistrates` courts and localities were ordered to abolish racial segregation with “all due speed.” Representatives are distributed among individual states according to their respective numbers, counting the total number of people in each state, excluding untaxed Indians. If, however, the right to vote at every election for the election of electors for the President and Vice President of the United States, members of Congress, executive and judicial officers of a State, or members of the legislature of that State, is denied to any male resident of that State who is twenty-one years of age and to citizens of the United States or in any way reduced, except in the case of participation in rebellions or other crimes, the basis of representation in such rebellions shall be reduced in proportion to the number of such male citizens to the total number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in that state. In the United States, 1877 marked the end of reconstruction and the beginning of the Golden Age. The first truly landmark Supreme Court decision on equal protection was Strauder v. West Virginia (1880). A black man convicted of murder by an all-white jury has challenged a law in West Virginia that barred blacks from serving on juries. The exclusion of blacks from jurors, the court said, was a denial of equal protection for black defendants because the jury “came from a panel from which the state expressly excluded any man [of race] from the accused.” At the same time, the Court explicitly allowed sexism and other forms of discrimination, stating that states “may limit selection to men, free landlords, citizens, persons of a certain age, or persons with educational qualifications.
We do not think the Fourteenth Amendment was ever intended to prohibit that. Their goal was to combat discrimination based on race or colour.  With the return to originalist interpretations of the Constitution, many are wondering what the authors of the reconstruction amendments intended at the time of their ratification. The 13th Amendment abolished slavery, but the extent to which it protected other rights was unclear.  After the 13th Amendment, the South began introducing black laws, which were restrictive laws designed to keep black Americans in a position of inferiority. The 14th Amendment was signed into law by nervous Republicans in response to the rise of black codes.  This ratification was irregular in many respects.