I know this question has been asked before, but I continue to be amazed that Prof. Gerber continues to write
"the 14th amendment says no "person" may be denied the equal protection of the laws, which includes nondiversity persons). The words of the Constitution are overlooked more often than the words of other laws" as if this has real meaning. So let me ask once again: Does he believe that classification per se is unconstitutional insofar as, by definition, it authorizes that persons be treated differently from one another? Since I assume that his answer is no--to answer yes would be almost literally lunatic, practically, though it is a logical possibility--then does he believe that the words themselves of the Fourteenth Amendment (unlike, say, the 15th) contain teh slightest hint as to what classifications are acceptable and which are not? sandy
