The 14th Amendment right to equal protection as recognized under Baker v Carr designed on the surface to ensure fair participation in the democratic process, however, it is more so a check on the majority. As Baker v Carr introduces, the 14th Amendment does not cover all types of discrimination. For example, discrimination by the means of improper districting of a state, intentional or not, is not covered by the Constitution. However, what the 14th Amendment does do effectively is put a check on the majority will through rights. The majority rules and the only way to prevent this is through rights, which dictate what people are and are not allowed to do. For example, the majority in a society may want to kill someone, however, if in that society, a person has a right to live as written in that society 's supreme law, they are protected from that majority will. …show more content…
In other words, the reason why we have rights are to prevent majorities from changing things. Ely brought up disparate impact, which discusses that a policy may be considered discriminatory if it has disproportionate adverse impact against any group based on race, national origin, color, religion, sex, familial status, or disability. However, Baker v Carr did not bring up adverse impacts based on those claims, so this was not a matter of federal courts in that respect either. Additionally, Ely fails to explain how a group should be worthy of protection against disparate impact. Not all minorities should be protected, for example burglars, and for that reason, his description is ambiguous. Also, attitudes on whether a minority should be protected under the law change, exemplified by the Civil Rights Movement. Not all minorities should be protected, for example burglars, and for that reason, his description is ambiguous. Also, attitudes on whether a minority should be protected under the law change, exemplified by the Civil Rights