posted by sam on .
We gradually came to realize that equal protection really had to say that we can't discriminate in school attendance, and then beyond school attendance into many other fields.
Is this a rhetorical device?
It has to be retorical, because the premise is not true. The equal protection amendment was first applied to juries, then to transportation, then to voting rights, and some 80 years after it was inacted was it applied to school attendence. Then the conclusion is wrong: The equal protection clause applies only to government, not anything else. What has happened is that the Civil Rights act (passed under the commerce clause) extended the "equality" of races to many other fields, outside the bounds of just government bodies.
Yes, it is retoric.
thanks, what type of rhetorical is this?