Originalists often hold that it is incorrect to use the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to strike down laws that discriminate because

And your choices are?

they believe that the original intent of the framers of the Constitution should guide constitutional interpretation. According to originalists, the Equal Protection Clause, as originally understood, was not intended to prohibit all forms of discrimination.

To understand why originalists argue this way, we need to dive into their approach to constitutional interpretation. Originalism asserts that the meaning of the Constitution should be interpreted based on the original understanding of its language and provisions when they were adopted. Originalists argue that this original intent should prevail over subsequent societal changes or evolving interpretations.

In the case of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, originalists often refer to the historical context in which it was included. The clause was ratified in 1868 and was primarily intended to address racial discrimination against African Americans in the aftermath of the Civil War. Originalists argue that its purpose was to ensure equal treatment and protection for this specific group.

According to originalists, applying the Equal Protection Clause to strike down laws that discriminate on grounds other than race (such as gender, sexual orientation, or disability) would be an expansion of its original meaning. They argue that if these additional categories were intended to be protected, the framers would have explicitly included them in the language of the clause or other provisions of the Constitution.

It's important to note that not all legal scholars or judges adhere to originalism, and there are various other approaches to constitutional interpretation. Different schools of thought emphasize different elements, such as textualism, living constitutionalism, or precedent-based reasoning.

In summary, originalists argue that using the Equal Protection Clause to strike down laws that discriminate on non-racial grounds would be contrary to the framers' original intent and the historical context in which it was adopted. However, it's crucial to recognize that this perspective is one among many in the realm of constitutional interpretation.