Equal Protections Clause

Discussion in 'Politics' started by ihopehefails, Jan 18, 2010.

  1. ihopehefails
    Offline

    ihopehefails BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2009
    Messages:
    3,384
    Thanks Received:
    228
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +228
    The equal protection clause of the 14th amendment was designed to ensure that everyone entitled to those protections get the protections it ensured such as a law making it illegal to steal. Anti-theft laws provide a protection for the citizens against other citizens and because there is not a single group specified in the law it means that everyone is entitled to the protections that that law provides. The 14th amendment ensures that state governments must protect everyone entitled to those protections equally so it can't only protect the white population from theft and deny other groups the same protection.

    This was done because southern governments were allowing blacks to be lynched so they demanded that every citizen of every state be given the same protections that that law provided and specified. That does not mean whatever protections are provided by a law that those protections should be extended beyond the group it is suppose to protect.

    Marriage laws provide 'protections' to married couples but only for those that are within what is called a legal marriage. The 14th amendment does not extend protections to persons outside what the law intended. It only ensures that the protected groups get the protections that they are entitled to under that law. To do otherwise is to expand the law beyond what the original law intended which is nothing more than creating new laws from the bench.

    This ensures that the law will protect everyone that the law is suppose to protect.
     
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2010
  2. goldcatt
    Offline

    goldcatt Catch me if you can! Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    10,330
    Thanks Received:
    2,331
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    CentralPA
    Ratings:
    +2,331
    So in your opinion, the Equal Protection Clause should tolerate laws enacted to benefit (or punish) only certain groups?
     
  3. ihopehefails
    Offline

    ihopehefails BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2009
    Messages:
    3,384
    Thanks Received:
    228
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +228
    Yes. It should because that law does not strike down laws that discriminate. It only ensures everyone entitled to protections get them as the law defines.
     
  4. goldcatt
    Offline

    goldcatt Catch me if you can! Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    10,330
    Thanks Received:
    2,331
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    CentralPA
    Ratings:
    +2,331
    So under your interpretation, if the Southern states had simply changed their laws to exempt lynching blacks from murder statutes they would have been free to allow lynchings to continue unpunished?
     
  5. ihopehefails
    Offline

    ihopehefails BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2009
    Messages:
    3,384
    Thanks Received:
    228
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +228
    Under the 14th amendment it would be legal. It would be illegal under different amendments passed.

    I don't know why liberals have to turn every political argument into it is immoral therefore it is unconstitutional.
     
  6. goldcatt
    Offline

    goldcatt Catch me if you can! Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    10,330
    Thanks Received:
    2,331
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    CentralPA
    Ratings:
    +2,331
    :wtf:


    Where do you read this stuff, and why do you believe it?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. ihopehefails
    Offline

    ihopehefails BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2009
    Messages:
    3,384
    Thanks Received:
    228
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +228
    It makes more sense noob because if we are to extend the protections that a law gives to a specific group to groups outside of that law then we are going to have to start saying that since two people can get married then why can't we have those protections to polygamist, inapropriate (yet consenting )aged girls getting married because we can't discriminate based on age or religion. We can't discriminate against child-molestors who want to move next to us because if housing discrimination protects minorities, women, gays, and etc then those protections should be extended to child molesters.

    Do you think we extend those protections to those people?
     
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2010
  8. goldcatt
    Offline

    goldcatt Catch me if you can! Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    10,330
    Thanks Received:
    2,331
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    CentralPA
    Ratings:
    +2,331
    So in other words, you made it up.

    Try actually reading the EP Clause first:

    (emphasis added)

    Amendment XIV | LII / Legal Information Institute

    Now, as a starting point you tell me where from those words you get the principle that States can target certain groups under the law?
     
  9. ihopehefails
    Offline

    ihopehefails BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2009
    Messages:
    3,384
    Thanks Received:
    228
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +228
    I assume that any protection a law grants has to grant it to everyone that that law says is entitled to those protections because the law they are talking about is the one written so if it is written to protect XYZ groups then everyone in XYZ has to get those protections equally. To do otherwise, is not enforce an existing law but to create additional laws by expanding to to protect ABC...XYZ and that was not the law that was written. Hence, equal protection of the laws in existence not the ones you think should exist.

    This gives people more protection by forcing the police to enforce an existing law in an unbiased manor. You can't pull over only blacks and arrest them and allow whites to escape for the same offense since the law that is being broken applies to everyone.
     
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2010
  10. goldcatt
    Offline

    goldcatt Catch me if you can! Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    10,330
    Thanks Received:
    2,331
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    CentralPA
    Ratings:
    +2,331
    That's the problem with using assumptions instead of a little basic reaserch. They're usually wrong.

    Try this explanation (the real one):

    Equal protection | LII / Legal Information Institute

    Now, do you think the State might have a legitimate purpose for not allowing, say, an eight-year-old to get married? Or a brother and sister?

    I know where you're going with this, but as I'm sure you're aware Bowers was overturned.
     

Share This Page