Equal Protections Clause

[ihopehefails]

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.

Since you brought up case law with GC as not really being law, can you quote a case here to support this? I can, but want to see what you post. It is correct, but there we have the case law to support it, just not words contained in the 14th. So would the case law be actual law then if it supported your argument?

No it would not because any bit of case law can be overturned the actual law called the constitution depending on the courts. Case law is only good for setting precendence that lower courts have to abide by. It is not the final judgement on what the law is since it, like anything else, is just an opinion of the law itself.

Can I quote a case that supports this? I can point out every overturned case and point out why and that is because the actual law itself overturned it so case law is not the constitution since it was the constitution that overturned them.

 

[lawbuff]

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.

Since you brought up case law with GC as not really being law, can you quote a case here to support this? I can, but want to see what you post. It is correct, but there we have the case law to support it, just not words contained in the 14th. So would the case law be actual law then if it supported your argument?

No it would not because any bit of case law can be overturned the actual law called the constitution depending on the courts. Case law is only good for setting precendence that lower courts have to abide by. It is not the final judgement on what the law is since it, like anything else, is just an opinion of the law itself.

Can I quote a case that supports this? I can point out every overturned case and point out why and that is because the actual law itself overturned it so case law is not the constitution since it was the constitution that overturned them.

I am talking about decisions for the United Sttes Supreme Court I can cite, NOT inferior courts. Can you cite any? I can.

 

[ihopehefails]

Since you brought up case law with GC as not really being law, can you quote a case here to support this? I can, but want to see what you post. It is correct, but there we have the case law to support it, just not words contained in the 14th. So would the case law be actual law then if it supported your argument?

No it would not because any bit of case law can be overturned the actual law called the constitution depending on the courts. Case law is only good for setting precendence that lower courts have to abide by. It is not the final judgement on what the law is since it, like anything else, is just an opinion of the law itself.

Can I quote a case that supports this? I can point out every overturned case and point out why and that is because the actual law itself overturned it so case law is not the constitution since it was the constitution that overturned them.

I am talking about decisions for the United Sttes Supreme Court I can cite, NOT inferior courts. Can you cite any? I can.

I can't cite any off the top of my head.

 

[lawbuff]

No it would not because any bit of case law can be overturned the actual law called the constitution depending on the courts. Case law is only good for setting precendence that lower courts have to abide by. It is not the final judgement on what the law is since it, like anything else, is just an opinion of the law itself.

Can I quote a case that supports this? I can point out every overturned case and point out why and that is because the actual law itself overturned it so case law is not the constitution since it was the constitution that overturned them.

I am talking about decisions for the United Sttes Supreme Court I can cite, NOT inferior courts. Can you cite any? I can.

I can't cite any off the top of my head.

If you want to discuss the Constitution, it is better if you have US SC case law to back you up, otherwise, words lie flat on a page.

You said the Equal protection clause protects police stops and arrests of all, not just whites, then you said in your next to last post it is not law because lower courts conlfict. I can't see any sound logic in this?

 

[ihopehefails]

I am talking about decisions for the United Sttes Supreme Court I can cite, NOT inferior courts. Can you cite any? I can.

I can't cite any off the top of my head.

If you want to discuss the Constitution, it is better if you have US SC case law to back you up, otherwise, words lie flat on a page.

You said the Equal protection clause protects police stops and arrests of all, not just whites, then you said in your next to last post it is not law because lower courts conlfict. I can't see any sound logic in this?

I can't really see the point of asking why do totally disconnected statement and trying to connect them together. I said that in the equal protection stops the government from arbitrarily not enforcing (such as not stopping the KKK from lynching people) the law where the law is legally entitled to be enforced.

I honestly don't know how you connect that with something about how the courts come to a decision. One involves my opinion of how the 14th amendment is and the other involves the procedure that lower courts come to a decision. They go by the precedence of higher courts even if those higher courts precedence are wrong. I did not say the precedence is correct.

 

[lawbuff]

They go by the precedence of higher courts even if those higher courts precedence are wrong. I did not say the precedence is correct.

I said the police case you cited was correct, and the lower courts are bound by it, so now are you saying the precedent is wrong? Or is it wrong just when you disagree with it?

 

[goldcatt]

I can't cite any off the top of my head.

If you want to discuss the Constitution, it is better if you have US SC case law to back you up, otherwise, words lie flat on a page.

You said the Equal protection clause protects police stops and arrests of all, not just whites, then you said in your next to last post it is not law because lower courts conlfict. I can't see any sound logic in this?

I can't really see the point of asking why do totally disconnected statement and trying to connect them together. I said that in the equal protection stops the government from arbitrarily not enforcing (such as not stopping the KKK from lynching people) the law where the law is legally entitled to be enforced.

I honestly don't know how you connect that with something about how the courts come to a decision. One involves my opinion of how the 14th amendment is and the other involves the procedure that lower courts come to a decision. They go by the precedence of higher courts even if those higher courts precedence are wrong. I did not say the precedence is correct.

So you're saying case law is binding on how the law is actually administered, but it is only opinion AND your completely unsupported opinion is superior to that of the courts'?

 

[keee keee]

The gays claim at descrimination is all bullshit they have the same rights as a straight person has, that is marry a person of the oppisite sex. If they want to change the definition of marriage to allow males to marry males and females to marry females then what about a male marrying two female are vice a verca. that is also a lifestyle that they say gay is a life style. Or what about someone marrying an animal that is just as immoral and unjust as gay marriage?

 

[ihopehefails]

If you want to discuss the Constitution, it is better if you have US SC case law to back you up, otherwise, words lie flat on a page.

You said the Equal protection clause protects police stops and arrests of all, not just whites, then you said in your next to last post it is not law because lower courts conlfict. I can't see any sound logic in this?

I can't really see the point of asking why do totally disconnected statement and trying to connect them together. I said that in the equal protection stops the government from arbitrarily not enforcing (such as not stopping the KKK from lynching people) the law where the law is legally entitled to be enforced.

I honestly don't know how you connect that with something about how the courts come to a decision. One involves my opinion of how the 14th amendment is and the other involves the procedure that lower courts come to a decision. They go by the precedence of higher courts even if those higher courts precedence are wrong. I did not say the precedence is correct.

So you're saying case law is binding on how the law is actually administered, but it is only opinion AND your completely unsupported opinion is superior to that of the courts'?

Yes but that does not make case law correct nor does it make case law the actual law itself because any case law can be overturned unlike the constitution itself. My opinion is superior to that of the courts but since the courts are the one that actual decision making power then my opinion really has no power in any case unless the current precedence gets overturned.

 

[lawbuff]

Yes but that does not make case law correct nor does it make case law the actual law itself because any case law can be overturned unlike the constitution itself. My opinion is superior to that of the courts but since the courts are the one that actual decision making power then my opinion really has no power in any case unless the current precedence gets overturned.

That does not make any sense, as when the SC overturns itself, it IS based on the Constitution, so in effect the Constitution IS being overturned. Or can't you see that??

How many SC MAJOR decisions have been overturned since it's 1789 inception? I can cite some, but the majority are not really what you would call Landmark.

 

[ihopehefails]

Yes but that does not make case law correct nor does it make case law the actual law itself because any case law can be overturned unlike the constitution itself. My opinion is superior to that of the courts but since the courts are the one that actual decision making power then my opinion really has no power in any case unless the current precedence gets overturned.

That does not make any sense, as when the SC overturns itself, it IS based on the Constitution, so in effect the Constitution IS being overturned. Or can't you see that??

How many SC MAJOR decisions have been overturned since it's 1789 inception? I can cite some, but the majority are not really what you would call Landmark.

No I don't see that because the constitution does not get overturned. Precedence gets overturned.

 

[lawbuff]

No I don't see that because the constitution does not get overturned. Precedence gets overturned.

Same thing, you just don't see that.

What about the 18th AM being repealed, did the Constitution get overturned then? If yes, how is that diffrerent from the People overturning it and the SC overturning precedent?

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Completely moronic view of the 14th amendment

 

[ihopehefails]

No I don't see that because the constitution does not get overturned. Precedence gets overturned.

Same thing, you just don't see that.

What about the 18th AM being repealed, did the Constitution get overturned then? If yes, how is that diffrerent from the People overturning it and the SC overturning precedent?

Yes but that is different because it is getting repealed through the democratic process by the wishes of the people. They overturned it because they did not like it but the supreme court can't overturn the constitution because it rules on existing laws that are created by the legislative branches. It does no create laws it judges cases based on the law created by the legislative branch.

When the courts overturn precedence they do it because it was incorrect so they are fixing the precedent in order to align itself with what the law means.

 

[ihopehefails]

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.

Completely moronic view of the 14th amendment

What do you expect? You were the one viewing it.

 

[rightwinger]

What do you expect? You were the one viewing it.

Only you could take an essential right and twist it completely against its intent

 

[lawbuff]

No I don't see that because the constitution does not get overturned. Precedence gets overturned.

Same thing, you just don't see that.

What about the 18th AM being repealed, did the Constitution get overturned then? If yes, how is that diffrerent from the People overturning it and the SC overturning precedent?

Yes but that is different because it is getting repealed through the democratic process by the wishes of the people. They overturned it because they did not like it but the supreme court can't overturn the constitution because it rules on existing laws that are created by the legislative branches. It does no create laws it judges cases based on the law created by the legislative branch.

"Judges cases based on law created by the legislative branch"? Sure, but we are discussing case law based on the 14th AM's euqal protection clause, not Congress. You are switching gears here.

When the courts overturn precedence they do it because it was incorrect so they are fixing the precedent in order to align itself with what the law means.

Incorrect? I thought you said SC precedent was not correct, as it is only an interpretation.

What about time from of overruled decisions. In Barron v. Baltimore, 1833, CJ John Marshall ruled the Bill of Rights was NOT applicable to the states. It took almost 100 years to overturn that decision when they started incorporartion. Which court was right??

 

[Modbert]

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.

Translation: "Fuck off Faggots"

Your twisted idea of the 14th Amendment needs some fine tuning. Here's some of your "fine logic":

2nd Amendment was made for Militia, time to hand in your guns.

What you seem to not get is the fact that the 14th amendment applies to all citizens and all rights. Plus, it is to make everyone truly equal.

 

[ihopehefails]

Same thing, you just don't see that.

What about the 18th AM being repealed, did the Constitution get overturned then? If yes, how is that diffrerent from the People overturning it and the SC overturning precedent?

Yes but that is different because it is getting repealed through the democratic process by the wishes of the people. They overturned it because they did not like it but the supreme court can't overturn the constitution because it rules on existing laws that are created by the legislative branches. It does no create laws it judges cases based on the law created by the legislative branch.

"Judges cases based on law created by the legislative branch"? Sure, but we are discussing case law based on the 14th AM's euqal protection clause, not Congress. You are switching gears here.

When the courts overturn precedence they do it because it was incorrect so they are fixing the precedent in order to align itself with what the law means.

Incorrect? I thought you said SC precedent was not correct, as it is only an interpretation.

What about time from of overruled decisions. In Barron v. Baltimore, 1833, CJ John Marshall ruled the Bill of Rights was NOT applicable to the states. It took almost 100 years to overturn that decision when they started incorporartion. Which court was right??

Who knows.

 

[ihopehefails]

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.

Translation: "Fuck off Faggots"

Your twisted idea of the 14th Amendment needs some fine tuning. Here's some of your "fine logic":

2nd Amendment was made for Militia, time to hand in your guns.

What you seem to not get is the fact that the 14th amendment applies to all citizens and all rights. Plus, it is to make everyone truly equal.

The current thinking seems to be able to remove normal healthy discrimination such as a child sex predator claiming the fair housing act does not protect his right to live where he wants because the 14th amendment is suppose to protect everyone equally under the law.

Technichally that could be how the law is to be interpreted by the courts yet legal at the same time. I just can't see why they would make it so general that it can apply to case where some selectivness should exist like what I mentioned above.

Another example is what if there is a law that says that people who make more than a milion dollars have to pay more taxes (other than an income tax) but the rich person use the equal protection clause to strike it down. Where does the amendment draw the line between normal functional discrimination and discrimination that should be stopped? It only says that all laws and the protections provided must be provided to everyone equally.