Equal Protections Clause

[ihopehefails]

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

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

Show me what the writers of that amendment meant it to mean?

 

[potter 58]

-all i can say god bless karl rove, and you fuc,kers wnonder why, LOL

 

[ihopehefails]

-all i can say god bless karl rove, and you fuc,kers wnonder why, LOL

I like Karl Rove. I seen him on Beck.

 

[potter 58]

noi shit , why am I not surprised

 

[Brubricker]

ihopehefails,

No part of the Constitution declares that legislative acts should trump case law. Case law really IS the law even when it conflicts with a legislature. Your vision for the courts would only hold true if the Constitution said that court decisions could never apply to any legislative act. The Constitution says nothing of the kind.

 

[potter 58]

good ole glen, did he turn con before he quit drinking of after , who knows, but once a drunk always a drunk, what do you wingnuts tihink?

 

[potter 58]

if all hope fails, punt

 

[Cecilie1200]

So in your opinion, the Equal Protection Clause should tolerate laws enacted to benefit (or punish) only certain groups?

All laws benefit or punish certain groups, ie. people who fall under the description contained in the law. To use the OP's example, laws against theft punish ONLY those people who fall in the certain group described as "those who commit the crime of theft". They do not punish people who do not fall in that category, ie. people who do not commit the crime of theft. This is not legally considered to be discrimination, because in this context, discrimination would be defined as "punishing people for committing the crime of theft ONLY if they fall into some other category not described in the law"; for example, punishing only black people who commit the crime of theft but not white people who commit the crime of theft. So long as the law punishing the crime of theft is applied the same way to everyone who commits the crime of theft, regardless of other factors, the law is considered to be equal protection.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So in your opinion, the Equal Protection Clause should tolerate laws enacted to benefit (or punish) only certain groups?

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.

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?

That's certainly a radical interpretation of what he said.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

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?

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.

Okay, now you've gone off the rails. Just because THEY don't understand English doesn't mean you have to follow them into idiocy. The Fourteenth Amendment certainly does not allow for laws that discriminate against racial groups.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm not wasting any more time, you are completely, hopelessly and willfully ignorant.

Have a nice day!

That means I won. OK thanks.

No, it means you descended into incomprehensible babble. I agree that the Fourteenth Amendment doesn't require homosexual "marriage", and even I'm disgusted with your nonsense. This isn't a tough argument to make, and you just hopelessly mangled it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

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

Well, you're certainly a font of nothing . . . as usual.

 

[Cecilie1200]

See, this entire thread illustrates why I don't necessarily view someone as being "on my side" simply because they happen to hold the same view of an issue that I do. Increasingly often these days, they just stumbled into that view, have no real idea why they hold it, and couldn't articulate a clear defense of it if their lives depended on it.

 

[goldcatt]

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.

Now, we had this conversation just recently on another thread. I thought you finally got it. You cannot, under any circumstances, confuse Constitutional interpretation and rulings with Statutory interpretation and rulings. They are two different beasts entirely that apply completely different principles and occupy completely different places on the "pyramid" or "flow chart". It's like saying a horse is the same as a cow. The only thing they have in common is they both live in the barn. It's a common mistake but a mistake nonetheless.

 

[goldcatt]

I'm not wasting any more time, you are completely, hopelessly and willfully ignorant.

Have a nice day!

That means I won. OK thanks.

No, it means you descended into incomprehensible babble. I agree that the Fourteenth Amendment doesn't require homosexual "marriage", and even I'm disgusted with your nonsense. This isn't a tough argument to make, and you just hopelessly mangled it.

Thing is, you're right. And I would have enjoyed that argument.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Where do you read this stuff, and why do you believe it?

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?

So in other words, you made it up.

Try actually reading the EP Clause first:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

(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?

NOW provide for us a LAW that states a marriage is between 2 men or 2 women. They have been struck down in California.

 

[goldcatt]

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?

So in other words, you made it up.

Try actually reading the EP Clause first:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

(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?

NOW provide for us a LAW that states a marriage is between 2 men or 2 women. They have been struck down in California.

Not "struck down", invalidated via ballot initiative. The EP Clause was not implicated one way or the other.

 

[dilloduck]

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.

Now, we had this conversation just recently on another thread. I thought you finally got it. You cannot, under any circumstances, confuse Constitutional interpretation and rulings with Statutory interpretation and rulings. They are two different beasts entirely that apply completely different principles and occupy completely different places on the "pyramid" or "flow chart". It's like saying a horse is the same as a cow. The only thing they have in common is they both live in the barn. It's a common mistake but a mistake nonetheless.

Horses ain't cows ??

 

[goldcatt]

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.

Now, we had this conversation just recently on another thread. I thought you finally got it. You cannot, under any circumstances, confuse Constitutional interpretation and rulings with Statutory interpretation and rulings. They are two different beasts entirely that apply completely different principles and occupy completely different places on the "pyramid" or "flow chart". It's like saying a horse is the same as a cow. The only thing they have in common is they both live in the barn. It's a common mistake but a mistake nonetheless.

Horses ain't cows ??

Every good hillbilly knows the difference. You ride a horse and you tip a cow.

 

[goldcatt]

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.

You keep bringing up predators, but that misses the point. Sex offender laws classify individuals because of criminal behavior they choose to engage in and have been found guilty of using due process. NOT to separate individuals and grant them a sliding scale of rights on the basis of class, race, gender, hair color, physical ability, political party affiliation, religion or any other arbitrary or protected status.

We could of course argue whether a sex offender or any other convicted criminal for that matter who's done his (or her) time should continue to be punished after the fact, but that's another topic and another thread.

Homosexuality is not a protected status, nor is it any longer legally considered criminal behavior. It's a gray area that appears to be in transit - to what, who knows? But the bottom line is for now, there is no formal EP rule on same sex marriage. It is not required, it is not forbidden, it's been an issue dealt with (with a few notable exceptions) at the State level. There are arguments on both sides, and good ones. If you just did a little research and tried to understand your topic instead of making shit up, you could build a coherent argument for your position. Try it sometime, you might even like it.