Equal Protections Clause

[ihopehefails]

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.

You keep quoting case law and your opinion what it means but anything you just said is not found in the 14th amendment. Tell me why what you just said becomes the 14th amendment itself?

I've read it and it is a pretty wide net that does not exclude previous criminal behaviors so the 14th amendment should apply to everyone and if you think this is not true then why in the previous anti-slavery amendment it puts the exception of "being punished for a crime". Clearly they were smart enough to realize that was important because someone would claim the anti-slavery amendment forbid the punishment of crime. Doesn't it make sense that if they put that in their that they would have put what you said into the 14th amendment?

 

[ihopehefails]

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.

What happens when you build the discrimination into the law like only punishing people who are black?

 

[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.

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.

What does that have to do with anything here? I just said that amendments to the constitution get repealed through the democratic process. The constitution states several methods for this to happen through the legislative process. The courts do not have any power to do this; true or false?

Do the courts have power to alter the constitution; true or false? Do they have the power to change any established precedence; true or false?

Now if the SC doesn't have the power to alter the constitution but do have the power to alter and precedences then what factor are they altering precedences on? They are altering them on the text in the constitution but since that is unmutable they are aligning their court opinion with the constitution itself.

 

[kwc57]

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

Have a nice day!

that means i won. Ok thanks.

View attachment 9256

 

[ihopehefails]

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

Have a nice day!

that means i won. Ok thanks.

View attachment 9256

That is like really mature dude.

 

[kwc57]

that means i won. Ok thanks.

View attachment 9256

That is like really mature dude.

Yes, kind of like "that means I won". Get the point?

 

[ihopehefails]

View attachment 9256

That is like really mature dude.

Yes, kind of like "that means I won". Get the point?

I get it. You are so much better than that that you would never stoop to such a low tactic.

 

[rightwinger]

Looking around .......

Seems like Ihopehefails is the only one supporting his interpretation

 

[bodecea]

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.

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?

Are tax-paying, law-abiding gay Citizens outside the law then?

 

[bodecea]

Looking around .......

Seems like Ihopehefails is the only one supporting his interpretation

Well, he didn't take long comparing law-abiding, tax-paying gay citizens with child molesters, did he?

 

[bodecea]

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.

What happens when you build the discrimination into the law like only punishing people who are black?

You mean like Jim Crow laws?

 

[ihopehefails]

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?

Are tax-paying, law-abiding gay Citizens outside the law then?

Outside what is considered a legal marriage...yes. However most other laws that establish protections for other people do it universally such as laws against theft so they would be entitled to those protections.

Which is why I think the 14th amendment should mean what I theorize it means because if someone created a law that allowed for gays and straight to get married in order to pass mustard yet purposely not allow gays to get a marriage license despite the fact it was legal for them to do so then what part of the constitution would remedy that?

 

[ihopehefails]

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.

What happens when you build the discrimination into the law like only punishing people who are black?

You mean like Jim Crow laws?

Yes like those. Would they be illegal under the equal protection clause?

 

[ihopehefails]

Looking around .......

Seems like Ihopehefails is the only one supporting his interpretation

Well, he didn't take long comparing law-abiding, tax-paying gay citizens with child molesters, did he?

When did I compare the two?

 

[ihopehefails]

After reading some of the original authors intention of the 14th amendment I realize it was intended to strike down laws that only gave one group of citizens protections and not the other so a law that only protected black people would be illegal under the 14th amendment. Still the keyword is protections which has a unique meaning the context of the times it was written in but that will be discussed in another thread.

Anyway, did you notice that I did not use case law to arrive at my opinion and looked at the originalist point of view. I feel that is the most accurate way of deciding what an amendment or any part of the constitution means not what some other justices opinion of what that law means.

 

[rightwinger]

Looking around .......

Seems like Ihopehefails is the only one supporting his interpretation

Well, he didn't take long comparing law-abiding, tax-paying gay citizens with child molesters, did he?

No, not at all.

The idea of gay sex sends tremors through the likes of ihopehefails. He will read any interpretation into trying to get the Constitution to support his anti-gay views

 

[ihopehefails]

Looking around .......

Seems like Ihopehefails is the only one supporting his interpretation

Well, he didn't take long comparing law-abiding, tax-paying gay citizens with child molesters, did he?

No, not at all.

The idea of gay sex sends tremors through the likes of ihopehefails. He will read any interpretation into trying to get the Constitution to support his anti-gay views

That is because it is creepy dude and the 14th amendment does not apply to all situations because of the word 'protections'. Also, I only used it because its the one that most people are thinking of and yes that was at the top of my mind but since people want to use this to justify the legalization of gay marriage then I am eligiable to argue why it doesn't apply.

BTW, find the sentence where I said that child molestors = homosexuals?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Perhaps we could have that argument sometime when we're not being beset with nonsense.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

And if you try to milk a horse, you will be getting a surprise.

 

[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.

What happens when you build the discrimination into the law like only punishing people who are black?

It is my understanding that laws which target a group based on race or ethnicity are invalid. This is why homosexual activists keep lobbying to have "sexual orientation" included in that long list of "race, sex, ethnicity, religion, creed, national origin", etc.