Federal Laws Violate the 14th amendment

[ihopehefails]

Section 1. 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.

A citizen of a state are given certain political rights within respect to the government such as voting (political participation) to create laws and that government protects the freedom of that person by not creating unwanted laws that restrict a person's freedom beyond what was chosen by the citizens of the state. When the federal government attempts to enforce laws that counter state laws that violates the 14th amendment's declaration that you are a citizen of the state you reside in simply because nullifies all powers associated with your citizenship.

It also states that a state may not deny the protection of its laws to any citizen of that state so if a federal law violates any protections that a state gives them then that state is obligated to nullify that law or it will deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Any law that protects a citizen's freedom must be enforced by the state and respected by the federal government which means the federal government can not trample on those protections or it will be violating the 14th amendment of the constitution.

In other words, the state is constitutionally mandated to nullify all federal laws that violates its protections and the federal government has to honor that nullification.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

There is no such thing as a right to vote in a federal election in the Constitution.

 

[Toronado3800]

In other words, the state is constitutionally mandated to nullify all federal laws that violates its protections and the federal government has to honor that nullification.

Ok, got any one example in mind?

This states rights thing has been going south since the 1860's though.

 

[Avatar4321]

In other words, the state is constitutionally mandated to nullify all federal laws that violates its protections and the federal government has to honor that nullification.

No. It just means the States can't do it any more than the Federal Government can. The amendment is limiting the States.

 

[ihopehefails]

In other words, the state is constitutionally mandated to nullify all federal laws that violates its protections and the federal government has to honor that nullification.

No. It just means the States can't do it any more than the Federal Government can. The amendment is limiting the States.

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

The state's inaction to equally protect its citizens under any law it has places a demand on it to do so in order to do what is demanded in the 14th amendment. Now if any other government violates the equal protection of its laws then the state is obligated, in the same way, to make sure that protection is enforced by its legal powers of nullification, interposition, or the dread S word.

 

[ihopehefails]

In other words, the state is constitutionally mandated to nullify all federal laws that violates its protections and the federal government has to honor that nullification.

Ok, got any one example in mind?

This states rights thing has been going south since the 1860's though.

Typical...

The civil war wasn't a constitutional amendment eradicating state's rights. In fact, the constitution didn't change in regard to that fact other than the 14th amendment which created dual citizenship of state and US citizen and I'm ok with that because that was a constitutional change that has to be recognized. We may want to repeal that amendment one day but until then I have to recognize it just like you have to recognize the tenth amendment.

Do I have something in mind?

Should a state that protect a person's right to do pot like in California allow that right to be violated by the federal government? The 14th amendment, in my opinion, obligates that state to take action in order to equally protect that right for all its citizens just as the south had to take action to protect blacks from being murdered by the klan which is why the came up with that.

Should a state that gives equal protection for gays and straight marriage be allowed to not nullify any federal law that violates that protection?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

In other words, the state is constitutionally mandated to nullify all federal laws that violates its protections and the federal government has to honor that nullification.

Ok, got any one example in mind?

This states rights thing has been going south since the 1860's though.

Of course he has no examples.

 

[Avatar4321]

In other words, the state is constitutionally mandated to nullify all federal laws that violates its protections and the federal government has to honor that nullification.

No. It just means the States can't do it any more than the Federal Government can. The amendment is limiting the States.

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

The state's inaction to equally protect its citizens under any law it has places a demand on it to do so in order to do what is demanded in the 14th amendment. Now if any other government violates the equal protection of its laws then the state is obligated, in the same way, to make sure that protection is enforced by its legal powers of nullification, interposition, or the dread S word.

Why do some people seem to think original intent applies only to the original constitution and not the amendments as well? The 14th amendment was passed to prevent States from denying any person equal protection from the law. States.

It's one of the few amendments that actually grants the Federal Government more power over the States. The amendment in no way empowers States to nullify the Supremacy clause. The check the States are supposed to have is the United States Senate.

 

[ihopehefails]

No. It just means the States can't do it any more than the Federal Government can. The amendment is limiting the States.

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

The state's inaction to equally protect its citizens under any law it has places a demand on it to do so in order to do what is demanded in the 14th amendment. Now if any other government violates the equal protection of its laws then the state is obligated, in the same way, to make sure that protection is enforced by its legal powers of nullification, interposition, or the dread S word.

Why do some people seem to think original intent applies only to the original constitution and not the amendments as well? The 14th amendment was passed to prevent States from denying any person equal protection from the law. States.

It's one of the few amendments that actually grants the Federal Government more power over the States. The amendment in no way empowers States to nullify the Supremacy clause. The check the States are supposed to have is the United States Senate.

It is not nullifying the supremacy clause becaust that clause declares that the constitution is the supreme law of the land, not the federal government.

Am I saying that it isn't a limitation on the state? Of course not. I'm saying that it prevents the state from taking no action at all in enforcing the equal protection of its laws. It was originally passed because the south wasn't taking any action in protecting the rights of blacks so it actually makes the state take action to enforce equal protection of its laws.

If states have the right to nullify federal laws and that is debatable then it has the right, under the 14th amendment, to take action to ensure the equal protection of its laws.

 

[ihopehefails]

No. It just means the States can't do it any more than the Federal Government can. The amendment is limiting the States.

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

The state's inaction to equally protect its citizens under any law it has places a demand on it to do so in order to do what is demanded in the 14th amendment. Now if any other government violates the equal protection of its laws then the state is obligated, in the same way, to make sure that protection is enforced by its legal powers of nullification, interposition, or the dread S word.

Why do some people seem to think original intent applies only to the original constitution and not the amendments as well? The 14th amendment was passed to prevent States from denying any person equal protection from the law. States.

It's one of the few amendments that actually grants the Federal Government more power over the States. The amendment in no way empowers States to nullify the Supremacy clause. The check the States are supposed to have is the United States Senate.

Here is a good example. Lets say that there was a state law protected anyone from being murdered and the federal government created a law that said I had to hand over my first born to be sacrificed. I would then go to the state and demand that they protect me and my first born under current state law and they deny me that protection by either not interposing themselves onto the FBI agents or nullifying the law itself. Would they be violating this part of the nor deny to any person of the 14th amendment.

 

[ihopehefails]

The equal protection clause simply states that any protection a law provides for one citizen must be applied to all citizens but the keyword is protection as in protecting you from the actions another citizen may take against your person. It does not say that the law has to be applied equally to everyone (I believe their are other clauses that handle that) it just says any protection afforded by the law have to be given to everyone and not to a specific group.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The equal protection clause simply states that any protection a law provides for one citizen must be applied to all citizens but the keyword is protection as in protecting you from the actions another citizen may take against your person. It does not say that the law has to be applied equally to everyone (I believe their are other clauses that handle that) it just says any protection afforded by the law have to be given to everyone and not to a specific group.

really?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The equal protection clause simply states that any protection a law provides for one citizen must be applied to all citizens but the keyword is protection as in protecting you from the actions another citizen may take against your person. It does not say that the law has to be applied equally to everyone (I believe their are other clauses that handle that) it just says any protection afforded by the law have to be given to everyone and not to a specific group.

Wrong

 

[ihopehefails]

The equal protection clause simply states that any protection a law provides for one citizen must be applied to all citizens but the keyword is protection as in protecting you from the actions another citizen may take against your person. It does not say that the law has to be applied equally to everyone (I believe their are other clauses that handle that) it just says any protection afforded by the law have to be given to everyone and not to a specific group.

really?

I just wanted to clarify that it refers to actions one person can take against another such as murder or theft.

 

[ihopehefails]

The equal protection clause simply states that any protection a law provides for one citizen must be applied to all citizens but the keyword is protection as in protecting you from the actions another citizen may take against your person. It does not say that the law has to be applied equally to everyone (I believe their are other clauses that handle that) it just says any protection afforded by the law have to be given to everyone and not to a specific group.

Wrong

Really?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The equal protection clause simply states that any protection a law provides for one citizen must be applied to all citizens but the keyword is protection as in protecting you from the actions another citizen may take against your person. It does not say that the law has to be applied equally to everyone (I believe their are other clauses that handle that) it just says any protection afforded by the law have to be given to everyone and not to a specific group.

"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."

Nothing about "...as in protecting you from the actions another citizen may take against your person."

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

...
In other words, the state is constitutionally mandated to nullify all federal laws that violates its protections and the federal government has to honor that nullification.

Perpetual Union.

Nullification was tested. The South ate shit.

 

[ihopehefails]

...
In other words, the state is constitutionally mandated to nullify all federal laws that violates its protections and the federal government has to honor that nullification.

Perpetual Union.

Nullification was tested. The South ate shit.

Where does it say that in the constitution? Where is it written that states can't leave? What prohibitions are placed on the states in laws they can pass that might nullify federal laws?

 

[ihopehefails]

The equal protection clause simply states that any protection a law provides for one citizen must be applied to all citizens but the keyword is protection as in protecting you from the actions another citizen may take against your person. It does not say that the law has to be applied equally to everyone (I believe their are other clauses that handle that) it just says any protection afforded by the law have to be given to everyone and not to a specific group.

"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."

Nothing about "...as in protecting you from the actions another citizen may take against your person."

Perhaps you missed the word protection which is defined as shielding someone from harm or other unwanted acts. Like a missile defense system that protects us from Iranian nukes.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

...
In other words, the state is constitutionally mandated to nullify all federal laws that violates its protections and the federal government has to honor that nullification.

Perpetual Union.

Nullification was tested. The South ate shit.

Where does it say that in the constitution? Where is it written that states can't leave? What prohibitions are placed on the states in laws they can pass that might nullify federal laws?

Read the Federalist Papers and then the anti Federalist arguments. Then read what Hamilton and Madison had to say about what they themselves wrote...then get back to us all on what they say about your fucked up logic.