Federal Laws Violate the 14th amendment

[ihopehefails]

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.

So why does it say:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding

Federal laws are the Supreme laws of the land. You can't narrow the Clause to just the Constitution when the clause specifically states otherwise.

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.

It was passed to give the Federal Government power to enforce equal protection on the States. Not to give the States power. You're interpretation is absurd because the States inherently have power to provide equal proection before the law with the 10th amendment. There is no point to add another amendment to give states power they already have. This amendment is designed to empower the Federal Government.

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.

States have never had power to nullify Federal Law. The Supremacy clause prevents such actions. States do have power to challenge laws in Court on the basis that the Federal Government lacks the Constitutional authority to pass the law, but they can't nullify Federal Law.

This wouldn't be an issue if we hadn't removed the States original check on the Federal Government.

laws made in pursuence of are the constitution not all laws created by the federal government. There is a difference.

 

[ihopehefails]

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.

I will admit Mississippi can go to court and challenge federal actions........

Is that the debate here?

If states can take action to nullify or interpose themselves any federal law that violates the 14th amendment has to be nullified.

I must admit that I don't fully know of any situation when the federal government can violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment since 'protection' assumes shielding actions other citizens can take against other citizens so it is a negative law concept. But since the state can create any protection it wants then the constitution demands that it apply those protections equally and it has to take all actions necessary to make sure that happens. That could include interposition or nullification. And since the federal government is in charge of making sure that happens then it has to make sure that those protections are applied equally within that state. That includes not enforcing any federal law that violates those protections.

 

[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.

I wonder if you know anything about judicial philosophies of the good old fashioned common sense of Justice Stewart and the Liberal Greatness of Justice Black, and where they stood on this issue?

neither was a conservative justice

I just need to know what is written in the constitution since that is the law of the land. Some dudes opinion is not a law passed by the amendment process so it is nothing I have to respect or honor.

 

[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.

Do you have t put forth an effort to come up with something to patently wrong and poorly thought out, or does it come naturally to you?

Was I wrong? Consider that most laws are written with the intention of protecting someone from someone else. It makes sense that protection in this sense means 'to shield' from others. Its like the term bankruptcy protection doesn't wipe out debts owed. It just protects you from your creditors in a legal sense. It does not nullify your debt to them.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Jesus, I hate this sort of tortured, convoluted logic when someone decides to play "Mr. Cleverest-Guy-In-The-Room" and try to think of something no one else has.

The Fourteenth Amendment says nothing of the sort. What incredible bullshit.

 

[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.

This is how the courts interpret it:
"the right of all persons to have the same access to the law and courts and to be treated equally by the law and courts both in procedure and substance of the law"

Brown v. Board of Education

ALL PERSONS

More information for the Constitutionally Challenged:

The 14th Amendment reads "No state shall deny to any person within it's jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".

ANY PERSON

Your analysis is without any fact or foundation. Would not last 2 seconds in court as any argument.

Court opinions are not law since they were not created by any legislative process.

 

[ihopehefails]

This is about the word 'protection' in what I believe it means. It refers to laws that protect a person from the actions of another like murder, theft, bankruptcy PROTECTION. Its not quite the same thread since that one was my opinion about how the federal government is not allowed to violate any protection created by a state.

 

[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.

Jesus, I hate this sort of tortured, convoluted logic when someone decides to play "Mr. Cleverest-Guy-In-The-Room" and try to think of something no one else has.

The Fourteenth Amendment says nothing of the sort. What incredible bullshit.

I know what it says but if the federal government has to ensure that the protection of law has to be applied equally. Well if the federal government is suppose to ensure that the the protection of law applied equally then isn't it obligated to respect whatever protections the state create?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

In this context, that is NOT what it means. The phrase "equal protection of the law" is defined as "a guarantee under the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution that a state must treat an individual or class of individuals the same as it treats other individuals or classes in like circumstances". It has nothing whatsoever to do with nullifying federal laws, which I reiterate is the stupidest thing I've heard today.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Jesus, I hate this sort of tortured, convoluted logic when someone decides to play "Mr. Cleverest-Guy-In-The-Room" and try to think of something no one else has.

The Fourteenth Amendment says nothing of the sort. What incredible bullshit.

I know what it says but if the federal government has to ensure that the protection of law has to be applied equally. Well if the federal government is suppose to ensure that the the protection of law applied equally then isn't it obligated to respect whatever protections the state create?

No, it is only obligated to apply those state laws it DOES respect equally to all people. Nothing about the Fourteenth Amendment requires the federal government to respect state laws if it has a valid reason not to.

 

[ihopehefails]

Jesus, I hate this sort of tortured, convoluted logic when someone decides to play "Mr. Cleverest-Guy-In-The-Room" and try to think of something no one else has.

The Fourteenth Amendment says nothing of the sort. What incredible bullshit.

I know what it says but if the federal government has to ensure that the protection of law has to be applied equally. Well if the federal government is suppose to ensure that the the protection of law applied equally then isn't it obligated to respect whatever protections the state create?

No, it is only obligated to apply those state laws it DOES respect equally to all people. Nothing about the Fourteenth Amendment requires the federal government to respect state laws if it has a valid reason not to.

How can you actually mandate that a state enforce all protections and at the same time remove certain powers such as nullification or interposition that would ensure that those protections exist?

 

[ihopehefails]

"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.

In this context, that is NOT what it means. The phrase "equal protection of the law" is defined as "a guarantee under the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution that a state must treat an individual or class of individuals the same as it treats other individuals or classes in like circumstances". It has nothing whatsoever to do with nullifying federal laws, which I reiterate is the stupidest thing I've heard today.

I did not say this had anything to do with nullifying federal law. I just said that the term protections is meant in a negative law kind of way where law was a protection of each person vs a mandate on their actions. Its the diffence between negative law and positive law.

 

[Vanquish]

I apologize for not reading the earlier pages of this thread. Has someone explained Federal Preemption Doctrine to the OP?

 

[xotoxi]

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.

You call that a GOOD example?

What if your state law required that your first born be sacrificed, but the Federal government stepped in to try to save the child?

Would that be a violation of the 14th Amendment?

What a friggin' stupid example from a stupid person!

 

[Cecilie1200]

I know what it says but if the federal government has to ensure that the protection of law has to be applied equally. Well if the federal government is suppose to ensure that the the protection of law applied equally then isn't it obligated to respect whatever protections the state create?

No, it is only obligated to apply those state laws it DOES respect equally to all people. Nothing about the Fourteenth Amendment requires the federal government to respect state laws if it has a valid reason not to.

How can you actually mandate that a state enforce all protections and at the same time remove certain powers such as nullification or interposition that would ensure that those protections exist?

Not the point. The point is that the Fourteenth Amendment says nothing about it. The Fourteenth Amendment is about establishing the definition of US citizen and citizen of an individual state, and ensuring that all people who meet those definitions are treated the same by the government. It is not about whatever state-vs-federal conflict you're trying to read into it.

 

[ihopehefails]

I apologize for not reading the earlier pages of this thread. Has someone explained Federal Preemption Doctrine to the OP?

Its is it in the constitution? Was it created by the people through article V of the constiution? If not, then it something created by someone in power and not created by the people of this country.

 

[ihopehefails]

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.

You call that a GOOD example?

What if your state law required that your first born be sacrificed, but the Federal government stepped in to try to save the child?

Would that be a violation of the 14th Amendment?

What a friggin' stupid example from a stupid person!

That would depend if it was constitutional for the state to take such action. If it is constitutional then it is legal for them to do so but I suspect that people will flee the state immediatley which prevents the state from passing such a law since they know it can't be enforced. I also think that most politicians will lose the 'first born vote' so they would not pass such a law.

 

[ihopehefails]

No, it is only obligated to apply those state laws it DOES respect equally to all people. Nothing about the Fourteenth Amendment requires the federal government to respect state laws if it has a valid reason not to.

How can you actually mandate that a state enforce all protections and at the same time remove certain powers such as nullification or interposition that would ensure that those protections exist?

Not the point. The point is that the Fourteenth Amendment says nothing about it. The Fourteenth Amendment is about establishing the definition of US citizen and citizen of an individual state, and ensuring that all people who meet those definitions are treated the same by the government. It is not about whatever state-vs-federal conflict you're trying to read into it.

A state can't deny equal protection of its laws to its citizens. Those protections are protections are things that protect that person so the state must take all legal actions to ensure those protections exist. I don't see how it is different if the violator of the protections is another citizen of the state, a citizen of a different state, or another government violating those protections.

 

[emilynghiem]

And Vice Versa.
Should state laws or enforcements fail to protect all citizens and interests equally,
then the Constitution should come first which police and government officials
are sworn to uphold. There are actually cases where sheriffs refused to uphold laws they found to violate the Second Amendment, so they chose to enforce the Constitution instead.

The Tenth Amendment reserves rights to the States "or the people" that are not delegated to the government in the Constitution.

Thus, all citizens have equal right to claim protection of rights from being disparaged or denied by state or federal laws. The only fair way to resolve disputes under Constitutional standards of "equal protection" is to mediate and make decisions by informed consensus.

Otherwise, if people or institutions (whether public or private, government or religious, individual or corporate) impose biased policies on citizens who don't consent and/or don't believe their interests are equally protected or represented, that is unlawful in spirit.

It violates the "consent of the governed" as the basis of all law and social contracts.

Unfortunately because of our politicized legislative and legal systems, individual citizens are not equally protected or represented as corporate institutions with greater influence.

Without free and equal access to due process and representation, as in mediation, we basically compromise our Constitutional rights to equal protection by settling for less.

ethics-commission.net

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.