Equal Protections Clause

[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.

 

[goldcatt]

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

 

[ihopehefails]

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.

 

[goldcatt]

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?

 

[ihopehefails]

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?

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.

 

[goldcatt]

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.

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

 

[ihopehefails]

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.

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?

 

[goldcatt]

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?

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?

 

[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?

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?

I assume that any protection a law grants has to grant it to everyone that that law says is entitled to those protections because the law they are talking about is the one written so if it is written to protect XYZ groups then everyone in XYZ has to get those protections equally. To do otherwise, is not enforce an existing law but to create additional laws by expanding to to protect ABC...XYZ and that was not the law that was written. Hence, equal protection of the laws in existence not the ones you think should exist.

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.

 

[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?

I assume that any protection a law grants has to grant it to everyone that that law says is entitled to those protections because the law they are talking about is the one written so if it is written to protect XYZ groups then everyone in XYZ has to get those protections equally. To do otherwise, is not enforce an existing law but to create additional laws by expanding to to protect ABC...XYZ and that was not the law that was written.

That's the problem with using assumptions instead of a little basic reaserch. They're usually wrong.

Try this explanation (the real one):

Generally, the question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in an activity yet denies other individuals the same right. There is no clear rule for deciding when a classification is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has dictated the application of different tests depending on the type of classification and its effect on fundamental rights. Traditionally, the Court finds a state classification constitutional if it has "a rational basis" to a "legitimate state purpose." The Supreme Court, however, has applied more stringent analysis in certain cases.

Equal protection | LII / Legal Information Institute

Now, do you think the State might have a legitimate purpose for not allowing, say, an eight-year-old to get married? Or a brother and sister?

I know where you're going with this, but as I'm sure you're aware Bowers was overturned.

 

[ihopehefails]

So in other words, you made it up.

Try actually reading the EP Clause first:



(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?

I assume that any protection a law grants has to grant it to everyone that that law says is entitled to those protections because the law they are talking about is the one written so if it is written to protect XYZ groups then everyone in XYZ has to get those protections equally. To do otherwise, is not enforce an existing law but to create additional laws by expanding to to protect ABC...XYZ and that was not the law that was written.

That's the problem with using assumptions instead of a little basic reaserch. They're usually wrong.

Try this explanation (the real one):

Generally, the question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in an activity yet denies other individuals the same right. There is no clear rule for deciding when a classification is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has dictated the application of different tests depending on the type of classification and its effect on fundamental rights. Traditionally, the Court finds a state classification constitutional if it has "a rational basis" to a "legitimate state purpose." The Supreme Court, however, has applied more stringent analysis in certain cases.

Equal protection | LII / Legal Information Institute

Now, do you think the State might have a legitimate purpose for not allowing, say, an eight-year-old to get married? Or a brother and sister?

I know where you're going with this, but as I'm sure you're aware Bowers was overturned.

The state does becaue there are pervs out there which is why we have a law forbidding that but if someone has the right to get married at any age they want then why no extend that to someone being eight?

Anyways...

It does not matter what is overturned but what is the truth. You are citing case law and I don't think that is legitimate as law itself. You cited someone's opinion as law and his opinion of what it means is not the law itself. The constitution is the law and it says equal protection of the laws which I interpret as laws as written not globally applying a law to all citizens that it was not intended to protect.

 

[goldcatt]

I assume that any protection a law grants has to grant it to everyone that that law says is entitled to those protections because the law they are talking about is the one written so if it is written to protect XYZ groups then everyone in XYZ has to get those protections equally. To do otherwise, is not enforce an existing law but to create additional laws by expanding to to protect ABC...XYZ and that was not the law that was written.

That's the problem with using assumptions instead of a little basic reaserch. They're usually wrong.

Try this explanation (the real one):

Generally, the question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in an activity yet denies other individuals the same right. There is no clear rule for deciding when a classification is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has dictated the application of different tests depending on the type of classification and its effect on fundamental rights. Traditionally, the Court finds a state classification constitutional if it has "a rational basis" to a "legitimate state purpose." The Supreme Court, however, has applied more stringent analysis in certain cases.

Equal protection | LII / Legal Information Institute

Now, do you think the State might have a legitimate purpose for not allowing, say, an eight-year-old to get married? Or a brother and sister?

I know where you're going with this, but as I'm sure you're aware Bowers was overturned.

It does not matter what is overturned but what is the truth. You are citing case law and I don't think that is legitimate as law itself. You cited someone's opinion as law and his opinion of what it means is not the law itself. The constitution is the law and it says equal protection of the laws which I interpret as laws as written not globally applying a law to all citizens that it was not intended to protect.

What exactly are you babbling about?

Are you still trying to read the actual language of the Equal Protection clause and argue with a straight face that States are allowed to target individual classes in the way they write their laws without any rational basis or legitimate purpose for doing so?

 

[goldcatt]

Methinks somebody doesn't even understand their own argument, let alone the other side.

 

[ihopehefails]

That's the problem with using assumptions instead of a little basic reaserch. They're usually wrong.

Try this explanation (the real one):



Equal protection | LII / Legal Information Institute

Now, do you think the State might have a legitimate purpose for not allowing, say, an eight-year-old to get married? Or a brother and sister?

I know where you're going with this, but as I'm sure you're aware Bowers was overturned.

It does not matter what is overturned but what is the truth. You are citing case law and I don't think that is legitimate as law itself. You cited someone's opinion as law and his opinion of what it means is not the law itself. The constitution is the law and it says equal protection of the laws which I interpret as laws as written not globally applying a law to all citizens that it was not intended to protect.

What exactly are you babbling about?

Are you still trying to read the actual language of the Equal Protection clause and argue with a straight face that States are allowed to target individual classes in the way they write their laws without any rational basis or legitimate purpose for doing so?

Under the 14th amendment, yes they do. They just don't have the right to deny anyone any protection offered by the law but they are not entitled to protections that the same law does not give them.

Just look at the same amendment and it says that no state shall take away the life liberty or property of any person without the due process of law. Now, under that same amendment, it denies states from removing those things without the due process of some kind of legal procedure but still gives states the right to do the same thing as long as their is a law in place that does that. It is possible for a law to say that the property of all blacks must be removed simply because there is a law in place just as it is possible for a law to only offer protections to a specific group. Both are wrong but legal under the 14th amendment.

This was the problem at the time that the southern states were purposely taking people's property without the due process of law and were allowing the klan to lynch people despite the fact that murder was illegal. It was created to ensure that law was being enforced.

 

[ihopehefails]

That's the problem with using assumptions instead of a little basic reaserch. They're usually wrong.

Try this explanation (the real one):



Equal protection | LII / Legal Information Institute

Now, do you think the State might have a legitimate purpose for not allowing, say, an eight-year-old to get married? Or a brother and sister?

I know where you're going with this, but as I'm sure you're aware Bowers was overturned.

It does not matter what is overturned but what is the truth. You are citing case law and I don't think that is legitimate as law itself. You cited someone's opinion as law and his opinion of what it means is not the law itself. The constitution is the law and it says equal protection of the laws which I interpret as laws as written not globally applying a law to all citizens that it was not intended to protect.

What exactly are you babbling about?

Are you still trying to read the actual language of the Equal Protection clause and argue with a straight face that States are allowed to target individual classes in the way they write their laws without any rational basis or legitimate purpose for doing so?

They do that anyways, its called the progressive income tax. Its communist and wrong but legal therefore the government is allowed to do it.

 

[goldcatt]

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

Have a nice day!

 

[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.

 

[goldcatt]

Whatever makes your little socks go up and down, Sparky.

 

[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?

 

[goldcatt]

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?

Hey LB! Now you're just confusing him.