Zone1 Is Justice Served if an Individual Who Violates the Law is Still Allowed the Same Benefit as Someone Who Obeys the Law?

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Any laws you wish you didn’t have to obey, but you do anyway? I know of a couple that I’d love to legally ignore but I don’t for no other reason than to do so would not be in my best interest. So is it that hard to understand why some people feel “if I have to obey the law, why doesn’t everyone else have to obey the law as well?”. Or in the very least, why are some people allowed to violate the law yet still obtain the very same benefit as others who DO obey the law?

MSN

"...with liberty & justice for ALL."

For those who grew up during the same era I did and attended public school, each day began with the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. The pledge ended with the words “…with liberty and justice for ALL”. But what is justice really?

Our legal system defines justice as the “fair and impartial treatment of all individuals under the law — the consistent and unbiased application of legal principles to ensure that rights are protected, wrongs are remedied, and punishment is proportionate and lawfully applied.”

In theory, justice is supposed to be blind — immune to favoritism, politics, race, gender, class, or connections.

In practice, it is often anything but.

Justice is not just an outcome — it is also a process.
It is not simply whether a person wins or loses a case; it is how that case was handled, who was heard, and whose voices were excluded or ignored. It is whether the system that governs millions applies the same standards to the powerful and the vulnerable alike.

When justice depends on who you are, where you live, what you look like, or how much you can afford to pay an attorney — then it’s not justice.

I ask this question because any day now, the U.S. Supreme Court will render a decision on birthright citizenship and whether or not it should be allowed to continue to reward those who are in violation of our immigration laws with the benefit of U.S. citizenship for their child born on U.S. soil.

Not everyone who opposes this does so because they’re a racist but because doing so doesn’t comport with the idea of justice as we were led to understand it.

Is it truly justice if a person who ignores and violates U.S. immigration law is allowed to obtain the same benefit of U.S. citizenship for their child born on U.S. soil as an individual who fully complies with said law? In my opinion, many people who are against birthright citizenship for those in the country unlawfully isn’t because of inherent animosity against those unlawfully in the country. It’s more if not completely because this practice doesn’t comport with the sense of justice and fairness that we were first taught all throughout our school years.

It's like cheating. Cheating is a bad thing we’ve always been taught. Yet the individuals who violate our laws are still rewarded with citizenship for their offspring, the same as individuals who didn’t cheat.

I’d wager it’s the sense of unfairness that underlies most of the opposition, more so than who the individuals are.

Irrespective of how SCOTUS rules, half of the country is going to be unhappy, and I can emphasize with both.

 

[Dekster]

Yes justice is only served when those who violate the laws are also allowed their legal rights/benefits under the law. Anything else is not justice.

 

[PeterPilot]

Does a citizen have any obligation to obey a law that contradicts the Supreme Law of the Land?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Any laws you wish you didn’t have to obey, but you do anyway? I know of a couple that I’d love to legally ignore but I don’t for no other reason than to do so would not be in my best interest. So is it that hard to understand why some people feel “if I have to obey the law, why doesn’t everyone else have to obey the law as well?”. Or in the very least, why are some people allowed to violate the law yet still obtain the very same benefit as others who DO obey the law?

MSN

"...with liberty & justice for ALL."

For those who grew up during the same era I did and attended public school, each day began with the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. The pledge ended with the words “…with liberty and justice for ALL”. But what is justice really?

Our legal system defines justice as the “fair and impartial treatment of all individuals under the law — the consistent and unbiased application of legal principles to ensure that rights are protected, wrongs are remedied, and punishment is proportionate and lawfully applied.”

In theory, justice is supposed to be blind — immune to favoritism, politics, race, gender, class, or connections.

In practice, it is often anything but.

Justice is not just an outcome — it is also a process.
It is not simply whether a person wins or loses a case; it is how that case was handled, who was heard, and whose voices were excluded or ignored. It is whether the system that governs millions applies the same standards to the powerful and the vulnerable alike.

When justice depends on who you are, where you live, what you look like, or how much you can afford to pay an attorney — then it’s not justice.

I ask this question because any day now, the U.S. Supreme Court will render a decision on birthright citizenship and whether or not it should be allowed to continue to reward those who are in violation of our immigration laws with the benefit of U.S. citizenship for their child born on U.S. soil.

Not everyone who opposes this does so because they’re a racist but because doing so doesn’t comport with the idea of justice as we were led to understand it.

Is it truly justice if a person who ignores and violates U.S. immigration law is allowed to obtain the same benefit of U.S. citizenship for their child born on U.S. soil as an individual who fully complies with said law? In my opinion, many people who are against birthright citizenship for those in the country unlawfully isn’t because of inherent animosity against those unlawfully in the country. It’s more if not completely because this practice doesn’t comport with the sense of justice and fairness that we were first taught all throughout our school years.

It's like cheating. Cheating is a bad thing we’ve always been taught. Yet the individuals who violate our laws are still rewarded with citizenship for their offspring, the same as individuals who didn’t cheat.

I’d wager it’s the sense of unfairness that underlies most of the opposition, more so than who the individuals are.

Irrespective of how SCOTUS rules, half of the country is going to be unhappy, and I can emphasize with both.

Miryam, the 14th Amendment applies in all circumstances when it comes to the application of justice.

Furthermore, the Pledge of Allegiance is not a legal standard. It does not dictate the direction of our laws.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Does a citizen have any obligation to obey a law that contradicts the Supreme Law of the Land?

Well, when such laws are held in abeyance by our circuit courts, then they can't be followed in the jurisdiction where the law was enacted.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Miryam, the 14th Amendment applies in all circumstances when it comes to the application of justice.

If only this were true but it's not. Otherwise, the 96 years of Jim Crow and Black codes could have never been allowed to occur between the ratification of the 14th in 1868 and the passage of the civil rights acts of 1964.

American society, and the courts up to and including SCOTUS ignored the 14th amendment's equal rights clause as it applied to Americans of African descent. SCOTUS erroneously ruled in 1896, a mere 10 years after the ratification of the 14th that racial discrimination against Black Americans was "constitutional" under the "separate but equal" doctrine.

It took another 58 years before SCOTUS reversed itself in the landmark case of Brown v the Board of Education when the separate but equal doctrine was struck down as being unconstitutional, but another 10 years before the civil rights acts of 1964 was passed.

Furthermore, the Pledge of Allegiance is not a legal standard. It does not dictate the direction of our laws.

I never implied or stated that the pledge of allegiance is a legal standard. I indicated that the concept of "justice" was introduced in grade school by the recitation of the pledge each morning. This also ties in with where and under what set of circumstances many of use first began to grasp an understanding of fairness as well.

I probably should have created a poll because I was curious if anyone else understood my idea on why the perception of someone cheating to obtain a benefit that someone else has but that the other person didn't cheat to obtain resonates the way it does with so many people.

It's inherently unfair in just about any other scenario that people who don't follow the rules or the laws to obtain something that someone else has, are not usually allowed to keep the thing they obtained by cheating.

I wanted to see if this logic makes sense to anyone else.

 

[Mac-7]

Miryam, the 14th Amendment applies in all circumstances when it comes to the application of justice.

Furthermore, the Pledge of Allegiance is not a legal standard. It does not dictate the direction of our laws.

It does until at least 5 members of the Supreme Court say it doesent

Which is entirely possible

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The 14th Amendment when applied prevents the errors of the past.

 

[PeterPilot]

Well, when such laws are held in abeyance by our circuit courts, then they can't be followed in the jurisdiction where the law was enacted.

Yes, but how often does that happen? It costs money for anybody to get a case into court, especially SCOTUS.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Any laws you wish you didn’t have to obey, but you do anyway? I know of a couple that I’d love to legally ignore but I don’t for no other reason than to do so would not be in my best interest. So is it that hard to understand why some people feel “if I have to obey the law, why doesn’t everyone else have to obey the law as well?”. Or in the very least, why are some people allowed to violate the law yet still obtain the very same benefit as others who DO obey the law?

MSN

"...with liberty & justice for ALL."

For those who grew up during the same era I did and attended public school, each day began with the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. The pledge ended with the words “…with liberty and justice for ALL”. But what is justice really?

Our legal system defines justice as the “fair and impartial treatment of all individuals under the law — the consistent and unbiased application of legal principles to ensure that rights are protected, wrongs are remedied, and punishment is proportionate and lawfully applied.”

In theory, justice is supposed to be blind — immune to favoritism, politics, race, gender, class, or connections.

In practice, it is often anything but.

Justice is not just an outcome — it is also a process.
It is not simply whether a person wins or loses a case; it is how that case was handled, who was heard, and whose voices were excluded or ignored. It is whether the system that governs millions applies the same standards to the powerful and the vulnerable alike.

When justice depends on who you are, where you live, what you look like, or how much you can afford to pay an attorney — then it’s not justice.

I ask this question because any day now, the U.S. Supreme Court will render a decision on birthright citizenship and whether or not it should be allowed to continue to reward those who are in violation of our immigration laws with the benefit of U.S. citizenship for their child born on U.S. soil.

Not everyone who opposes this does so because they’re a racist but because doing so doesn’t comport with the idea of justice as we were led to understand it.

Is it truly justice if a person who ignores and violates U.S. immigration law is allowed to obtain the same benefit of U.S. citizenship for their child born on U.S. soil as an individual who fully complies with said law? In my opinion, many people who are against birthright citizenship for those in the country unlawfully isn’t because of inherent animosity against those unlawfully in the country. It’s more if not completely because this practice doesn’t comport with the sense of justice and fairness that we were first taught all throughout our school years.

It's like cheating. Cheating is a bad thing we’ve always been taught. Yet the individuals who violate our laws are still rewarded with citizenship for their offspring, the same as individuals who didn’t cheat.

I’d wager it’s the sense of unfairness that underlies most of the opposition, more so than who the individuals are.

Irrespective of how SCOTUS rules, half of the country is going to be unhappy, and I can emphasize with both.

And to answer your question, yes it is.

If the person has served their penance, that is.

 

[Cassandro]

Any laws you wish you didn’t have to obey, but you do anyway? I know of a couple that I’d love to legally ignore but I don’t for no other reason than to do so would not be in my best interest. So is it that hard to understand why some people feel “if I have to obey the law, why doesn’t everyone else have to obey the law as well?”. Or in the very least, why are some people allowed to violate the law yet still obtain the very same benefit as others who DO obey the law?

MSN

"...with liberty & justice for ALL."

For those who grew up during the same era I did and attended public school, each day began with the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. The pledge ended with the words “…with liberty and justice for ALL”. But what is justice really?

Our legal system defines justice as the “fair and impartial treatment of all individuals under the law — the consistent and unbiased application of legal principles to ensure that rights are protected, wrongs are remedied, and punishment is proportionate and lawfully applied.”

In theory, justice is supposed to be blind — immune to favoritism, politics, race, gender, class, or connections.

In practice, it is often anything but.

Justice is not just an outcome — it is also a process.
It is not simply whether a person wins or loses a case; it is how that case was handled, who was heard, and whose voices were excluded or ignored. It is whether the system that governs millions applies the same standards to the powerful and the vulnerable alike.

When justice depends on who you are, where you live, what you look like, or how much you can afford to pay an attorney — then it’s not justice.

I ask this question because any day now, the U.S. Supreme Court will render a decision on birthright citizenship and whether or not it should be allowed to continue to reward those who are in violation of our immigration laws with the benefit of U.S. citizenship for their child born on U.S. soil.

Not everyone who opposes this does so because they’re a racist but because doing so doesn’t comport with the idea of justice as we were led to understand it.

Is it truly justice if a person who ignores and violates U.S. immigration law is allowed to obtain the same benefit of U.S. citizenship for their child born on U.S. soil as an individual who fully complies with said law? In my opinion, many people who are against birthright citizenship for those in the country unlawfully isn’t because of inherent animosity against those unlawfully in the country. It’s more if not completely because this practice doesn’t comport with the sense of justice and fairness that we were first taught all throughout our school years.

It's like cheating. Cheating is a bad thing we’ve always been taught. Yet the individuals who violate our laws are still rewarded with citizenship for their offspring, the same as individuals who didn’t cheat.

I’d wager it’s the sense of unfairness that underlies most of the opposition, more so than who the individuals are.

Irrespective of how SCOTUS rules, half of the country is going to be unhappy, and I can emphasize with both.

I thought you going to talk about capital punishment (i.e., does one who kills deserve to live?). For other violations of the law, fines and/or incarceration are modern replacements for physical retribution.