One of the unintended, or perhaps very much intended, consequences of the proposed Equality Act is scaring women and gays out of their wits!

[danielpalos]

Show us the express clause over the whole and entire concept of Immigration in our federal Constitution right-wingers; don't merely be immoral false witness bearers as is your customary and usual habit on the right-wing.

Have you been drinking? Your post makes no sense whatsoever.

BTW, in case you missed it, the subject of the thread concerns the Equality Act.

JWK


The Equality Act attempts to exercise legislative power proposed under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, the Act is an attempted usurpation of power not granted.

You need to resort to the fewest fallacies to be worth equal for pay purposes.

No, actually, you do not. Where did you get that idea?

lol. Because sublime Truth (value) discoverable through argumentation matters.

Which means nothing when it comes to work being worth a certain amount. A person does not determine a wage, his/her work does. And yes, Daniel, that means that women are your equals.

You have to resort to the fewest fallacies first, otherwise any woman is equal to You.

No, you don't have to resort to anything for your work to be worth a certain amount. Only in your mind could that be true.

Right wingers are literally even more incredible.

If you do the same job as well as someone else, you deserve the same pay they get, whether you resort to the fewest or the most fallacies. Convince me otherwise. And yes, Daniel, women are your equals.

Then they must be Your superiors.

Some certainly are in some areas. Why do you have such a hard time admitting that some are your superiors as well?

I am merely grateful women don't really believe in equality try to convince me that they really just want to the the "horrible boss" of me.

Look, we understand from your posts that you don't really like women all that much, and it galls you to no end that many are superior to you.

Thank goodness women don't really believe in equality and insist on being the "horrible boss" of me.

Daniel, that simply is not true. You display a horrible lack of respect for women and what they are capable of doing. No wonder they don't like you very much.

If only, right wingers were known for their "gospel Truth" instead of just false witness bearing.

Who thinks you respect women?

Not false-witness bearing right-wingers, that is for sure.

If you did, you wouldn't have a problem acknowledging that not only are they your equals, many are your superiors.

I don't have that problem; especially if I, lost the bet and she insists I have to be a man of my word about it.

 

[johnwk]

This is the only Equality Act we ever needed:

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Which allows people to be free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations, and that includes their social and commercial activities.
JWK

The Equality Act attempts to exercise legislative power proposed under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, the Act is an attempted usurpation of power not granted.

It is about Equality under the law.

There is nothing in our federal constitution [excluding of course the 19th Amendment] forbidding laws making and allowing distinction based upon sex.

JWK

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

And those words do not forbid a state to make distinctions based upon sex.
JWK
The Equality Act attempts to exercise legislative power proposed under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, the Act is an attempted usurpation of power not granted.

Yes, they do since both women and men are citizens.

Thank you for your unsubstantiated opinion.

The fact is, the words you point to do not forbid a State to deny “privileges or immunities” to “persons” who may not be "citizens of the United States"! Nor does the wording declare what “privileges or immunities” a state may or may not adopt, nor does the wording forbid a state to make distinctions based upon sex when enacting "Privileges and Immunities".

JWK

The Equality Act attempts to exercise legislative power proposed under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was wisely rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, the Act is usurpation of power not granted.

 

[danielpalos]

This is the only Equality Act we ever needed:

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Which allows people to be free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations, and that includes their social and commercial activities.
JWK

The Equality Act attempts to exercise legislative power proposed under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, the Act is an attempted usurpation of power not granted.

It is about Equality under the law.

There is nothing in our federal constitution [excluding of course the 19th Amendment] forbidding laws making and allowing distinction based upon sex.

JWK

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

And those words do not forbid a state to make distinctions based upon sex.
JWK
The Equality Act attempts to exercise legislative power proposed under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, the Act is an attempted usurpation of power not granted.

Yes, they do since both women and men are citizens.

Thank you for your unsubstantiated opinion.

The fact is, the words you point to do not forbid a State to deny “privileges or immunities” to “persons” who may not be "citizens of the United States"! Nor does the wording declare what “privileges or immunities” a state may or may not adopt, nor does the wording forbid a state to make distinctions based upon sex when enacting "Privileges and Immunities".

JWK

The Equality Act attempts to exercise legislative power proposed under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was wisely rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, the Act is usurpation of power not granted.

Special pleading to divert away from your lack of valid argument?

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

That is part of our federal Constitution. It is clear and unambiguous. We don't need more "socialism" than that.

 

[johnwk]

This is the only Equality Act we ever needed:

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Which allows people to be free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations, and that includes their social and commercial activities.
JWK

The Equality Act attempts to exercise legislative power proposed under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, the Act is an attempted usurpation of power not granted.

It is about Equality under the law.

There is nothing in our federal constitution [excluding of course the 19th Amendment] forbidding laws making and allowing distinction based upon sex.

JWK

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

And those words do not forbid a state to make distinctions based upon sex.
JWK
The Equality Act attempts to exercise legislative power proposed under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, the Act is an attempted usurpation of power not granted.

Yes, they do since both women and men are citizens.

Thank you for your unsubstantiated opinion.

The fact is, the words you point to do not forbid a State to deny “privileges or immunities” to “persons” who may not be "citizens of the United States"! Nor does the wording declare what “privileges or immunities” a state may or may not adopt, nor does the wording forbid a state to make distinctions based upon sex when enacting "Privileges and Immunities".

JWK

The Equality Act attempts to exercise legislative power proposed under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was wisely rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, the Act is usurpation of power not granted.

Special pleading to divert away from your lack of valid argument?

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

And the words you point to do not forbid a State to deny “privileges or immunities” to “persons” who may not be "citizens of the United States"! Nor does the wording declare what “privileges or immunities” a state may or may not adopt, nor does the wording forbid a state to make distinctions based upon sex when enacting "Privileges and Immunities".

So, I have no idea why you quoted those words.

JWK

The Equality Act attempts to exercise legislative power proposed under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was wisely rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, the Act is usurpation of power not granted.

 

[danielpalos]

This is the only Equality Act we ever needed:

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Which allows people to be free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations, and that includes their social and commercial activities.
JWK

The Equality Act attempts to exercise legislative power proposed under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, the Act is an attempted usurpation of power not granted.

It is about Equality under the law.

There is nothing in our federal constitution [excluding of course the 19th Amendment] forbidding laws making and allowing distinction based upon sex.

JWK

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

And those words do not forbid a state to make distinctions based upon sex.
JWK
The Equality Act attempts to exercise legislative power proposed under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, the Act is an attempted usurpation of power not granted.

Yes, they do since both women and men are citizens.

Thank you for your unsubstantiated opinion.

The fact is, the words you point to do not forbid a State to deny “privileges or immunities” to “persons” who may not be "citizens of the United States"! Nor does the wording declare what “privileges or immunities” a state may or may not adopt, nor does the wording forbid a state to make distinctions based upon sex when enacting "Privileges and Immunities".

JWK

The Equality Act attempts to exercise legislative power proposed under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was wisely rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, the Act is usurpation of power not granted.

Special pleading to divert away from your lack of valid argument?

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

And the words you point to do not forbid a State to deny “privileges or immunities” to “persons” who may not be "citizens of the United States"! Nor does the wording declare what “privileges or immunities” a state may or may not adopt, nor does the wording forbid a state to make distinctions based upon sex when enacting "Privileges and Immunities".

So, I have no idea why you quoted those words.

JWK

The Equality Act attempts to exercise legislative power proposed under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was wisely rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, the Act is usurpation of power not granted.

Our Fourteenth Amendment covers that.

 

[johnwk]

Our Fourteenth Amendment covers that.

I have no idea what you are asserting the Fourteenth Amendment "covers", so, let us take a look at the Fourteenth Amendment's Section one:


.
SECTION ONE OF THE FOURTEEN AMENDMENT EXPLAINED


The 14th Amendment declares in crystal clear language:

”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.”


As we can see from the language of the 14th Amendment it:


1. Makes ”All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof … citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”


The amendment then goes on to declare:


2. “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”


This wording forbids State action from abridging a United States citizen’s “privileges or immunities” which a State has adopted under law. Note that the wording does not forbid a State to deny “privileges or immunities” to “persons” who may not be "citizens of the United States"! Nor does the wording declare what “privileges or immunities” a state may or may not adopt.


The amendment then continues with:


3. “… nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..”


Again, the reference is to State action and applies to “any person” as opposed to “citizens of the United States” and it expressly forbids every State to deprive any “person [within its jurisdiction] of life, liberty, or property without due process of” a State’s laws. Due process of law refers to procedure and the administration of justice in accordance with established rules and principles.


Section one of the Amendment then concludes with:


4. ”…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”


This wording simply commands that whatever a State’s laws are, a person within that State’s jurisdiction may not be denied the equal protection of those specific laws. Keep in mind the wording does not forbid a state to make distinctions in law, e.g., based upon sex or age, but whatever laws are adopted by a State with regard to sex or age, the State may not deny to any person, blacks and whites alike, within its jurisdiction the equal protection of those specific laws. The laws must be enforced equally upon all, e.g., if a distinction in law is made with respect to civil rights, (not political) that the wife may not testify, sue or contract, it must be enforced equally upon all regardless of race, color or previous condition of slavery.

And here is a summary, explaining the meaning, of what you quoted by one of the 14th Amendments supporters when it was being debated for adoption into our constitution:

“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Rep. Shallabarger, Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293

I hope the above has been useful to you in understanding the true meaning of Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Congress does not have the constitutional authority to pass and enforce the Equality Act legislation unless power over the subject matter [sex] is delegated to Congress via a Constitutional Amendment, allowing "appropriate legislation" to be written and enforced.

BTW, I suggest you study the wording of the Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.___ Tenth Amendment

JWK

The Equality Act attempts to exercise legislative power proposed under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was wisely rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, the Act is usurpation of power not granted.

 

[danielpalos]

This wording forbids State action from abridging a United States citizen’s “privileges or immunities” which a State has adopted under law. Note that the wording does not forbid a State to deny “privileges or immunities” to “persons” who may not be "citizens of the United States"! Nor does the wording declare what “privileges or immunities” a state may or may not adopt.

Like unequal protection of the law for unemployment compensation in an at-will employment State?

 

[johnwk]

I have no idea what you are asserting the Fourteenth Amendment "covers", so, let us take a look at the Fourteenth Amendment's Section one:
.
SECTION ONE OF THE FOURTEEN AMENDMENT EXPLAINED


The 14th Amendment declares in crystal clear language:

”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.”

As we can see from the language of the 14th Amendment it:


1. Makes ”All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof … citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”


The amendment then goes on to declare:


2. “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”


This wording forbids State action from abridging a United States citizen’s “privileges or immunities” which a State has adopted under law. Note that the wording does not forbid a State to deny “privileges or immunities” to “persons” who may not be "citizens of the United States"! Nor does the wording declare what “privileges or immunities” a state may or may not adopt.


The amendment then continues with:


3. “… nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..”


Again, the reference is to State action and applies to “any person” as opposed to “citizens of the United States” and it expressly forbids every State to deprive any “person [within its jurisdiction] of life, liberty, or property without due process of” a State’s laws. Due process of law refers to procedure and the administration of justice in accordance with established rules and principles.


Section one of the Amendment then concludes with:


4. ”…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”


This wording simply commands that whatever a State’s laws are, a person within that State’s jurisdiction may not be denied the equal protection of those specific laws. Keep in mind the wording does not forbid a state to make distinctions in law, e.g., based upon sex or age, but whatever laws are adopted by a State with regard to sex or age, the State may not deny to any person, blacks and whites alike, within its jurisdiction the equal protection of those specific laws. The laws must be enforced equally upon all, e.g., if a distinction in law is made with respect to civil rights, (not political) that the wife may not testify, sue or contract, it must be enforced equally upon all regardless of race, color or previous condition of slavery.

And here is a summary, explaining the meaning, of what you quoted by one of the 14th Amendments supporters when it was being debated for adoption into our constitution:

“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Rep. Shallabarger, Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293

I hope the above has been useful to you in understanding the true meaning of Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Congress does not have the constitutional authority to pass and enforce the Equality Act legislation unless power over the subject matter [sex] is delegated to Congress via a Constitutional Amendment, allowing "appropriate legislation" to be written and enforced.

BTW, I suggest you study the wording of the Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.___ Tenth Amendment

JWK

The Equality Act attempts to exercise legislative power proposed under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was wisely rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, the Act is usurpation of power not granted.

Like unequal protection of the law for unemployment compensation in an at-will employment State?

Are you incapable of carrying on an intelligent dialogue? You brought up the Fourteenth Amendment, and I decided to post the actual wording of Section 1 and its true meaning. Your response is a non sequitur.

JWK

 

[danielpalos]

I have no idea what you are asserting the Fourteenth Amendment "covers", so, let us take a look at the Fourteenth Amendment's Section one:
.
SECTION ONE OF THE FOURTEEN AMENDMENT EXPLAINED


The 14th Amendment declares in crystal clear language:

”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.”

As we can see from the language of the 14th Amendment it:


1. Makes ”All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof … citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”


The amendment then goes on to declare:


2. “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”


This wording forbids State action from abridging a United States citizen’s “privileges or immunities” which a State has adopted under law. Note that the wording does not forbid a State to deny “privileges or immunities” to “persons” who may not be "citizens of the United States"! Nor does the wording declare what “privileges or immunities” a state may or may not adopt.


The amendment then continues with:


3. “… nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..”


Again, the reference is to State action and applies to “any person” as opposed to “citizens of the United States” and it expressly forbids every State to deprive any “person [within its jurisdiction] of life, liberty, or property without due process of” a State’s laws. Due process of law refers to procedure and the administration of justice in accordance with established rules and principles.


Section one of the Amendment then concludes with:


4. ”…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”


This wording simply commands that whatever a State’s laws are, a person within that State’s jurisdiction may not be denied the equal protection of those specific laws. Keep in mind the wording does not forbid a state to make distinctions in law, e.g., based upon sex or age, but whatever laws are adopted by a State with regard to sex or age, the State may not deny to any person, blacks and whites alike, within its jurisdiction the equal protection of those specific laws. The laws must be enforced equally upon all, e.g., if a distinction in law is made with respect to civil rights, (not political) that the wife may not testify, sue or contract, it must be enforced equally upon all regardless of race, color or previous condition of slavery.

And here is a summary, explaining the meaning, of what you quoted by one of the 14th Amendments supporters when it was being debated for adoption into our constitution:

“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Rep. Shallabarger, Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293

I hope the above has been useful to you in understanding the true meaning of Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Congress does not have the constitutional authority to pass and enforce the Equality Act legislation unless power over the subject matter [sex] is delegated to Congress via a Constitutional Amendment, allowing "appropriate legislation" to be written and enforced.

BTW, I suggest you study the wording of the Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.___ Tenth Amendment

JWK

The Equality Act attempts to exercise legislative power proposed under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was wisely rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, the Act is usurpation of power not granted.

Like unequal protection of the law for unemployment compensation in an at-will employment State?

View attachment 501485

Are you incapable of carrying on an intelligent dialogue? You brought up the Fourteenth Amendment, and I decided to post the actual wording of Section 1 and true meaning. Your response is a non sequitur.

JWK

Does it matter if you don't recognize where it may apply?

 

[johnwk]

I have no idea what you are asserting the Fourteenth Amendment "covers", so, let us take a look at the Fourteenth Amendment's Section one:
.
SECTION ONE OF THE FOURTEEN AMENDMENT EXPLAINED


The 14th Amendment declares in crystal clear language:

”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.”

As we can see from the language of the 14th Amendment it:


1. Makes ”All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof … citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”


The amendment then goes on to declare:


2. “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”


This wording forbids State action from abridging a United States citizen’s “privileges or immunities” which a State has adopted under law. Note that the wording does not forbid a State to deny “privileges or immunities” to “persons” who may not be "citizens of the United States"! Nor does the wording declare what “privileges or immunities” a state may or may not adopt.


The amendment then continues with:


3. “… nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..”


Again, the reference is to State action and applies to “any person” as opposed to “citizens of the United States” and it expressly forbids every State to deprive any “person [within its jurisdiction] of life, liberty, or property without due process of” a State’s laws. Due process of law refers to procedure and the administration of justice in accordance with established rules and principles.


Section one of the Amendment then concludes with:


4. ”…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”


This wording simply commands that whatever a State’s laws are, a person within that State’s jurisdiction may not be denied the equal protection of those specific laws. Keep in mind the wording does not forbid a state to make distinctions in law, e.g., based upon sex or age, but whatever laws are adopted by a State with regard to sex or age, the State may not deny to any person, blacks and whites alike, within its jurisdiction the equal protection of those specific laws. The laws must be enforced equally upon all, e.g., if a distinction in law is made with respect to civil rights, (not political) that the wife may not testify, sue or contract, it must be enforced equally upon all regardless of race, color or previous condition of slavery.

And here is a summary, explaining the meaning, of what you quoted by one of the 14th Amendments supporters when it was being debated for adoption into our constitution:

“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Rep. Shallabarger, Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293

I hope the above has been useful to you in understanding the true meaning of Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Congress does not have the constitutional authority to pass and enforce the Equality Act legislation unless power over the subject matter [sex] is delegated to Congress via a Constitutional Amendment, allowing "appropriate legislation" to be written and enforced.

BTW, I suggest you study the wording of the Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.___ Tenth Amendment

JWK

The Equality Act attempts to exercise legislative power proposed under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was wisely rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, the Act is usurpation of power not granted.

Like unequal protection of the law for unemployment compensation in an at-will employment State?

View attachment 501485

Are you incapable of carrying on an intelligent dialogue? You brought up the Fourteenth Amendment, and I decided to post the actual wording of Section 1 and true meaning. Your response is a non sequitur.

JWK

Does it matter if you don't recognize where it may apply?

I have no idea what you mean by that and once again I ask, are you incapable of carrying on an intelligent dialogue? You brought up the Fourteenth Amendment, and I decided to post the actual wording of Section 1 and its true meaning. Your response is a non sequitur.

JWK

 

[danielpalos]

I have no idea what you are asserting the Fourteenth Amendment "covers", so, let us take a look at the Fourteenth Amendment's Section one:
.
SECTION ONE OF THE FOURTEEN AMENDMENT EXPLAINED


The 14th Amendment declares in crystal clear language:

”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.”

As we can see from the language of the 14th Amendment it:


1. Makes ”All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof … citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”


The amendment then goes on to declare:


2. “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”


This wording forbids State action from abridging a United States citizen’s “privileges or immunities” which a State has adopted under law. Note that the wording does not forbid a State to deny “privileges or immunities” to “persons” who may not be "citizens of the United States"! Nor does the wording declare what “privileges or immunities” a state may or may not adopt.


The amendment then continues with:


3. “… nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..”


Again, the reference is to State action and applies to “any person” as opposed to “citizens of the United States” and it expressly forbids every State to deprive any “person [within its jurisdiction] of life, liberty, or property without due process of” a State’s laws. Due process of law refers to procedure and the administration of justice in accordance with established rules and principles.


Section one of the Amendment then concludes with:


4. ”…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”


This wording simply commands that whatever a State’s laws are, a person within that State’s jurisdiction may not be denied the equal protection of those specific laws. Keep in mind the wording does not forbid a state to make distinctions in law, e.g., based upon sex or age, but whatever laws are adopted by a State with regard to sex or age, the State may not deny to any person, blacks and whites alike, within its jurisdiction the equal protection of those specific laws. The laws must be enforced equally upon all, e.g., if a distinction in law is made with respect to civil rights, (not political) that the wife may not testify, sue or contract, it must be enforced equally upon all regardless of race, color or previous condition of slavery.

And here is a summary, explaining the meaning, of what you quoted by one of the 14th Amendments supporters when it was being debated for adoption into our constitution:

“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Rep. Shallabarger, Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293

I hope the above has been useful to you in understanding the true meaning of Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Congress does not have the constitutional authority to pass and enforce the Equality Act legislation unless power over the subject matter [sex] is delegated to Congress via a Constitutional Amendment, allowing "appropriate legislation" to be written and enforced.

BTW, I suggest you study the wording of the Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.___ Tenth Amendment

JWK

The Equality Act attempts to exercise legislative power proposed under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was wisely rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, the Act is usurpation of power not granted.

Like unequal protection of the law for unemployment compensation in an at-will employment State?

View attachment 501485

Are you incapable of carrying on an intelligent dialogue? You brought up the Fourteenth Amendment, and I decided to post the actual wording of Section 1 and true meaning. Your response is a non sequitur.

JWK

Does it matter if you don't recognize where it may apply?

I have no idea what you mean by that and once again I ask, are you incapable of carrying on an intelligent dialogue? You brought up the Fourteenth Amendment, and I decided to post the actual wording of Section 1 and its true meaning. Your response is a non sequitur.

JWK

An equality act is worthless and useless and simply more socialism we don't need.

 

[hadit]

This wording forbids State action from abridging a United States citizen’s “privileges or immunities” which a State has adopted under law. Note that the wording does not forbid a State to deny “privileges or immunities” to “persons” who may not be "citizens of the United States"! Nor does the wording declare what “privileges or immunities” a state may or may not adopt.

Like unequal protection of the law for unemployment compensation in an at-will employment State?

Don't open that door, Daniel, you've been spanked thoroughly on it and it doesn't apply here. You can't collect UC for not working a job and that's final.

 

[johnwk]

An equality act is worthless and useless and simply more socialism we don't need.

Well, I see you still avoid posting an intelligent response to POST NO. 126 in which I responded to your assertion about the Fourteenth Amendment 'covering' something.

JWK

The Equality Act attempts to exercise legislative power proposed under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was wisely rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, the Act is usurpation of power not granted.

 

[hadit]

I have no idea what you are asserting the Fourteenth Amendment "covers", so, let us take a look at the Fourteenth Amendment's Section one:
.
SECTION ONE OF THE FOURTEEN AMENDMENT EXPLAINED


The 14th Amendment declares in crystal clear language:

”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.”

As we can see from the language of the 14th Amendment it:


1. Makes ”All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof … citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”


The amendment then goes on to declare:


2. “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”


This wording forbids State action from abridging a United States citizen’s “privileges or immunities” which a State has adopted under law. Note that the wording does not forbid a State to deny “privileges or immunities” to “persons” who may not be "citizens of the United States"! Nor does the wording declare what “privileges or immunities” a state may or may not adopt.


The amendment then continues with:


3. “… nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..”


Again, the reference is to State action and applies to “any person” as opposed to “citizens of the United States” and it expressly forbids every State to deprive any “person [within its jurisdiction] of life, liberty, or property without due process of” a State’s laws. Due process of law refers to procedure and the administration of justice in accordance with established rules and principles.


Section one of the Amendment then concludes with:


4. ”…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”


This wording simply commands that whatever a State’s laws are, a person within that State’s jurisdiction may not be denied the equal protection of those specific laws. Keep in mind the wording does not forbid a state to make distinctions in law, e.g., based upon sex or age, but whatever laws are adopted by a State with regard to sex or age, the State may not deny to any person, blacks and whites alike, within its jurisdiction the equal protection of those specific laws. The laws must be enforced equally upon all, e.g., if a distinction in law is made with respect to civil rights, (not political) that the wife may not testify, sue or contract, it must be enforced equally upon all regardless of race, color or previous condition of slavery.

And here is a summary, explaining the meaning, of what you quoted by one of the 14th Amendments supporters when it was being debated for adoption into our constitution:

“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Rep. Shallabarger, Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293

I hope the above has been useful to you in understanding the true meaning of Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Congress does not have the constitutional authority to pass and enforce the Equality Act legislation unless power over the subject matter [sex] is delegated to Congress via a Constitutional Amendment, allowing "appropriate legislation" to be written and enforced.

BTW, I suggest you study the wording of the Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.___ Tenth Amendment

JWK

The Equality Act attempts to exercise legislative power proposed under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was wisely rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, the Act is usurpation of power not granted.

Like unequal protection of the law for unemployment compensation in an at-will employment State?

View attachment 501485

Are you incapable of carrying on an intelligent dialogue? You brought up the Fourteenth Amendment, and I decided to post the actual wording of Section 1 and its true meaning. Your response is a non sequitur.

JWK

His response is one of his favorite subjects. We've exhaustively shown him where he is completely and totally wrong but he simply won't budge from his belief that he knows the law better than the entire legal profession. In a nutshell, he thinks that at-will employment means he can collect Unemployment Compensation because he doesn't have or want to have a job. I know it's ludicrous on its face, but that's what he believes.

 

[danielpalos]

Isn't right-wing fantasy wonderful?

 

[johnwk]

I have no idea what you are asserting the Fourteenth Amendment "covers", so, let us take a look at the Fourteenth Amendment's Section one:
.
SECTION ONE OF THE FOURTEEN AMENDMENT EXPLAINED


The 14th Amendment declares in crystal clear language:

”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.”

As we can see from the language of the 14th Amendment it:


1. Makes ”All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof … citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”


The amendment then goes on to declare:


2. “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”


This wording forbids State action from abridging a United States citizen’s “privileges or immunities” which a State has adopted under law. Note that the wording does not forbid a State to deny “privileges or immunities” to “persons” who may not be "citizens of the United States"! Nor does the wording declare what “privileges or immunities” a state may or may not adopt.


The amendment then continues with:


3. “… nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..”


Again, the reference is to State action and applies to “any person” as opposed to “citizens of the United States” and it expressly forbids every State to deprive any “person [within its jurisdiction] of life, liberty, or property without due process of” a State’s laws. Due process of law refers to procedure and the administration of justice in accordance with established rules and principles.


Section one of the Amendment then concludes with:


4. ”…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”


This wording simply commands that whatever a State’s laws are, a person within that State’s jurisdiction may not be denied the equal protection of those specific laws. Keep in mind the wording does not forbid a state to make distinctions in law, e.g., based upon sex or age, but whatever laws are adopted by a State with regard to sex or age, the State may not deny to any person, blacks and whites alike, within its jurisdiction the equal protection of those specific laws. The laws must be enforced equally upon all, e.g., if a distinction in law is made with respect to civil rights, (not political) that the wife may not testify, sue or contract, it must be enforced equally upon all regardless of race, color or previous condition of slavery.

And here is a summary, explaining the meaning, of what you quoted by one of the 14th Amendments supporters when it was being debated for adoption into our constitution:

“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Rep. Shallabarger, Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293

I hope the above has been useful to you in understanding the true meaning of Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Congress does not have the constitutional authority to pass and enforce the Equality Act legislation unless power over the subject matter [sex] is delegated to Congress via a Constitutional Amendment, allowing "appropriate legislation" to be written and enforced.

BTW, I suggest you study the wording of the Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.___ Tenth Amendment

JWK

The Equality Act attempts to exercise legislative power proposed under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was wisely rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, the Act is usurpation of power not granted.

Like unequal protection of the law for unemployment compensation in an at-will employment State?

View attachment 501485

Are you incapable of carrying on an intelligent dialogue? You brought up the Fourteenth Amendment, and I decided to post the actual wording of Section 1 and its true meaning. Your response is a non sequitur.

JWK

His response is one of his favorite subjects. We've exhaustively shown him where he is completely and totally wrong but he simply won't budge from his belief that he knows the law better than the entire legal profession. In a nutshell, he thinks that at-will employment means he can collect Unemployment Compensation because he doesn't have or want to have a job. I know it's ludicrous on its face, but that's what he believes.

I have a feeling he really does not believe that. But we can only speculate what his motive is for posting such nonsense

JWK

 

[johnwk]

Isn't right-wing fantasy wonderful?

When all else fails, resort to name calling.

JWK

 

[johnwk]

This wording forbids State action from abridging a United States citizen’s “privileges or immunities” which a State has adopted under law. Note that the wording does not forbid a State to deny “privileges or immunities” to “persons” who may not be "citizens of the United States"! Nor does the wording declare what “privileges or immunities” a state may or may not adopt.

Like unequal protection of the law for unemployment compensation in an at-will employment State?

Don't open that door, Daniel, you've been spanked thoroughly on it and it doesn't apply here. You can't collect UC for not working a job and that's final.

It's amazing the crap he comes up with.

JWK

 

[danielpalos]

There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine:

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws

 

[johnwk]

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws

Which has nothing to do with Congress entering the States and forbidding distinctions being made based upon sex.

What you are ignoring is, Congress has never been delegated the power to adopt appropriate legislation to forbid distinctions being made based upon sex, excluding of course the 19th Amendment.

But you seem to pretend Congress has been delegated power to forbid, by appropriate legislation, distinctions being made, based upon sex, when the 19th Amendment is the only amendment granting such power, and it is limited to the right to vote being denied or abridges based upon "sex".

So, tell us, Mr. Smarty Pants, under what wording in our federal Constitution has Congress been delegated power to enter the states and enforce legislation forbidding distinctions being made based upon sex, other than the 19th Amendment?

JWK


The Equality Act attempts to exercise legislative power proposed under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was wisely rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, the Act is an attempted usurpation of power not granted.