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

[johnwk]

And the question goes unanswered:

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.

 

[Polishprince]

.
See: Abigail Shrier: Biden’s ‘Horrifying’ Equality Act Would Put Biological Males In All-Female Prisons

JUNE 3, 2021

”Biological males who identify as female could be allowed in all-women prisons across the nation if the Equality Act is passed and signed by President Joe Biden’s Democrat administration, “no hormones or surgery required.”

After talking to women already affected by California’s radical gender law, which is at risk of becoming national, Abigail Shrier, a journalist and author of “Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters,” told The Federalist’s Ben Domenech on Fox News “Primetime” Monday evening that “these women are terrified.”

Also see: Why Democrats’ Equality Act Is Dangerous To Women, Children, And Gay People Like Me
FEBRUARY 22, 2021

”Congress appears to be heading full-steam ahead with the Equality Act, more accurately labeled the “Insanity Act.” As an out conservative gay man, I cannot in good conscience label this bill an “equality” act nor support it. This bill has nothing to do with actual equality for all.”

”The bill would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” as federally protected classes, redefining the word “sex” in the original law to include these definitions. This sounds wonderful on the surface, but will lead to catastrophe.”

The article also lists some other consequences of the bill:

”Endanger women’s rights and put millions of women at risk for sexual assault;

Destroy women’s sports and harm men’s sports;

Put gender-confused children at extreme risk, with no alternate paths for them allowed besides cross-sex hormones and genital amputation;

Remove constitutional protections for religious beliefs and freedoms; and

Elevate LBGTQ rights and claims over religious citizens by mandating that an LGBTQ person’s claim wins by default in cases where there is a dispute between the two.”

In specific regard to the last frightening consequence of protected class legislation which the Equality Act is, it flings open the door for countless lawsuits by opportunists and activists, and would allow our bottom feeding scum sucking shyster lawyers to have a field day with the law, just as they did with the unconstitutional American’s with Disabilities Act:

See, e.g., Florida man sues dozens of Colorado businesses - KMGH-TV

Also see: Drive-By Lawsuits and the Abuse of the Americans with …

And especially see:

The ADA Litigation Monster | Americans with Disabilities Act

“The notion that the ADA would not “lead endlessly to litigation” was also wrong. (See “The ADA Shakedown Racket,” Winter 2004.) ADA claims against employers filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), now numbering more than 26,000 per year, have become as common as sex-discrimination claims. And the volume keeps rising, as does the number of ADA lawsuits against employers filed in federal court yearly.”

I caution the unsuspecting . . . be careful of what you ask for!

JWK

As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances there is a twilight where everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air - however slight - lest we become unwitting victims of darkness.___Supreme Court Justice William Douglas

The late Richard Speck of Chicago identified as a broad in prison and actually released videos to prove it.

Of course he died before the Tranny Revolution, but if he was alive today, Illinois would have put in in a women's penitentiary.

 

[danielpalos]

Isn't right-wing fantasy wonderful?

View attachment 501547

When all else fails, resort to name calling.

JWK

When all else fails resort to the immorality of false-witness bearing while alleging the opposite in abortion threads.

 

[danielpalos]

And the question goes unanswered:

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.

It was not unanswered you are simply clueless and Causeless as is typical of the morally challenged Right-Wing.

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

 

[johnwk]

It was not unanswered

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.

 

[danielpalos]

The duty/obligation of the chief magistrate of the Union.

he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed

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

 

[johnwk]

The duty/obligation of the chief magistrate of the Union.

he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed

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

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.

 

[danielpalos]

You must be on the right-wing.

 

[johnwk]

You must be on the right-wing.

I have no idea what you are suggesting by that.

JWK




Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

 

[Jets]

And the question goes unanswered:

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.

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.

The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.


The text of the Fourteenth Amendment answers the question. “ANY PERSON” includes distinctions based on sex REGARDLESS of the Nineteenth Amendment.

ANY PERSON. That INCLUDES Gay,Female,and transsexual. The text speaks for itself.

 

[johnwk]

And the question goes unanswered:

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.

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.

The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.


The text of the Fourteenth Amendment answers the question. “ANY PERSON” includes distinctions based on sex REGARDLESS of the Nineteenth Amendment.

ANY PERSON. That INCLUDES Gay,Female,and transsexual. The text speaks for itself.

You are absolutely correct about one thing . . . the text of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment speaks for itself:


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.

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.

 

[Jets]

And the question goes unanswered:

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.

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.

The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.


The text of the Fourteenth Amendment answers the question. “ANY PERSON” includes distinctions based on sex REGARDLESS of the Nineteenth Amendment.

ANY PERSON. That INCLUDES Gay,Female,and transsexual. The text speaks for itself.

You are absolutely correct about one thing . . . the text of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment speaks for itself:


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.

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.

“ANY PERSON“ in the text renders your explanation absolutely incorrect. You can obfuscate thru any interpretation you like, but cannot change the actual words ANY PERSON to suit your fallacious narrative.

Your question is answered. You don’t like the answer and vehemently disagree with it, but you are entitled to your opinion.

 

[johnwk]

“ANY PERSON“ in the text renders your explanation absolutely incorrect. You can obfuscate thru any interpretation you like, but cannot change the actual words themselves.

And I posted the actual words HERE, and notice you have not taken issue with any specific passage I wrote.

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.

 

[Jets]

“ANY PERSON“ in the text renders your explanation absolutely incorrect. You can obfuscate thru any interpretation you like, but cannot change the actual words themselves.

And I posted the actual words HERE, and notice you have not taken issue with any specific passage I wrote.

JWK

You are ignoring the words “ANY PERSON”.

Anything you wrote that glosses over those two words is irrelevant and immaterial to the discussion.

Again, the text of the amendment (including section 5) answer your posed question. The Supreme Court and the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 say that your INTERPRETATION of what the text means is nothing but a biased opinion.

 

[johnwk]

You are ignoring the words “ANY PERSON”.

Not only do I acknowledge the phrase "any person", but I quote the phrase verbatim as found in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. I wrote:

”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

Once again I noticed you have not taken issue with any specific passage I wrote.


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.

 

[Jets]

You are ignoring the words “ANY PERSON”.

Not only do I acknowledge the phrase "any person", but I quote the phrase verbatim as found in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. I wrote:

”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

Once again I noticed you have not taken issue with any specific passage I wrote.


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.

Because it is IRRELEVANT. The text says you are wrong. The Supreme Court says you are wrong and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 says you are wrong.

 

[johnwk]

Because it is IRRELEVANT. The text says you are wrong. The Supreme Court says you are wrong and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 says you are wrong.

Wrong about what?

JWK

 

[danielpalos]

We don't need an equality act.

Obey existing laws right-wingers.

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

 

[Jets]

Because it is IRRELEVANT. The text says you are wrong. The Supreme Court says you are wrong and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 says you are wrong.

Wrong about what?

JWK

Your “interpretation” on what the fourteenth amendment means as well as your view of the 1964 CRA.

 

[johnwk]

Because it is IRRELEVANT. The text says you are wrong. The Supreme Court says you are wrong and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 says you are wrong.

Wrong about what?

JWK

Your “interpretation” on what the fourteenth amendment means

My interpretation?


Here is the meaning of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment as stated by one of its Congressional 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

JWK

The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it. HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)