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

[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

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)

And yet the text specifically states “ANY PERSON”, regardless of what Rep Shallaburger opined…

 

[danielpalos]

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)

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

 

[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)

And yet the text specifically states “ANY PERSON”, regardless of what Rep Shallaburger opined…

And what does it say with respect to "any person"?


.

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.

JWK

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Equal protection of the laws regarding employment at will for unemployment compensation for Persons in our at-will employment 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

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)

And yet the text specifically states “ANY PERSON”, regardless of what Rep Shallaburger opined…

And what does it say with respect to "any person"?


.

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.

JWK

ANY PERSON means that the nineteenth amendment was superfluous even thou it was passed.

ANY PERSON means the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was legitimately passed under Section 5.

ANY PERSON means there was no need for Equal Rights Amendment or Equality Act.

Once again ANY PERSON INCLUDES Women,Men,Transgenders, and ALL HUMAN BEINGS.

You do not get to define what ANY PERSON means to suit a political agenda.

The text wins, your “interpretation“ loses.

 

[johnwk]

ANY PERSON

Any person what? What is stated about "any person" in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment? Let me quote the words for you:



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.

JWK

 

[Jets]

ANY PERSON

Any person what? What is stated about "any person" in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment? Let me quote the words for you:



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.

JWK

ANY PERSON is self explanatory. You are intentionally being obtuse. Get back to me when you understand what words mean.

 

[johnwk]

ANY PERSON

Any person what? What is stated about "any person" in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment? Let me quote the words for you:



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.

JWK

ANY PERSON is self explanatory. You are intentionally being obtuse. Get back to me when you understand what words mean.

.

.
I'm being obtuse? I'm not the one who refuses to quote the passages from the 14th Amendment which contain "any person" in the context in which it is used.

JWK

 

[bodecea]

ANY PERSON

Any person what? What is stated about "any person" in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment? Let me quote the words for you:



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.

JWK

ANY PERSON is self explanatory. You are intentionally being obtuse. Get back to me when you understand what words mean.

I wonder how this thread is working for John in all the other places he posts it.

 

[Jets]

ANY PERSON

Any person what? What is stated about "any person" in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment? Let me quote the words for you:



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.

JWK

ANY PERSON is self explanatory. You are intentionally being obtuse. Get back to me when you understand what words mean.

.
View attachment 505153
.
I'm being obtuse? I'm not the one who refuses to quote the passages from the 14th Amendment which contain "any person" in the context in which it is used.

JWK

White flag accepted

 

[Jets]

ANY PERSON

Any person what? What is stated about "any person" in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment? Let me quote the words for you:



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.

JWK

ANY PERSON is self explanatory. You are intentionally being obtuse. Get back to me when you understand what words mean.

I wonder how this thread is working for John in all the other places he posts it.

His specious arguments have been exposed for what they are. Ostrichism is all he has.

 

[johnwk]

White flag accepted

I'm not the one who refuses to quote the passages from the 14th Amendment which contain "any person" in the context in which it is used.

JWK

 

[Jets]

White flag accepted

I'm not the one who refuses to quote the passages from the 14th Amendment which contain "any person" in the context in which it is used.

JWK

“ANY PERSON” is self explanatory and doesn’t require context.

Post 170

 

[johnwk]

White flag accepted

I'm not the one who refuses to quote the passages from the 14th Amendment which contain "any person" in the context in which it is used.

JWK

“ANY PERSON” is self explanatory and doesn’t require context.

Post 170

.

.

Any person, with reference to what Mr. Smarty pants?

.
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 legislative power not granted.

 

[Jets]

White flag accepted

I'm not the one who refuses to quote the passages from the 14th Amendment which contain "any person" in the context in which it is used.

JWK

“ANY PERSON” is self explanatory and doesn’t require context.

Post 170

.
View attachment 505348

.

Any person, with reference to what Mr. Smarty pants?

.
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 legislative power not granted.

Answered in post 165.

 

[johnwk]

Answered in post 165.

.

.

Post 165 contains a personal opinion which is not in harmony with the wording found in the 14th 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 legislative power not granted.

 

[Jets]

Answered in post 165.

.
View attachment 505353
.

Post 165 contains a personal opinion which is not in harmony with the wording found in the 14th 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 legislative power not granted.

In your opinion.

See how that works…

 

[johnwk]

In your opinion.

No. Not my "opinion" , but in the words of the actual text of the 14th Amendment.

 

[Jets]

In your opinion.

No. Not my "opinion" , but in the words of the actual text of the 14th Amendment.

You mean the actual words of the amendment that say “ANY PERSON” .

Correct. Well done.

 

[Jarlaxle]

.
.


View attachment 499175

What does your post have to do with the subject of the thread?

JWK

Nothing. Danielpalos is a useless shitposter, essentially a human spambot.