The Equality Act, another lawyers' full employment Act and an attack on inalienable rights

I thought equality was already the law. All lives matter, even Whitey. So we gotta move on and fix some real problems like our border or our inability to get people back to work. LGBTQ already has protections.
We subscribe to Capitalism. What problems cannot be solved with capital under Capitalism?

Equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States can solve simple poverty by solving for deleterious effects of capitalism's natural rate of unemployment; and, on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States. Automatic stabilization is what will benefit our economy.
 
Does your doctor know you are off your meds again?
Do you need to be whipped, flogged, and beaten by order of the court, to be ceased and desisted from dealing drugs, compelling prostitution, and commissioning murder-for-hire under color of law and medicine?

Explain why you should ever be let out of prison for making "suggestions" of that sort.
So, no your doctor doesn't know you are off you medications.

You need to take the medicines like the Doctor says... that will make the voices go away.
 
What is this Republican Brain disease that those with money and power need to be protected from the rest of us?
“Brian disease?”

Thief

You copied that from the “black brain disease” that I coined on this forum

Libs are like the mainland chinese who have to steal all the ideas they use
 
So, no your doctor doesn't know you are off you medications.
You need to be whipped, flogged, beaten, and bloodied out of your suggestions that others take unnecessary medications or drugs.
You need to take the medicines like the Doctor says... that will make the voices go away.
You need to rot in a concrete prison cell 23 hours a day for the rest of your sorry-ass miserable life. Hour out for exercise or a daily beating.
 
So, no your doctor doesn't know you are off you medications.
You need to be whipped, flogged, beaten, and bloodied out of your suggestions that others take unnecessary medications or drugs.
You need to take the medicines like the Doctor says... that will make the voices go away.
You need to rot in a concrete prison cell 23 hours a day for the rest of your sorry-ass miserable life. Hour out for exercise or a daily beating.

Yeah, buddy my days of thinking you are a nut who needs to be medicated are definitely coming to a middle.
 
See: NEW POLL: 7 In 10 Voters Support the Equality Act


March 17, 2021

In poll after poll, we see that Americans overwhelmingly believe that LGBTQ people should be able to live free from fear of harassment and discrimination by guaranteeing the same federal anti-discrimination protections that other Americans have enjoyed for decades.The Equality Act is supported by a bipartisan majority of voters, the business community, faith and civil rights leaders, and communities in virtually every corner of the nation. It’s time for the Senate to catch up to the American public and finally pass the Equality Act so that all Americans can be treated equally in the eyes of the law.

Perhaps the support for the “Equality Act” is high because some who support it do so to be socially accepted in certain circles, rather than on its merits which would open a Pandora’s box and allow government force to be used to dictate almost every aspect of our social and commercial activities.

The truth is, the proposed “Equality Act” as it is called, has nothing to do with equality, and everything to do with creating, under law, a privileged protected class with the government’s muscle behind it.

Keep in mind, when the same type of legislation was advanced as a constitutional amendment in the 1980s ___ the Equal Rights Amendment ___ it was rejected by the people of the United States, and for good cause, as they knew it would open a Pandora’s Box with countless unintended consequences, both disruptive and dangerous to a freedom loving people.

In fact, if adopted, the Equality Act would subvert the people’s right to mutually agree in their contracts and associations, both of which are fundamental inalienable rights of mankind.

And here we are again today, but this time the Democrat controlled House has decided to ignore our Constitution’s required amendment process ___ a process required to lawfully adopt the “Equality Act” ___ which is the same kind of legislation rejected by the American People when they rejected the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1980s.

Once again our socialist revolutionary democrat Leadership has chose to ignore Article V, our Constitution’s amendment process, and instead, have decided to impose their personal views of fairness, reasonableness and social justice as the rule of law, and screw the Constitution.

Let us recall the wisdom put forth by one of our Supreme Court Justices: "The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." – Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

Now, with regard to the unintended consequences of such legislation __ legislation using the force of government to meddle in and control our lives with respect to a "protected class” ___ and the Pandora’s Box it would open, the Americans with Disabilities Act serves as a wonderful example and a warning.

It was predicted by some, including me, that the Act would most certainly lead to business owners paying out millions upon millions of dollars to stop frivolous court actions filed by blood-sucking shyster lawyers. And was this prediction accurate?

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.”

The bottom line is, like the Americans with Disabilities Act, the “Equality Act” ought to be referred to as another Lawyers Full Employment Act and an outright attack on allowing people to be free to mutually agree in the contracts and associations, and that includes their daily social and commercial activities.

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
So people who are being unfairly treated might sue ? OK.
Unfairly treated of course. Not good or bad at what they do or not expected to do all facets of the job with others covering up is something else.


And if this deceptive legislation is made "the law of the land", allowing the force of government to obliviate one of mankind's most fundamental rights ___ the right to be free to mutually agree in contracts and associations, and this includes exercising that right in social and commercial activities ___ not only will the "brave new world be one step closer", but bottom feeding scum sucking shyster lawyers will 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.”

JWK
 
Once again our socialist revolutionary democrat Leadership has chose to ignore Article V, our Constitution’s amendment process, and instead, have decided to impose their personal views of fairness, reasonableness and social justice as the rule of law, and screw the Constitution



Disagree with the OP premise.

Lets review the fourteenth amendment:

Section 1.

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.


Section 5.​

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

Article 5 does not have to apply. Congress has the constitutional authority to pass the Equality Act.

I see nothing in those words delegating a power to Congress, to enter the states and infringe upon the people's or citizens' right to mutually agree in their contracts and associations, which includes exercising this right in their social and commercial activities.

Now, let me give you a lesson regarding the actual meaning of what you quoted:

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.

Finally, Congress does not have the constitutional authority to pass and enforce the Equality Act. it would have to be adopted by a Constitutional Amendment, just as the proposed, but defeated, "Equal Rights Amendment".

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)
 
Last edited:
Once again our socialist revolutionary democrat Leadership has chose to ignore Article V, our Constitution’s amendment process, and instead, have decided to impose their personal views of fairness, reasonableness and social justice as the rule of law, and screw the Constitution



Disagree with the OP premise.

Lets review the fourteenth amendment:

Section 1.

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.



Article 5 does not have to apply. Congress has the constitutional authority to pass the Equality Act.


I see nothing in those words delegating a power to Congress, to enter the states and infringe upon the people's or citizens' right to mutually agree in their contracts and associations, which includes exercising this right in their social and commercial activities.

Now, let me give you a lesson regarding the actual meaning of what you quoted:

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.

Finally, Congress does not have the constitutional authority to pass and enforce the Equality Act. it would have to be adopted by a Constitutional Amendment, just as the proposed, but defeated, "Equal Rights Amendment".

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)

We had a similar argument last time in another thread.

You do not get to gloss over Section 5 because it belies the argument being put forth. What one member of the 14th amendment authors opined does not change the text of the Constitution. Just because an Equal Rights Amendment was attempted and failed does not mean Section 5 of the 14th is toothless.

To reiterate:

Section 5.​

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

Period.
 
Last edited:
Once again our socialist revolutionary democrat Leadership has chose to ignore Article V, our Constitution’s amendment process, and instead, have decided to impose their personal views of fairness, reasonableness and social justice as the rule of law, and screw the Constitution



Disagree with the OP premise.

Lets review the fourteenth amendment:

Section 1.

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.



Article 5 does not have to apply. Congress has the constitutional authority to pass the Equality Act.


I see nothing in those words delegating a power to Congress, to enter the states and infringe upon the people's or citizens' right to mutually agree in their contracts and associations, which includes exercising this right in their social and commercial activities.

Now, let me give you a lesson regarding the actual meaning of what you quoted:

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.

Finally, Congress does not have the constitutional authority to pass and enforce the Equality Act. it would have to be adopted by a Constitutional Amendment, just as the proposed, but defeated, "Equal Rights Amendment".

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)

We had a similar argument last time in another thread.

You do not get to gloss over Section 5 because it belies the argument being put forth. What one member of the 14th amendment authors opined does not change the text of the Constitution. Just because an Equal Rights Amendment was attempted and failed does not mean Section 5 of the 14th is toothless.

To reiterate:

Section 5.​

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

Period.


Section 5 does not enlarge the specific prohibitions set forth in Section 1. It only allows for enabling legislation to carry out Section one. This is constitutional law 101.

Congress does not have the constitutional authority to pass and enforce the Equality Act. it would have to be adopted by a Constitutional Amendment, just as the proposed, but defeated, "Equal Rights Amendment".

JWK
 
Once again our socialist revolutionary democrat Leadership has chose to ignore Article V, our Constitution’s amendment process, and instead, have decided to impose their personal views of fairness, reasonableness and social justice as the rule of law, and screw the Constitution



Disagree with the OP premise.

Lets review the fourteenth amendment:

Section 1.

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.



Article 5 does not have to apply. Congress has the constitutional authority to pass the Equality Act.


I see nothing in those words delegating a power to Congress, to enter the states and infringe upon the people's or citizens' right to mutually agree in their contracts and associations, which includes exercising this right in their social and commercial activities.

Now, let me give you a lesson regarding the actual meaning of what you quoted:

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.

Finally, Congress does not have the constitutional authority to pass and enforce the Equality Act. it would have to be adopted by a Constitutional Amendment, just as the proposed, but defeated, "Equal Rights Amendment".

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)

We had a similar argument last time in another thread.

You do not get to gloss over Section 5 because it belies the argument being put forth. What one member of the 14th amendment authors opined does not change the text of the Constitution. Just because an Equal Rights Amendment was attempted and failed does not mean Section 5 of the 14th is toothless.

To reiterate:

Section 5.​

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

Period.


Section 5 does not enlarge the specific prohibitions set forth in Section 1. It only allows for enabling legislation to carry out Section one. This is constitutional law 101.

Congress does not have the constitutional authority to pass and enforce the Equality Act. it would have to be adopted by a Constitutional Amendment, just as the proposed, but defeated, "Equal Rights Amendment".

JWK

Please site the source that specifically states that Section 5 ONLY applies to Section 1 under the terms you posted.

Thanks in advance
 
Last edited:
Once again our socialist revolutionary democrat Leadership has chose to ignore Article V, our Constitution’s amendment process, and instead, have decided to impose their personal views of fairness, reasonableness and social justice as the rule of law, and screw the Constitution



Disagree with the OP premise.

Lets review the fourteenth amendment:

Section 1.

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.



Article 5 does not have to apply. Congress has the constitutional authority to pass the Equality Act.


I see nothing in those words delegating a power to Congress, to enter the states and infringe upon the people's or citizens' right to mutually agree in their contracts and associations, which includes exercising this right in their social and commercial activities.

Now, let me give you a lesson regarding the actual meaning of what you quoted:

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.

Finally, Congress does not have the constitutional authority to pass and enforce the Equality Act. it would have to be adopted by a Constitutional Amendment, just as the proposed, but defeated, "Equal Rights Amendment".

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)

We had a similar argument last time in another thread.

You do not get to gloss over Section 5 because it belies the argument being put forth. What one member of the 14th amendment authors opined does not change the text of the Constitution. Just because an Equal Rights Amendment was attempted and failed does not mean Section 5 of the 14th is toothless.

To reiterate:

Section 5.​

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

Period.


Section 5 does not enlarge the specific prohibitions set forth in Section 1. It only allows for enabling legislation to carry out Section one. This is constitutional law 101.

Congress does not have the constitutional authority to pass and enforce the Equality Act. it would have to be adopted by a Constitutional Amendment, just as the proposed, but defeated, "Equal Rights Amendment".

JWK
Once again our socialist revolutionary democrat Leadership has chose to ignore Article V, our Constitution’s amendment process, and instead, have decided to impose their personal views of fairness, reasonableness and social justice as the rule of law, and screw the Constitution



Disagree with the OP premise.

Lets review the fourteenth amendment:

Section 1.

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.



Article 5 does not have to apply. Congress has the constitutional authority to pass the Equality Act.


I see nothing in those words delegating a power to Congress, to enter the states and infringe upon the people's or citizens' right to mutually agree in their contracts and associations, which includes exercising this right in their social and commercial activities.

Now, let me give you a lesson regarding the actual meaning of what you quoted:

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.

Finally, Congress does not have the constitutional authority to pass and enforce the Equality Act. it would have to be adopted by a Constitutional Amendment, just as the proposed, but defeated, "Equal Rights Amendment".

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)

We had a similar argument last time in another thread.

You do not get to gloss over Section 5 because it belies the argument being put forth. What one member of the 14th amendment authors opined does not change the text of the Constitution. Just because an Equal Rights Amendment was attempted and failed does not mean Section 5 of the 14th is toothless.

To reiterate:

Section 5.​

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

Period.


Section 5 does not enlarge the specific prohibitions set forth in Section 1. It only allows for enabling legislation to carry out Section one. This is constitutional law 101.

Congress does not have the constitutional authority to pass and enforce the Equality Act. it would have to be adopted by a Constitutional Amendment, just as the proposed, but defeated, "Equal Rights Amendment".

JWK

Incorrect. The Equality Act is a proposed amendment for the 1964 Civil Rights Act which was not passed by a constitutional amendment. Conflating the issue with the ERA does not validate the argument.
 
See: NEW POLL: 7 In 10 Voters Support the Equality Act


March 17, 2021

In poll after poll, we see that Americans overwhelmingly believe that LGBTQ people should be able to live free from fear of harassment and discrimination by guaranteeing the same federal anti-discrimination protections that other Americans have enjoyed for decades.The Equality Act is supported by a bipartisan majority of voters, the business community, faith and civil rights leaders, and communities in virtually every corner of the nation. It’s time for the Senate to catch up to the American public and finally pass the Equality Act so that all Americans can be treated equally in the eyes of the law.

Perhaps the support for the “Equality Act” is high because some who support it do so to be socially accepted in certain circles, rather than on its merits which would open a Pandora’s box and allow government force to be used to dictate almost every aspect of our social and commercial activities.

The truth is, the proposed “Equality Act” as it is called, has nothing to do with equality, and everything to do with creating, under law, a privileged protected class with the government’s muscle behind it.

Keep in mind, when the same type of legislation was advanced as a constitutional amendment in the 1980s ___ the Equal Rights Amendment ___ it was rejected by the people of the United States, and for good cause, as they knew it would open a Pandora’s Box with countless unintended consequences, both disruptive and dangerous to a freedom loving people.

In fact, if adopted, the Equality Act would subvert the people’s right to mutually agree in their contracts and associations, both of which are fundamental inalienable rights of mankind.

And here we are again today, but this time the Democrat controlled House has decided to ignore our Constitution’s required amendment process ___ a process required to lawfully adopt the “Equality Act” ___ which is the same kind of legislation rejected by the American People when they rejected the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1980s.

Once again our socialist revolutionary democrat Leadership has chose to ignore Article V, our Constitution’s amendment process, and instead, have decided to impose their personal views of fairness, reasonableness and social justice as the rule of law, and screw the Constitution.

Let us recall the wisdom put forth by one of our Supreme Court Justices: "The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." – Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

Now, with regard to the unintended consequences of such legislation __ legislation using the force of government to meddle in and control our lives with respect to a "protected class” ___ and the Pandora’s Box it would open, the Americans with Disabilities Act serves as a wonderful example and a warning.

It was predicted by some, including me, that the Act would most certainly lead to business owners paying out millions upon millions of dollars to stop frivolous court actions filed by blood-sucking shyster lawyers. And was this prediction accurate?

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.”

The bottom line is, like the Americans with Disabilities Act, the “Equality Act” ought to be referred to as another Lawyers Full Employment Act and an outright attack on allowing people to be free to mutually agree in the contracts and associations, and that includes their daily social and commercial activities.

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
So people who are being unfairly treated might sue ? OK.
Unfairly treated of course. Not good or bad at what they do or not expected to do all facets of the job with others covering up is something else.


And if this deceptive legislation is made "the law of the land", allowing the force of government to obliviate one of mankind's most fundamental rights ___ the right to be free to mutually agree in contracts and associations, and this includes exercising that right in social and commercial activities ___ not only will the "brave new world be one step closer", but bottom feeding scum sucking shyster lawyers will 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.”

JWK

Incorrect.

Once again our socialist revolutionary democrat Leadership has chose to ignore Article V, our Constitution’s amendment process, and instead, have decided to impose their personal views of fairness, reasonableness and social justice as the rule of law, and screw the Constitution



Disagree with the OP premise.

Lets review the fourteenth amendment:

Section 1.

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.



Article 5 does not have to apply. Congress has the constitutional authority to pass the Equality Act.


I see nothing in those words delegating a power to Congress, to enter the states and infringe upon the people's or citizens' right to mutually agree in their contracts and associations, which includes exercising this right in their social and commercial activities.

Now, let me give you a lesson regarding the actual meaning of what you quoted:

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.

Finally, Congress does not have the constitutional authority to pass and enforce the Equality Act. it would have to be adopted by a Constitutional Amendment, just as the proposed, but defeated, "Equal Rights Amendment".

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)

We had a similar argument last time in another thread.

You do not get to gloss over Section 5 because it belies the argument being put forth. What one member of the 14th amendment authors opined does not change the text of the Constitution. Just because an Equal Rights Amendment was attempted and failed does not mean Section 5 of the 14th is toothless.

To reiterate:

Section 5.​

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

Period.


Section 5 does not enlarge the specific prohibitions set forth in Section 1. It only allows for enabling legislation to carry out Section one. This is constitutional law 101.

Congress does not have the constitutional authority to pass and enforce the Equality Act. it would have to be adopted by a Constitutional Amendment, just as the proposed, but defeated, "Equal Rights Amendment".

JWK
Once again our socialist revolutionary democrat Leadership has chose to ignore Article V, our Constitution’s amendment process, and instead, have decided to impose their personal views of fairness, reasonableness and social justice as the rule of law, and screw the Constitution



Disagree with the OP premise.

Lets review the fourteenth amendment:

Section 1.

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.



Article 5 does not have to apply. Congress has the constitutional authority to pass the Equality Act.


I see nothing in those words delegating a power to Congress, to enter the states and infringe upon the people's or citizens' right to mutually agree in their contracts and associations, which includes exercising this right in their social and commercial activities.

Now, let me give you a lesson regarding the actual meaning of what you quoted:

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.

Finally, Congress does not have the constitutional authority to pass and enforce the Equality Act. it would have to be adopted by a Constitutional Amendment, just as the proposed, but defeated, "Equal Rights Amendment".

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)

We had a similar argument last time in another thread.

You do not get to gloss over Section 5 because it belies the argument being put forth. What one member of the 14th amendment authors opined does not change the text of the Constitution. Just because an Equal Rights Amendment was attempted and failed does not mean Section 5 of the 14th is toothless.

To reiterate:

Section 5.​

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

Period.


Section 5 does not enlarge the specific prohibitions set forth in Section 1. It only allows for enabling legislation to carry out Section one. This is constitutional law 101.

Congress does not have the constitutional authority to pass and enforce the Equality Act. it would have to be adopted by a Constitutional Amendment, just as the proposed, but defeated, "Equal Rights Amendment".

JWK

Incorrect.
What have I posted that is "incorrect", and why are you asserting it is incorrect?
 
I’m going to start fresh. The post quoting is a mess. I will elaborate on the previous point.

The first argument being put forth is that the Equality Act must be passed as a constitutional amendment under Article 5.

The second argument being put forth is that Congress is overstepping it’s authority.

Here is the problem with that line of reasoning.

The Equality Act is an amendment to the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed by Congress.

Why would an amendment to federal legislation require a constitutional amendment?
 
Last edited:
The Equality Act is an amendment to the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed by Congress.

Why would an amendment to federal legislation require a constitutional amendment?

To answer your question . . . when there is no delegated power over the subject matter in question.

The question to be answered is, where in our Constitution, has Congress been delegated the power to enter the States and prohibit, by legislation, state action making distinctions based upon sex [excluding of course the 19th Amendment], or prohibiting the citizens and people within a state to make distinctions based upon sex in their social and commercial activities?

Keep in mind, the Equal Rights Amendment was an attempt to delegate a power to Congress to forbid, by legislation, state action making distinctions based upon sex. But the Amendment failed.

Additionally, keep in mind the Equal Rights Amendment is limited to state action, and does not delegate a power to Congress to forbid by legislation citizens or persons making distinctions based upon sex in their social or commercial activities.

So, once again I ask: under what wording in our federal Constitution has Congress been delegated a power to prohibit, by legislation, state action making distinctions based upon sex, or prohibiting, by legislation, citizens or persons in a state to make distinctions based upon sex in their social or commercial activities? If the authority in question has not been delegated to Congress, then the "Equality Act" would be exercising a power not delegated to Congress.

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


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)
 
Last edited:
The Equality Act is an amendment to the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed by Congress.

Why would an amendment to federal legislation require a constitutional amendment?

To answer your question . . . when there is no delegated power over the subject matter in question.

The question to be answered is, where in our Constitution, has Congress been delegated the power to enter the States and prohibit, by legislation, state action making distinctions based upon sex [excluding of course the 19th Amendment], or prohibiting the citizens and people within a state to make distinctions based upon sex in their social and commercial activities?

Keep in mind, the Equal Rights Amendment was an attempt to delegate a power to Congress to forbid, by legislation, state action making distinctions based upon sex. But the Amendment failed.

Additionally, keep in mind the Equal Rights Amendment is limited to state action, and does not delegate a power to Congress to forbid by legislation citizens or persons making distinctions based upon sex in their social or commercial activities.

So, once again I ask: under what wording in our federal Constitution has Congress been delegated a power to prohibit, by legislation, state action making distinctions based upon sex, or prohibiting, by legislation, citizens or persons in a state to make distinctions based upon sex in their social or commercial activities? If the authority in question has not been delegated to Congress, then the "Equality Act" would be exercising a power not delegated to Congress.

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


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)

Because bigotry and discrimination are prohibited under the fourteenth amendment. Businesses do not to get exemptions to obviate constitutional protections.

Period

No amount of splicing within the text is going to change its meaning.
 
The Equality Act is an amendment to the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed by Congress.

Why would an amendment to federal legislation require a constitutional amendment?

To answer your question . . . when there is no delegated power over the subject matter in question.

The question to be answered is, where in our Constitution, has Congress been delegated the power to enter the States and prohibit, by legislation, state action making distinctions based upon sex [excluding of course the 19th Amendment], or prohibiting the citizens and people within a state to make distinctions based upon sex in their social and commercial activities?

Keep in mind, the Equal Rights Amendment was an attempt to delegate a power to Congress to forbid, by legislation, state action making distinctions based upon sex. But the Amendment failed.

Additionally, keep in mind the Equal Rights Amendment is limited to state action, and does not delegate a power to Congress to forbid by legislation citizens or persons making distinctions based upon sex in their social or commercial activities.

So, once again I ask: under what wording in our federal Constitution has Congress been delegated a power to prohibit, by legislation, state action making distinctions based upon sex, or prohibiting, by legislation, citizens or persons in a state to make distinctions based upon sex in their social or commercial activities? If the authority in question has not been delegated to Congress, then the "Equality Act" would be exercising a power not delegated to Congress.

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


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)

Because bigotry and discrimination are prohibited under the fourteenth amendment. Businesses do not to get exemptions to obviate constitutional protections.

Period

No amount of splicing within the text is going to change its meaning.
So all you have is hateful speech as a response when you are unable to point to wording in our federal Constitution delegating a power to Congress to prohibit, by legislation, state action making distinctions based upon sex, or prohibiting, by legislation, citizens or persons in a state to make distinctions based upon sex in their social or commercial activities?

Since you can't or won't answer my above question, and you authoritatively declare "bigotry and discrimination" are prohibited under the Fourteenth Amendment, would you please point to "bigotry" and/or "discrimination" in the wording of the Fourteenth Amendment?

JWK
 
The Equality Act is an amendment to the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed by Congress.

Why would an amendment to federal legislation require a constitutional amendment?

To answer your question . . . when there is no delegated power over the subject matter in question.

The question to be answered is, where in our Constitution, has Congress been delegated the power to enter the States and prohibit, by legislation, state action making distinctions based upon sex [excluding of course the 19th Amendment], or prohibiting the citizens and people within a state to make distinctions based upon sex in their social and commercial activities?

Keep in mind, the Equal Rights Amendment was an attempt to delegate a power to Congress to forbid, by legislation, state action making distinctions based upon sex. But the Amendment failed.

Additionally, keep in mind the Equal Rights Amendment is limited to state action, and does not delegate a power to Congress to forbid by legislation citizens or persons making distinctions based upon sex in their social or commercial activities.

So, once again I ask: under what wording in our federal Constitution has Congress been delegated a power to prohibit, by legislation, state action making distinctions based upon sex, or prohibiting, by legislation, citizens or persons in a state to make distinctions based upon sex in their social or commercial activities? If the authority in question has not been delegated to Congress, then the "Equality Act" would be exercising a power not delegated to Congress.

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


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)

Because bigotry and discrimination are prohibited under the fourteenth amendment. Businesses do not to get exemptions to obviate constitutional protections.

Period

No amount of splicing within the text is going to change its meaning.
So all you have is hateful speech as a response when you are unable to point to wording in our federal Constitution delegating a power to Congress to prohibit, by legislation, state action making distinctions based upon sex, or prohibiting, by legislation, citizens or persons in a state to make distinctions based upon sex in their social or commercial activities?

Since you can't or won't answer my above question, and you authoritatively declare "bigotry and discrimination" are prohibited under the Fourteenth Amendment, would you please point to "bigotry" and/or "discrimination" in the wording of the Fourteenth Amendment?

JWK

Repeating the question does not change the argument.

Let’s back up: Was the Civil Rights Act of 1964 lawfully passed by Congress?

Yes or No.
 
Repeating the question does not change the argument.

Let’s back up: Was the Civil Rights Act of 1964 lawfully passed by Congress?

Yes or No.

The part of it [the Civil Rights Act of 1964] which prohibits distinctions in the workplace based upon “sex” is an assumption of power not delegated to Congress!

Let us look at historical facts regarding whether or not Congress has been delegated a power to prohibit, by legislation, state action making distinctions based upon sex [excluding of course the 19th Amendment], or prohibiting, by legislation, citizens or persons in a state to make distinctions based upon sex in their social or commercial activities.

In 1866 Congress passes a “Civil Rights Act under the authority of the Thirteenth Amendment. The purpose of the Act, as stated by its author, Senator Trumbull, was to "break down all discrimination between black and white men."

The Act goes on to declare:

“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.” Keep in mind there is no mention of “sex” in the Act.

In 1870 the Fifteenth Amendment is passed prohibiting the right to vote to be denied based upon “race, color or previous condition of servitude”. Please note that “sex” is not yet mentioned in our Constitution.

After the passage of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments Congress passes the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which begins:

“An Act to Protect All Citizens in Their Civil and Legal Rights.

Whereas it is essential to just government we recognize the equality of all men before the law, and hold that it is the duty of government in its dealings with the people to mete out equal and exact justice to all, of whatever nativity, race, color, or persuasion, religious or political; and it being the appropriate object of legislation to enact great fundamental principles into law: Therefore …”

Up to this point in time there is still no delegated power authorizing Congress to legislate protection with respect to “sex”. But in 1920, the American People decide by adopting the Nineteenth Amendment, to delegate to Congress power to provide by "appropriate legislation" that the right to vote "shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."

In 1957 Congress passes another Civil Rights Act creating a Commission on Civil Rights. Its duties include investigating allegations that "certain citizens of the United States are being deprived of their right to vote and have that vote counted by reason of their color, race, religion, or national origin."

Then, in 1964, without any constitutionally authorized power, Congress decides to enact the 1964 Civil Rights Act, part of which prohibits distinctions in the workplace based upon “sex”.

In fact, not only did Congress act without Constitutional authority to prohibit distinctions in the workplace based upon sex, but the American People, for generations, refuse to adopt an Equal Rights Amendment that would grant legislative power to Congress to prohibit government actions from making distinctions based upon sex ___ the first appearing in the 1920s, and in the 1980s, the people specifically and purposely reject the Equal Rights Amendment "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex" , which was intended to allow Congress to enact "appropriate legislation" to prohibit government actions making distinctions based upon “sex”.

So, here we are today, in a situation where the rule of law is being ignored, along with historical facts, and people like you embracing Congress’ usurpation of power.

JWK

At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, `Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?' `A republic, if you can keep it,' responded Franklin.
 

Forum List

Back
Top