Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Your white flag is accepted.
I'm still waiting for you to explain why MY EXPLAINATION OF SECTION 1 OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT is “warped”, which you asserted it was in POST NO. 110.
JWK
The Equality Act attempts to exercise legislative power proposed under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, the Act is an attempted usurpation of power not granted.
Equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States.Equal protection of the laws is an entitlement not a discretionary (fill in the blank) war.There is nothing further to discuss. Sophistry is not a valid argument. Copy and paste manifestos are nothing but partisan support for your warped interpretation of the 14Th amendment.
Please explain what is "warped" concerning the following explanation of the 1st Section of the 14th Amendment.
.
SECTION ONE OF THE FOURTEEN AMENDMENT EXPLAINED
The 14th Amendment declares in crystal clear language:
”All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
As we can see from the language of the 14th Amendment it:
1. Makes ”All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof … citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
The amendment then goes on to declare:
2. “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”
This wording forbids State action from abridging a United States citizen’s “privileges or immunities” which a State has adopted under law. Note that the wording does not forbid a State to deny “privileges or immunities” to “persons” who may not be "citizens of the United States"! Nor does the wording declare what “privileges or immunities” a state may or may not adopt.
The amendment then continues with:
3. “… nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..”
Again, the reference is to State action and applies to “any person” as opposed to “citizens of the United States” and it expressly forbids every State to deprive any “person [within its jurisdiction] of life, liberty, or property without due process of” a State’s laws. Due process of law refers to procedure and the administration of justice in accordance with established rules and principles.
Section one of the Amendment then concludes with:
4. ”…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
This wording simply commands that whatever a State’s laws are, a person within that State’s jurisdiction may not be denied the equal protection of those specific laws. Keep in mind the wording does not forbid a state to make distinctions in law, e.g., based upon sex or age, but whatever laws are adopted by a State with regard to sex or age, the State may not deny to any person, blacks and whites alike, within its jurisdiction the equal protection of those specific laws. The laws must be enforced equally upon all, e.g., if a distinction in law is made with respect to civil rights, (not political) that the wife may not testify, sue or contract, it must be enforced equally upon all regardless of race, color or previous condition of slavery.
And here is a summary, explaining the meaning, of what you quoted by one of the 14th Amendments supporters when it was being debated for adoption into our constitution:
“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Rep. Shallabarger, Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293
I hope the above has been useful to you in understanding the true meaning of Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Congress does not have the constitutional authority to pass and enforce the Equality Act legislation unless power over the subject matter [sex] is delegated to Congress via a Constitutional Amendment, allowing "appropriate legislation" to be written and enforced.
JWK
The Equality Act attempts to exercise legislative power proposed under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, the Act is an attempted usurpation of power not granted.
At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."
I'm not sure what that has to do with the meaning of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, which is what was being discussed.
JWK
The Equality Act attempts to exercise legislative power proposed under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, the Act is an attempted usurpation of power not granted.
Post 137
Post 137
I'm still waiting for you to explain why MY EXPLAINATION OF SECTION 1 OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT is “warped”, which you asserted it was in POST NO. 110.
JWK
The Equality Act attempts to exercise legislative power proposed under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, the Act is an attempted usurpation of power not granted.
.Post 137
And when you ask me yet again. Post 137
.Post 137
And when you ask me yet again. Post 137
View attachment 500226
.
You gave no explanation in Post 137 why MY EXPLAINATION OF SECTION 1 OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT is “warped”, which you asserted it was in POST NO. 110.
JWK
The Equality Act attempts to exercise legislative power proposed under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, the Act is an attempted usurpation of power not granted.
Post 143
Post 143
View attachment 500387
You gave no explanation in Post 143 why MY EXPLAINATION OF SECTION 1 OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT is “warped”, which you asserted it was in POST NO. 110.
JWK
I sure did. You are being intentionally obtuse.
Post 137
I sure did. You are being intentionally obtuse.
Post 137
You gave no explanation in Post 137 why MY EXPLAINATION OF SECTION 1 OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT is “warped”, which you asserted it was in POST NO. 110.
JWK
The Equality Act attempts to exercise legislative power proposed under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, the Act is an attempted usurpation of power not granted.
Discrimination is a fundamental human right.The OP From post 105:
I find nothing wrong with people being free to discriminate as they please .
Priceless…
The equal Rights Amendment was rejected by mysogynist men and traditional women who feared the effects on gender rolls The American People were not thinking about it's constitutionality. You are just using that because you think it will score you pointys. It does notThe Equality Act attempts to exercise legislative power proposed under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, the Act is an attempted usurpation of power not granted.
So, you got nothing.
Concession accepted
View attachment 500508So, you got nothing.
Concession accepted
I'm still waiting for you to explain why MY EXPLAINATION OF SECTION 1 OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT is “warped”, which you asserted it was in POST NO. 110.
JWK
The Equality Act attempts to exercise legislative power proposed under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, the Act is an attempted usurpation of power not granted.
Translation: If I cannot explain why I support discrimination I will keep repeating the same question.
Post 152
Discrinination is a broad term and is used in many ways. It's one thing to be discriminant when it comes to who you take your pants off with or what you eat for dinner. It is quite another thing to refuse to serve a person in your place of business because of race, religion, sexuality or whatever . So to say that "People discriminate numerous times a day in their daily activities is meaningles and just blowing smoke.I see nothing wrong with people being free to discriminate. People discriminate numerous times a day in their daily activities.
Discrinination is a broad term and is used in many ways. It's one thing to be discriminant when it comes to who you take your pants off with or what you eat for dinner. It is quite another thing to refuse to serve a person in your place of business because of race, religion, sexuality or whatever .
Translation: If I cannot explain why I support discrimination I will keep repeating the same question.
Post 152
I see nothing wrong with people being free to discriminate. People discriminate numerous times a day in their daily activities.
But as usual, you deflect once again.
I'm still waiting for you to explain why MY EXPLAINATION OF SECTION 1 OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT is “warped”, which you asserted it was in POST NO. 110.
JWK
The Equality Act attempts to exercise legislative power proposed under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, the Act is an attempted usurpation of power not granted.
