Community Chat

[biancardi]

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.

there is your answer. in bold

[dooBdoo]

I'm trying to read this thread backwards (story of my life!), meaning from the most recent post first.  Not sure how far I'll get but the questions about the SCOTUS intrigued me since I really didn't know the specific answer (red face).

Here's what I found looking quickly:


"Role

The Supreme Court plays a very important role in our constitutional system of government.

First, as the highest court in the land, it is the court of last resort for those looking for justice.

Second, due to its power of judicial review, it plays an essential role in ensuring that each branch of government recognizes the limits of its own power.

Third, it protects civil rights and liberties by striking down laws that violate the Constitution.

Finally, it sets appropriate limits on democratic government by ensuring that popular majorities cannot pass laws that harm and/or take undue advantage of unpopular minorities.

In essence, it serves to ensure that the changing views of a majority do not undermine the fundamental values common to all Americans, i.e., freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and due process of law."

(source: 
http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activi...)

[esmerelda]

kittymom...you mean "equal protection of the law."  THAT's what the amendment says. 

Not "equal justice under the law."

[Lila Belle]

---

@esmerelda wrote:

You mean this 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.

(There are other sections dealing with representatives and debt, but I think this is the part you mean.)

So what part of this was interpreted to mean what was ruled?

As far as the ruling goes, the ruling (supposedly) came from the interpretation, so we're back at step 1.  So....

---

###################################

The key phrase is "NO State shall make or enforce any law...equal protection under the law."

[esmerelda]

---

@biancardi wrote:

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.

there is your answer. in bold

---

Easy to cut, paste and highlight.  Do you know what it means...in your own words?  Like "immunities"?  What is that?

[kittymomNC]

---

@esmerelda wrote:

kittymom...you mean "equal protection of the law."  THAT's what the amendment says. 

Not "equal justice under the law."

---

I meant what I said - I didn't say where it came from...Equal justice under law is a phrase engraved on the front of the United States Supreme Court building in Washington D.C

[esmerelda]

---

@Lila Belle wrote:

---

@esmerelda wrote:

You mean this 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.

(There are other sections dealing with representatives and debt, but I think this is the part you mean.)

So what part of this was interpreted to mean what was ruled?

As far as the ruling goes, the ruling (supposedly) came from the interpretation, so we're back at step 1.  So....

---

###################################

The key phrase is "NO State shall make or enforce any law...equal protection under the law."

---

What law was made or enforced?  Protection under what law?

[Lila Belle]

An example of an immunity would be the 5th Am.

[esmerelda]

---

@kittymomNC wrote:

---

@esmerelda wrote:

kittymom...you mean "equal protection of the law."  THAT's what the amendment says. 

Not "equal justice under the law."

---

I meant what I said - I didn't say where it came from...Equal justice under law is a phrase engraved on the front of the United States Supreme Court building in Washington D.C

---

 We're talking about the Constitution, not engravings on buildings.

[sfnative]

---

@JaneMarple wrote:

Funny how if the ruling had gone the other way, there wouldn't be any arguments against the constitution. I also find it funny that since January of 2009, certain groups are all of a sudden experts on constitutional law.

---

With all due respect, one wonders about the use of the word "funny" for one.  Secondly, we would all do well to re-acquaint ourselves with the constitution from time to time.