Fourteenth Amendment Question for DUers who have access to University/College databases.

[Baitball Blogger]

I have always been intrigued with the Fourteenth Amendment because this is the Amendment that mandates government to operate in a manner that incorporates due process in order to protect the rights of individual citizens. The main premise is that government is forbidden from creating a different set of rules for different groups of people. Everyone, essentially, should have equal access to government.

I would like to read more opinion pieces to expand my understanding of what government can and cannot do. Academic pages would help supplement what I can grab from google. So, if anyone has access to documents or articles on the net that discusses this issue, and those pages are available to the public, can you please post a link?

Thank you.

[1StrongBlackMan]

1. Try this ...

http://www.jstor.org/action/doAdvancedSearch?c2=AND&wc=on&q6=&ed=&f0=all&c3=AND&f2=all&f1=all&f3=all&acc=on&q0=Fourteenth+amendment&q4=&c4=AND&pt=&q2=&isbn=&f4=all&sd=&q5=&c1=AND&q3=&f6=all&c5=AND&c6=AND&q1=&f5=all&la=

When I was in Grad School JSTOR was just as helpful as my University's online Library (and had most of the same writings).

[Baitball Blogger]

2. Thank you so much, 1SBM.

I have some ideas in my head that I am having trouble putting into words. If I understand the parameters of the Amendment, it might help.

[1StrongBlackMan]

3. I completely understand ...

though I must warn you ... JSTOR has two very real problems:

First, you will likely find yourself trapped, hours on end, reading article after article ... then, find yourself conducting tangential searches ... and, more, tangential searches ... until you find it is day break and you still haven't slept, nor found what you were looking for. It's addictive.

Second, you will quickly lose respect for most of the supporting "evidence" that you find on line, as you will find JSTOR articles footnoted, end noted, and chock full of citations that point to where and how the writer came to the opinion they write ... as opposed to the online ever-definitive, argument ending, "Some say ..." or "I think ..."

[Baitball Blogger]

5. Actually, that sounds like the mental stampede that I'm looking for.

Will help trigger my own thoughts.

[merrily]

11. And in the end, few are less definitive than good lawyers because the law is complex,

rarely crystal clear and without exceptions or qualifications or guaranteed to remain as it is until next week.

Or so some say. At least, I think so.

[1StrongBlackMan]

17. If I understand what you are writing ...

I must agree. There is no such thing as a clear cut judicial/legal issue ... or it wouldn't be in court (at the appellate level, at least). Truth is, though we may disagree ... strongly ... regarding a judicial ruling, the argument that we find repugnant, typically, is just as "correct" as the argument that we favor.

That is why good attorneys can argue either side of an issue, just as effectively ... unless they allow their personal position interfere.

[merrily]

19. Yep. You seem to have understood what I wrote.

(See what I did there?)

[1StrongBlackMan]

24. Not really.

[merrily]

25. If you didn't see the humor of my wording in the context of what we were discussing,

this can only make it even less funny

What can I say? I gave it a shot.

[petronius]

4. You can try Google Scholar as well, although it doesn't always provide

the most current literature...

[Baitball Blogger]

6. I never even heard of Google Scholar!

Thanks for that help!

[enlightenment]

13. Try, also, Google Books.

Choose "free Google E books" from the search tools menu to get the readable books.

These will mostly be older, but as you are seeking a fuller understanding, I suspect starting with older analyses will be helpful.

Have fun.

[Baitball Blogger]

15. It's Christmas!

(God, I'm such a nerd.)

[enlightenment]

16. Clearly, you're

not the only one!

[Iris]

51. Yay! That's what I was going to suggest!

Also, do you live near a public college or university? Because, as a taxpayer, you should be able to use those databases in the library. You'd need a password to access them off campus but you would have to be a student or faculty or staff member to get that.

Your public library may have access to some databases as well.

There's an Open Access movement that is getting some traction. You may be able to find some peer-reviewed articles that are not behind paywalls.

[merrily]

7. Simply intrigued, or again seeking help from DUers to help you win a battle on another forum?

You may have sunk the thread by deleting the OP this morning, but that didn't also give us amnesia.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025673676

If it's about help, helping is not easy without knowing what your specific goal/point is.

Off the bat, though, you are conflating a few things, namely federal government and state government and also equal protection and due process.

The Bill of Rights is about the relationship between the federal government and individual citizens and their rights. The rest was left between each state and its citizens as per the ninth and tenth amendments. Originally the Framers had not included a bill of rights. Supposedly, their reasoning was that it was unnecessary because the federal government was getting only very specific powers and the ninth and tenth amendments were implied. However. damned lucky for us, not many bought that.

A number of the provisions of the Bill of Rights do impose due process requirements on the federal government, so no, the 14th was not the first time citizens got due process or protection of individual rights.

However, the 14th Amendment was adopted with the relation between each state and its citizens very much in mind and with the notion that the federal government would interject itself into that relationship more than the Constitution had previously suggested.

This is what shows me you are conflating due process and equal protection

I have always been intrigued with the Fourteenth Amendment because this is the Amendment that mandates government to operate in a manner that incorporates due process in order to protect the rights of individual citizens. The main premise is that government is forbidden from creating a different set of rules for different groups of people.

Whatever you are trying to do, I think it's going to be difficult without getting more of a grasp on the above. I would start with the definitions of due process and equal protection. wikis usually give a decent concise overview, though you cannot always take every word to the bank.

I don't have access to college university databases, but I thought the above was important as a base line.

[Baitball Blogger]

8. You summarized my dilemma beautifully.

I do need to understand the concepts better to see how it applies to a personal situation. It might be helpful if I can just look at the principles academically and see how other people applied them to real events.

Thank you! Every little bit helps.

[merrily]

9. Are you sure you want a college database, or would a legal one help more?

DU has a few lawyers. Maybe a pm to a couple?

[Baitball Blogger]

10. I am not about to turn away free legal advice.

PM me the names of anyone that wants to field a constitutional question and I'll write to them tonight.

[merrily]

12. I know some who have self identified on the board as lawyers IRL.

I can pm you their screen names. You will have to find out how willing they are.

Also, I don't know if they are great constitutional lawyers. Almost every DUer seems to think he or she is, but that is usually reserved for law school profs and lawyers at huge law firms who get paid millions to argue before the SCOTUS. So, no guaranties from me!

[Baitball Blogger]

14. If that's the case, it's best that they make that decision for themselves.

I don't like to impose myself on people on something like this through PM.

It really is a simple issue. Someone versed on Civil Rights would probably know. I'm just trying to concretely understand how local and state governments are prevented from bestowing favoritism on groups or organizations, at the expense of other citizens.

That's the meat of the issue, but I wouldn't mind understanding the constitutional ramifications on a broader scale.

[merrily]

18. The Fourteenth Amendment is what binds the states to give equal protection, but not

every single differentiation violates the 14th amendment. If a protected minority group is being discriminated against, the court will examine the discrimination closely (or so courts say).

If not, then the discrimination need only have some rational basis and the court will strive to find one.

Then again, look at the SCOTUS putting voting rights for African Americans on the shelf.

My bottom line, practical perception is that, no matter what the SCOTUS claims to be doing, in the end, Scalia will bloviate as though he has a direct line to Madison's and Jefferson's corpses and then decide whatever he wants. And it will probably come down to Kennedy.

But, that's the SCOTUS.

[1StrongBlackMan]

23. Close ...

If a protected minority group is being discriminated against, the court will examine the discrimination closely (or so courts say).

A better, more accurate, way to phrase that would be:

If a DISCRETE GROUP protected minority group is being FAVORED/DISFAVORED discriminated against, the court will examine the discrimination closely ...

The former phrasing indicates that the "protections"/coverage only applies to "minority" groups and that "non-minority" groups are not covered. This is not accurate.

[merrily]

27. By "protected minority group," I meant a group that will trigger strict judicial scrutiny, if

discriminated against.

The wording the SCOTUS used was "a discrete and insular minority." You are suggesting I should have used discrete, but not minority. I don't understand that suggestion.

The former phrasing indicates that the "protections"/coverage only applies to "minority" groups and that "non-minority" groups are not covered.

Not covered by what? Strict scrutiny?

Also, I was posting to the OP, who agreed on this thread that he does not have even a very basic knowledge of the Constitution.

[1StrongBlackMan]

34. Okay, I see the sticking point ...

I left out the term "minority" because it is generally misused in this context, i.e., "Minority" equals Black/Brown/Female/Gay/Disabled, etc., rather than the relational, i.e., "affected by", meaning.

IOWs, a law disparately, and negatively, affecting white males would receive strict scrutiny.

[Baitball Blogger]

32. Can I prove discrimination by simply proving a group is being favored?

[merrily]

36. Discrimination is one thing. Impermissible discrimination is another.

Government often discriminates, sometimes for solid reasons and sometimes for flimsy ones.

So, no, proving that the law treats some citizens better or worse than others is a start, but only a start.

[1StrongBlackMan]

37. Yes and No ...

(How's that for a lawyerly answer?)

By proving that one group is favored, you prove groups not of the favored group's flavor are disfavored, i.e., harmed.

[Baitball Blogger]

40. Yes!

I would have to prove that the disfavored group is harmed. That's where reading up on how the Fourteenth Amendment is supposed to protect us would help me find the right words. Since the court is probably looking for specific legal wording, and I'm still working at a Lifetime movie level.

[merrily]

42. Second only to "it depends."

Again, help me out. Which statement of mine are you disagreeing with?

[1StrongBlackMan]

49. Just the "meaning" of the term "minority". eom.

[merrily]

57. You disagree with me as to the meaning of a term I haven't defined? Cool.

Just the one, though? There must be millions of terms I haven't defined on this thread.

[1StrongBlackMan]

60. Okay. Now, you're arguing just to argue. Done.

[merrily]

61. Um, you think I'm the one who's been arguing with you just to argue?

Interesting take on your posts to me this thread. From my perspective, the more I tried to respond to BB, the more my My Post tab went yellow with posts to me from you, purporting to "correct" my posts to BB, but usually, as far as I could tell, simply using more words to say essentially the same thing as I had posted.

Now, you claim that one of your "disagreements" with me was over the meaning of "minority," a term that I had not even attempted to define. But, sure, I'm the one who's been arguing with you, just to argue.

Projection.

[1StrongBlackMan]

62. Okay. eom

[Baitball Blogger]

30. "If not, then the discrimination need only have some rational basis and the court will strive..

to find one."

That's what I'm working on. Trying to identify the factors that create an argument for discrimination and inequality.

[merrily]

33. Ah, you WANT the govt to be able to discriminate. That helps.

Is a minority group being disadvantaged?

Is a constitutional right involved?

[Baitball Blogger]

38. Noooo. Absolutely not.

We currently have burgeoning economic development departments cropping up across our local governments, and our cities are getting the crazy idea that bestowing favoritism on certain organizations and individuals is acceptable because it's for the "good of the community." I intend to prove that it's an experiment that has jumped the Constitution. i.e. Discriminatory.

That's an elevator pitch, and thank you for creating the grindstone that helped me find a way to put it into words.

[merrily]

46. Same initial questions:

Is a constitutional right involved?

Is a minority group being discriminated against?

Before you answer, I am going to ask you to read this ( same warning about wikis that I posted upthread).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

I am bookmarking this thread and will check it tomorrow, but I am signing off until then. Best wishes with whatever you are trying to sort out.

[Baitball Blogger]

47. Thank you!

[1StrongBlackMan]

39. LOL ...

I'm getting the opposite ... I understanding BB to be saying he/she is looking to make a case AGAINST the government FAVORING a group.

Is a constitutional right involved?

Spot on and the first question to be asked.

[Baitball Blogger]

41. Correct.

[merrily]

43. From BB's Reply 30, you got the opposite? This is his reply 30, which begins with a quote from my

post:

"If not, then the discrimination need only have some rational basis and the court will strive..

to find one."

That's what I'm working on. Trying to identify the factors that create an argument for discrimination and inequality.

[Baitball Blogger]

45. That's why I reversed the argument. If I could prove favoritism on one group, can I prove

discrimination on another?

It might help to know that we're dealing with a good ole boy culture which is patriarchal and condescending. When I say that they do things for the "good of the community," I mean, they are not above committing fraud and promoting conspiracies. We are talking about an insular society that has found shelter in these economic development departments.

I'm just looking for a way to put it into a legal context.

[1StrongBlackMan]

52. Okay ...

Your starting point would be Title VII of the CRA and the ADA and the ADEA (i.e., Race, Color, Naional Origin, Gender (Sex), Religion, Disability Status, or Age) ... if any of the groups identitied in those Statutes are adversal affected by the governmental action because of (not incidentally to) their class membership; then, there might be a case.

I suspect you are trying to build a constitutional case for economic inequity (or, the political power of the wealthy) ... No?

[Baitball Blogger]

53. Putting it in my words, they have created two divided and segregated classes.

The segregation stems from a system that allows easy access into the government process for some, and denies equal representation to others.

The difficulties lie in defining the segregated class. This is a city that is 90% Anglo-American, and the percentage is higher where I live. I wish I could argue the situation from my personal view. I am literally a party of one. It doesn't get much more minority than that.

[1StrongBlackMan]

54. I figured as much ...

Unfortunately, economic status is not covered under Federal law (by design, I'm sure).

A wild and long shot would be to look to your municipal/county anti-discrimination laws ... some (like the City of Tucson and Pima County, AZ) cover economic status. But that said, lots of luck find an attorney to bring the case, or a court that would hear it!

[Baitball Blogger]

55. Right now my interest is in writing down the details in a coherent manner.

I figured that if I understood the parameters of the law, it would help me prioritize the relevant information. There is so much to pick from that it gets overwhelming some times.

Thanks for you help, ISBM. I have a lot of reading to do.

[merrily]

58. "economic status is not covered under Federal law (by design, I'm sure)." Yep. All levels of govt.

Por ejemplo:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Antonio_Independent_School_District_v._Rodriguez

[Baitball Blogger]

66. I know that there's an answer out there because common sense tells me

that graft and corruption cannot possibly receive legal cover. But it's these nuances in the law that allow them to operate the way they do. I've heard it in the city chambers. They believe that all they have to do is prove a public interest exists, and from there all kinds of wrong-doing takes place.

Maybe what I need is to read case law that directly tackles old boys clubs. Can't believe that we're in the 21st Century and that kind of case isn't yet boilerplated.

[merrily]

67. No, but you asked about the 14th amendment, esp. due process and equal pro, not criminal law.

I am not sure, but you seem to be conflating this

1. They believe that all they have to do is prove a public interest exists

with this:

2. and from there all kinds of wrong-doing takes place (the wrongdoing being, according to you, graft and corruption)

Those seem to be two distinct issues.

1. As to a law or some kind of government action, apparently economic, all they may indeed need to do is prove a public interest. There is a famous, semi-tragic case on eminent domain that illustrates that. However, since I have next to no facts, I have no way of knowing.

2. As to graft and corruption, if someone is crooked, holding office enables that. And those are issues of the criminal law of your state, not federal constitutional law.

I have to underscore that everything I've posted on this thread is based on what I have been able to understand from what you posted, which, for me, has not been enough. So, everything I've posted may be wrong and/or irrelevant. I simply cannot tell from the vague info that I have, but.......

You now have lots of sources and suggestions and other info and, unlike me, you do know the facts, at least as you see them. The next move has to be up to you.

[Baitball Blogger]

68. Merrily, you have been very helpful.

I appreciate the info. The reality is that it's a good ole boy's club. It's crooked. It includes lawyers who are crooked. Many should have been disbarred years ago.

My initial effort is to write about my experiences and I'm at the point where I probably should start editing the material because there's so much of it. That's when it occurred to me to center around the civil rights aspects. That's why I focus on the Fourteenth. As a layman I know that they skirt due process of law. They bestow favoritism on their crony groups, allowing them to present data to the Commission that undermines the rights of the people around them. Because local government favors them, their fabricated stories become reality. People begin to rely on them and their word of mouth explanations, which continues to undermine the rights of the people around them.

I don't think there is a court resolution for this problem, until it becomes clear how the lawyers are part of the problem. And when you decide to take on a group of good ole boy lawyers, it's probably a good idea to beef up on the law.

Which is why I will be spending a good part of the weekend checking the links to see if I can find anything that even comes close to addressing the issue.

You have been great! Appreciate all your help.

[merrily]

70. You're welcome. I'm still not sure I have been helpful, but I sure hope so! nt

[Baitball Blogger]

76. I have always known that I wanted to accomplish something where everyone could benefit.

I stopped believing that this would have any resolution that would provide personal benefit a long time ago. So I started to look at the big picture. You helped me hone in on an issue that needs to be tackled now before my misfortune becomes common for every new resident in Florida. I would like to bring attention to the number of economic development departments which are becoming abundant in Florida. If my experience is any example, these departments are running amok without oversight. They are vehicles for social inequities because they rely on some of the most unethical residents in the community in order to promote city programs. These relationships become so symbiotic that lies become fact, just on their say so.

You helped me get to this point.

[merrily]

73. One more wiki link that you might find useful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

Meant to put that in an earlier post, but forgot.

Again, I hope you make some progress.

[merrily]

65. Hi, BB. Checking in, as I said last night.

I see from an exchange between you and !SBM that this is about economic equal protection. If that is correct, this may help.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Antonio_Independent_School_District_v._Rodriguez Notice that a footnote says that, under New Jersey law, a New Jersey court came out the other way, which brings up another point.

The Supreme court will say if something violates or does not violate the equal protection clause. But, a state can give its citizens more than the SCOTUS/Constitution requires. So, the law of your state may very well bear on whatever it is that you are looking into.

However, I emphasize that I agree with 1SBM as to the likelihood of success of an economic equal protection argument. On the other hand, I don't agree with 1SBM as to where a non-lawyer should start trying to research. As my replies have suggested, I find wiki helpful. While not prefect, it at least gives an overview and in terms people can understand.

Once you have an overview, you have a context for things like the full text of a court opinion or an article in a legal journal. It's a little like trying to put together a puzzle with many pieces. You look at the box to get the "big picture" and then you look at the pieces closely.

The wikis I recommend for starters on this subject are the one linked above, the wiki on equal protection, the wiki on due process and the one on strict judicial scrutiny. But, first, figure out if the San Antonio case linked above is relevant and leaves you thinking that a lot more research on the federal constitution is going to help you or not.

I don't mean to sound as though I am giving you homework. Based on what little I know of the facts in your particular situation, that is how I would proceed. You now how two points of view on that, so go with whichever one suits you. Good luck!

[1StrongBlackMan]

50. Yep, I got the opposite ...

and it appears BB, agrees with my interpretation.

[merrily]

56. Not exactly as to your interpretation of his Reply 30.

His has said that his reply 30 says the opposite of what he actually wants. That's why it surprised me.

[1StrongBlackMan]

59. Yeah, that's why BB responded "Correct." ...

because BB was following the string, Done.

[merrily]

63. As I said in my prior post, not quite.

[merrily]

64. Please see Reply 56.

[1StrongBlackMan]

71. Why are you continuing with this? ...

BB was clear in his/her response ... my interpretation of what he/she was saying was/is correct, and yours was not! Let it go!

[merrily]

72. LOL! Why are you? And what is your definiton of "Done?"

[1StrongBlackMan]

75. No ... You hang up! eom.

[merrily]

22. That's very respectful of you Baitball Blogger.

[1StrongBlackMan]

20. Actually ...

scholarly works found in Journals, including Law Journal, (which are/can be found in the database searches) would be far more helpful in understanding the ins and outs of the 14th Amendment, rather asking an attorney ... It's the difference between discussing a medical issue with a General Practitioner versus a specialist.

[merrily]

21. Wondering: what difference do you see between your Reply 20 and what I told the OP

in Replies 9 and 12?

It's the difference between discussing a medical issue with a General Practitioner versus a specialist.

Could also be the difference between a lay person's reading medical journals to figure out how to do an emergency appendectomy. I don't know enough about the issue or the OP's need for an answer to say.

Law school is three years after college, isn't it? Then studying for the bar. And after all that, how much would you pay for a brand new law grad's opinion about a Constitutional issue?

[1StrongBlackMan]

26. Taking it in reverse order ...

Law school is three years after college, isn't it? Then studying for the bar. And after all that, how much would you pay for a brand new law grad's opinion about a Constitutional issue?

Very little ... But then again, I wouldn't pay ANY lawyer for an opinion on a Constitutional Issue, unless that attorney practiced Constitutional Law ... I would start with a Law Professor to frame/understand the issue, in a manner that benefitted me; and then, take that framing to an Appellate Practice attorney, to see if the frame could actually be argued in court. (But then, again ... any frame can be argued, if one has enough money).

Could also be the difference between a lay person's reading medical journals to figure out how to do an emergency appendectomy.

Well, no. A G/P has a basic understanding of medicine; far less than a specialist, but far more than a "lay-person." But there is probably the atypical lay-person, that stays up late at night reading anatomy books and practice journals ... so, it would depend on the individual "lay-person."

Wondering: what difference do you see between your Reply 20 and what I told the OP in Replies 9 and 12?

I don't know ... I don't recall reading posts 9 and 12.

[merrily]

28. Your first two answers support my points and your last is dismissive.

I thought this thread was about the OP's desire to find out some things. Did you think it was about your apparent desire to attempt to educate me?

[1StrongBlackMan]

29. Okay. eom.

[SteveG]

69. You might want to look at the case law on the 14th

A number of legal sites provide actual access to the cases and decisions that have come up under the 14th. Here are some to start with.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cases/topics/tog_fourteenth_amendment.html

http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment14.html

http://americanhistory.about.com/od/supremecourtcases/tp/Key-Supreme-Court-Cases-And-The-Fourteenth-Amendment.htm

http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2014/07/10-huge-supreme-court-cases-about-the-14th-amendment/

[Baitball Blogger]

74. That's a great start!

Thanks for the links!

[lumberjack_jeff]

31. DU tends to believe that the 14th amendment prohibits sex discrimination.

It does not.

[Baitball Blogger]

35. We should have more discussions about Constitutional Issues on DU.

Most of us are just news junkies, but if we really want to feed the brain it would help to delve into the kind of arguments that merrily and 1SBM are having.

[merrily]

44. I would not recommend the kind of arguments I am having wtih 1SBM.

[2naSalit]

48. I've often found

these links to the Cornell University Law School website(s) helpful:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/


https://www.google.com/search?q=cornell+law&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US fficial&client=firefox-a#q=cornell+findlaw&revid=3014782&rls=org.mozilla:en-US fficial

Happy searching.

2na