General Discussion

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)

3. I completely understand ...

Thu Oct 16, 2014, 06:03 PM

Oct 2014

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 ..."

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

76 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Fourteenth Amendment Question for DUers who have access to University/College databases. [View all] Baitball Blogger Oct 2014 OP

Try this ... 1StrongBlackMan Oct 2014 #1

Thank you so much, 1SBM. Baitball Blogger Oct 2014 #2

I completely understand ... 1StrongBlackMan Oct 2014 #3

Actually, that sounds like the mental stampede that I'm looking for. Baitball Blogger Oct 2014 #5

And in the end, few are less definitive than good lawyers because the law is complex, merrily Oct 2014 #11

If I understand what you are writing ... 1StrongBlackMan Oct 2014 #17

Yep. You seem to have understood what I wrote. merrily Oct 2014 #19

Not really. 1StrongBlackMan Oct 2014 #24

If you didn't see the humor of my wording in the context of what we were discussing, merrily Oct 2014 #25

You can try Google Scholar as well, although it doesn't always provide petronius Oct 2014 #4

I never even heard of Google Scholar! Baitball Blogger Oct 2014 #6

Try, also, Google Books. enlightenment Oct 2014 #13

It's Christmas! Baitball Blogger Oct 2014 #15

Clearly, you're enlightenment Oct 2014 #16

Yay! That's what I was going to suggest! Iris Oct 2014 #51

Simply intrigued, or again seeking help from DUers to help you win a battle on another forum? merrily Oct 2014 #7

You summarized my dilemma beautifully. Baitball Blogger Oct 2014 #8

Are you sure you want a college database, or would a legal one help more? merrily Oct 2014 #9

I am not about to turn away free legal advice. Baitball Blogger Oct 2014 #10

I know some who have self identified on the board as lawyers IRL. merrily Oct 2014 #12

If that's the case, it's best that they make that decision for themselves. Baitball Blogger Oct 2014 #14

The Fourteenth Amendment is what binds the states to give equal protection, but not merrily Oct 2014 #18

Close ... 1StrongBlackMan Oct 2014 #23

By "protected minority group," I meant a group that will trigger strict judicial scrutiny, if merrily Oct 2014 #27

Okay, I see the sticking point ... 1StrongBlackMan Oct 2014 #34

Can I prove discrimination by simply proving a group is being favored? Baitball Blogger Oct 2014 #32

Discrimination is one thing. Impermissible discrimination is another. merrily Oct 2014 #36

Yes and No ... 1StrongBlackMan Oct 2014 #37

Yes! Baitball Blogger Oct 2014 #40

Second only to "it depends." merrily Oct 2014 #42

Just the "meaning" of the term "minority". eom. 1StrongBlackMan Oct 2014 #49

You disagree with me as to the meaning of a term I haven't defined? Cool. merrily Oct 2014 #57

Okay. Now, you're arguing just to argue. Done. 1StrongBlackMan Oct 2014 #60

Um, you think I'm the one who's been arguing with you just to argue? merrily Oct 2014 #61

Okay. eom 1StrongBlackMan Oct 2014 #62

"If not, then the discrimination need only have some rational basis and the court will strive.. Baitball Blogger Oct 2014 #30

Ah, you WANT the govt to be able to discriminate. That helps. merrily Oct 2014 #33

Noooo. Absolutely not. Baitball Blogger Oct 2014 #38

Same initial questions: merrily Oct 2014 #46

Thank you! Baitball Blogger Oct 2014 #47

LOL ... 1StrongBlackMan Oct 2014 #39

Correct. Baitball Blogger Oct 2014 #41

From BB's Reply 30, you got the opposite? This is his reply 30, which begins with a quote from my merrily Oct 2014 #43

That's why I reversed the argument. If I could prove favoritism on one group, can I prove Baitball Blogger Oct 2014 #45

Okay ... 1StrongBlackMan Oct 2014 #52

Putting it in my words, they have created two divided and segregated classes. Baitball Blogger Oct 2014 #53

I figured as much ... 1StrongBlackMan Oct 2014 #54

Right now my interest is in writing down the details in a coherent manner. Baitball Blogger Oct 2014 #55

"economic status is not covered under Federal law (by design, I'm sure)." Yep. All levels of govt. merrily Oct 2014 #58

I know that there's an answer out there because common sense tells me Baitball Blogger Oct 2014 #66

No, but you asked about the 14th amendment, esp. due process and equal pro, not criminal law. merrily Oct 2014 #67

Merrily, you have been very helpful. Baitball Blogger Oct 2014 #68

You're welcome. I'm still not sure I have been helpful, but I sure hope so! nt merrily Oct 2014 #70

I have always known that I wanted to accomplish something where everyone could benefit. Baitball Blogger Oct 2014 #76

One more wiki link that you might find useful. merrily Oct 2014 #73

Hi, BB. Checking in, as I said last night. merrily Oct 2014 #65

Yep, I got the opposite ... 1StrongBlackMan Oct 2014 #50

Not exactly as to your interpretation of his Reply 30. merrily Oct 2014 #56

Yeah, that's why BB responded "Correct." ... 1StrongBlackMan Oct 2014 #59

As I said in my prior post, not quite. merrily Oct 2014 #63

Please see Reply 56. merrily Oct 2014 #64

Why are you continuing with this? ... 1StrongBlackMan Oct 2014 #71

LOL! Why are you? And what is your definiton of "Done?" merrily Oct 2014 #72

No ... You hang up! eom. 1StrongBlackMan Oct 2014 #75

That's very respectful of you Baitball Blogger. merrily Oct 2014 #22

Actually ... 1StrongBlackMan Oct 2014 #20

Wondering: what difference do you see between your Reply 20 and what I told the OP merrily Oct 2014 #21

Taking it in reverse order ... 1StrongBlackMan Oct 2014 #26

Your first two answers support my points and your last is dismissive. merrily Oct 2014 #28

Okay. eom. 1StrongBlackMan Oct 2014 #29

You might want to look at the case law on the 14th SteveG Oct 2014 #69

That's a great start! Baitball Blogger Oct 2014 #74

DU tends to believe that the 14th amendment prohibits sex discrimination. lumberjack_jeff Oct 2014 #31

We should have more discussions about Constitutional Issues on DU. Baitball Blogger Oct 2014 #35

I would not recommend the kind of arguments I am having wtih 1SBM. merrily Oct 2014 #44

I've often found 2naSalit Oct 2014 #48