The Fourteenth

[CJane]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? MO

I need this broken down as if I'm an idiot, ok?

"Equal protection of the laws" ... Can I have a very simplistic example of how this applies? Not a supreme court decision, but maybe something as simple as a traffic infraction?

Or, if a city has an ordinance that indicates that grass cannot be over 7" tall, and there are 3 houses in violation of said ordinance... if one owner is cited, must they all 3 be cited?

I know, these are childish examples, but I'm trying to grasp this on a "common man" level.

[CdwJava]

It has to do with Due Process, not so much with "If I get cited, everyone has to be cited."

While I generally hate Wikipedia as an authoritative source, it does serve a purpose sometimes to help put things into context.

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution]Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url]

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process]Due process - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url]

And from USConstitution.net:

Due process is a difficult thing to define, and the Supreme Court has not been much help over the years. Here's what we can say about due process:

In the Magna Carta, due process is referred to as "law of the land" and "legal judgment of peers." Some state constitutions continue to use these phrases.

The reference in the 5th Amendment applies only to the federal government and its courts and agencies. The reference in the 14th Amendment extends protection of due process to all state governments, agencies, and courts.

Due process, in the context of the United States, refers to how and why laws are enforced. It applies to all persons, citizen or alien, as well as to corporations.

In that, the "how" is procedural due process. Is a law too vague? Is it applied fairly to all? Does a law presume guilt? A vagrancy law might be declared too vague if the definition of a vagrant is not detailed enough. A law that makes wife beating illegal but permits husband beating might be declared to be an unfair application. A law must be clear, fair, and have a presumption of innocence to comply with procedural due process.

The "why" is substantive due process. Even if an unreasonable law is passed and signed into law legally (procedural due process), substantive due process can make the law unconstitutional. The Roe v Wade abortion decision declared a Texas law in violation of due process and ruled that in the first trimester, it is unreasonable for a state to interfere with a woman's right to an abortion; during the second trimester, it is reasonable for a state to regulate abortion in the interest of the health of mothers; and in the third, the state has a reasonable interest in protecting the fetus. Another application has been to strike down legislation requiring certain non-dangerous mentally ill persons be confined against their will.

Generally, due process guarantees the following (this list is not exhaustive):

* Right to a fair and public trial conducted in a competent manner
* Right to be present at the trial
* Right to an impartial jury
* Right to be heard in one's own defense
* Laws must be written so that a reasonable person can understand what is criminal behavior
* Taxes may only be taken for public purposes
* Property may be taken by the government only for public purposes
* Owners of taken property must be fairly compensated

- Carl

[Ronin]

In simplest terms, the 14th Amendment is intended to guarantee the right of due process and equal protection of the law.

Equal protection is essentially the right of all persons to have the same access to the law and courts, and to be treated equally by the law and courts...

This principle is stated in the 14th Amendment: "No State shall..deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

But, not all equal protection violations are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

The heightened protections of the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment are only invoked when deprivation of life, liberty, or property is at stake. The term Liberty has been construed to include many accepted liberty interests and civil liberties, such as the fundamental liberty interest of a parent in the care and custody of one's children.

So, while the examples you cited about traffic infractions and local ordinances being unevenly applied could conceivably violate principles of equal protection, these do not rise to the level of federal constitutional violations. And, strictly speaking, are not a violation of one's constitutional rights.

State constitutions and other provisions in state laws or local laws may afford additional protections and means for redress of such violations.

[justalayman]

still struggling with the new residency cjane?

equal protection simply means that everybody has the rights to the same processes in the judicial system.


Your grass situation would not be a 14th amendment situation because it does not matter if you or 27 people are breaking the law, you generally* can be prosecuted for it regardless of what happens to anybody else.

*there are situations where laws are unequally applied that can allow for a defense of the act. The grass situation isn't going to cut it though.

get it? Grass / cut it

[CJane]

Originally Posted by justalayman

still struggling with the new residency cjane?

equal protection simply means that everybody has the rights to the same processes in the judicial system.


Your grass situation would not be a 14th amendment situation because it does not matter if you or 27 people are breaking the law, you generally* can be prosecuted for it regardless of what happens to anybody else.

*there are situations where laws are unequally applied that can allow for a defense of the act. The grass situation isn't going to cut it though.

get it? Grass / cut it

I get it. You're rotten.

It's not a real situation, in this case. I was looking for a very simple real life example so I can 'splain it to my 9 year old. But I really did think that potential crimes/criminals had to be treated equally, and since I had the ordinances handy, I used that one.

Off topic, I'm noticing how crazily the ordinances are written - not only do they seem to outlaw all pets other than dogs/cats, the "vegetation" ordinance seems to outlaw ALL vegetation over 7". Which makes me wonder if I should get rid of the guppies, the koi, and the lilac bush, apple tree, redbud tree, zebra grass, etc.

I swear, idiots wrote these.

[justalayman]

Originally Posted by CJane

I swear, idiots wrote these.

I like to think of them more as people with simplistic minds and no forethought.

Jesus' words are so applicable in times like these:

forgive them for they know not what they do

[JakeB]

Originally Posted by CJane

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? MO

I need this broken down as if I'm an idiot, ok?

"Equal protection of the laws" ... Can I have a very simplistic example of how this applies? Not a supreme court decision, but maybe something as simple as a traffic infraction?

Or, if a city has an ordinance that indicates that grass cannot be over 7" tall, and there are 3 houses in violation of said ordinance... if one owner is cited, must they all 3 be cited?

I know, these are childish examples, but I'm trying to grasp this on a "common man" level.

Your grass example can certainly be a 14th Amendment situation depending on the specifics, but it's just too complicated to explain in detail here.

In a nutshell, though, if the people in violation of the grass ordinance were given a pass because of their race, religion, ethnicity, gender, etc., then the government's actions are probably unconstitutional. If the people in violation of the grass ordinance were given a pass because of something other than the above classifications, then the government's actions are probably not unconstitutional.

And as an FYI, Due Process is a completely separate matter.