• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

what is equlity under the law and what does it mean?

What does equlity under the law mean?

  • That government creates laws which makes all people equal in society

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    14
  • Poll closed .
i totally agree that people don't have to treat everyone equally. That would be chaos.

Having said that, the devil is in the details of the interpretation of when a persons natural rights have been violated and exactly what actions constitute a danger to the health and safety of the public.

well i agree however i belive it has been taken to the extrem, where some believe becuase they did not recive the same treatment or product, that another peson recevied....they some how have had their rights violated.
 
but this below does not have anything to do with person [A] how he treats person

Equal protection

equal protection: an overview

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV. In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances.

A violation would occur, for example, if a state prohibited an individual from entering into an employment contract because he or she was a member of a particular race. The equal protection clause is not intended to provide "equality" among individuals or classes but only "equal application" of the laws. The result, therefore, of a law is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application. By denying states the ability to discriminate, the equal protection clause of the Constitution is crucial to the protection of civil rights


uhm you just repeated in long form what i already said?

weird, can you point out in my post where I referred to how person a "treats" person b? what are you misunderstanding?

I have no clue what you are trying to say and what posting in the long form what I already said changes anything. That is the equal protection clause (snip) and its does what i said it does?

you seem to have simply repeated it, what do think you stated differently?

please explain thank you
 
uhm you just repeated in long form what i already said?

weird, can you point out in my post where I referred to how person a "treats" person b? what are you misunderstanding?

I have no clue what you are trying to say and what posting in the long form what I already said changes anything. That is the equal protection clause (snip) and its does what i said it does?

you seem to have simply repeated it, what do think you stated differently?

please explain thank you


I don't want to put any words in your mouth at all.

all I am saying is one citizen does not have to treat another equally....governments do they are required to by constitutional law.
 
I don't want to put any words in your mouth at all.

all I am saying is one citizen does not have to treat another equally....governments do they are required to by constitutional law.

again how does that point change anything I said, what is your motivation for saying it when it has zero impact to my statement?
were just adding an additional meaningless 2 cents that could of been added anywhere?

Im just curious to why you think applies? this was my statement (which was exactly what the 14th does)
"it doesnt matter what i or others think it it only what it actually is and thats equal treatment/protection by/of law and rights
civil rights and discrimination laws are a perfect example. it doesnt make person A and B equal it simply means the laws that protect them and their rights are equal."

saying people dont have to treat eachother equally has no barring on my statement, do you agree with that fact?
 
again how does that point change anything I said, what is your motivation for saying it when it has zero impact to my statement?
were just adding an additional meaningless 2 cents that could of been added anywhere?

Im just curious to why you think applies? this was my statement (which was exactly what the 14th does)
"it doesnt matter what i or others think it it only what it actually is and thats equal treatment/protection by/of law and rights
civil rights and discrimination laws are a perfect example. it doesnt make person A and B equal it simply means the laws that protect them and their rights are equal."

saying people dont have to treat eachother equally has no barring on my statement, do you agree with that fact?

since I said I don't want to put any words in your mouth, then I didn't say you said anything.

I made the point, that the law [the OP] deals with governments and not people.
 
since I said I don't want to put any words in your mouth, then I didn't say you said anything.

I made the point, that the law [the OP] deals with governments and not people.

ok so your addition was meaningless to my statement, the 14th and has no impact, thanks got it
 
no... it had meaning....

no to anything i actually said or the 14th it didnt lol
if you disagree simply tell me how it CHANGES or IMPACTS my statement or the 14
 
no to anything i actually said or the 14th it didnt lol
if you disagree simply tell me how it CHANGES or IMPACTS my statement or the 14


well it doesnt matter what i or others think it it only what it actually is and thats equal treatment/protection by/of law and rights

civil rights and discrimination laws are a perfect example. it doesnt make person A and B equal it simply means the laws that protect them and their rights are equal.

the bold is what I found to be vague.

the 14th I posted, does not deal in person A and person B in any form together, but deals in ......government and the person.
 
1.)the bold is what I found to be vague.
2.)the 14th I posted, does not deal in person A and person B in any form together, but deals in ......government and the person.

1.) nothing vague about it, i very specially said their rights.
2.) yes you pointed that out the first time and I also noticed it the first time, neither does my statement, hence why it has no impact. thanks again for proving your addition has not impact to the 14th or my statement

maybe in your next post you can tell me how it changes or impacts what i said or the 14th,unless of course you see the fact now that it doesnt
 
1.) nothing vague about it, i very specially said their rights.
2.) yes you pointed that out the first time and I also noticed it the first time, neither does my statement, hence why it has no impact. thanks again for proving your addition has not impact to the 14th or my statement

maybe in your next post you can tell me how it changes or impacts what i said or the 14th,unless of course you see the fact now that it doesnt

well I stated your post end was vague......meaning I really did not understand its meaning....

my post was meant to state the..... interaction of government and a person only....under equality of the law.

so I did not counter your post in any way,..... it simply had no clear meaning to me.
 
well I stated your post end was vague......meaning I really did not understand its meaning....

my post was meant to state the..... interaction of government and a person only....under equality of the law.

so I did not counter your post in any way,..... it simply had no clear meaning to me.

thank you for explaining your confusion, as i said, your addition had not impact to my statement or the 14th, you simply didnt understand. thanks again.
 
so if I have you correct, it is government that is supposed to treat everyone equal, not the people.
I know what you're doing here, but you're stepping ahead of your own question. You asked about "equality under the law". The law is written and enforced by government, not people as individuals, so at this point you have rendered your own question moot. But, yes, I get that some people believe it applies to people as individuals as well.

Now, having said that, laws can be written requiring that people as individuals treat other people as individuals equal, but that's not technically the same thing. The concept of "equality under the law" regards how laws are applied, not necessarily what the laws are.
 
Equal protection

equal protection: an overview

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV. In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances.

A violation would occur, for example, if a state prohibited an individual from entering into an employment contract because he or she was a member of a particular race. The equal protection clause is not intended to provide "equality" among individuals or classes but only "equal application" of the laws. The result, therefore, of a law is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application. By denying states the ability to discriminate, the equal protection clause of the Constitution is crucial to the protection of civil rights

Equal protection | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII / Legal Information Institute

Here's a scenario I've often wondered about.

Scenario #1: Mary gets a speeding ticket from a camera enforcement system. Mary was traveling 67 in a 55 on an open highway. Mary is fined $100 and get no points on her driving record.

Scenario #2: Jane gets a speeding ticket from a live cop. Jane was traveling 67 in a 55 on an open highway. Jane is fined $100 AND gets 2 points on her driving record.

Both women are white, so there's no gender and/or race issues here. Both tickets occur in the same jurisdiction. No school zones or construction zones or anything other to worry about. There is nothing whatsoever to differentiate the two, except that one was issued via camera enforcement, and the other was issued vie a live cop. As I understand it, the only reason Mary gets no points is because the camera cannot testify against her, so it is categorized as a civil infraction instead.

Here's the question: Can Jane legitimately argue to the court for her punishment to be reduced to equal Mary's... $100 fine with no points... based on "equal treatment under the law"?

I don't see why not. Same crime. Should be same penalties, I would think.
 
I take the phrase to mean that everyone, regardless of race, gender and class (as well as other characteristics), is entitled to equal protection under the law, and that the law shall be applied equally to all citizens living within its bounds.
 
Here's a scenario I've often wondered about.

Scenario #1: Mary gets a speeding ticket from a camera enforcement system. Mary was traveling 67 in a 55 on an open highway. Mary is fined $100 and get no points on her driving record.

Scenario #2: Jane gets a speeding ticket from a live cop. Jane was traveling 67 in a 55 on an open highway. Jane is fined $100 AND gets 2 points on her driving record.

Both women are white, so there's no gender and/or race issues here. Both tickets occur in the same jurisdiction. No school zones or construction zones or anything other to worry about. There is nothing whatsoever to differentiate the two, except that one was issued via camera enforcement, and the other was issued vie a live cop. As I understand it, the only reason Mary gets no points is because the camera cannot testify against her, so it is categorized as a civil infraction instead.

Here's the question: Can Jane legitimately argue to the court for her punishment to be reduced to equal Mary's... $100 fine with no points... based on "equal treatment under the law"?

I don't see why not. Same crime. Should be same penalties, I would think.

well the law is that.. no one is above the law.

when it comes to driving. traffic police can ticket one person and give a warning to another for the same offense.

but the government cannot pass laws [and in that law]make it possible for 1 person, or group of people not adhere to the law, and make the rest of the population adhere.....that is equality under the law.
 
I know what you're doing here, but you're stepping ahead of your own question. You asked about "equality under the law". The law is written and enforced by government, not people as individuals, so at this point you have rendered your own question moot. But, yes, I get that some people believe it applies to people as individuals as well.

Now, having said that, laws can be written requiring that people as individuals treat other people as individuals equal, but that's not technically the same thing. The concept of "equality under the law" regards how laws are applied, not necessarily what the laws are.


on this board when I have gotten into equality of the law, and people have given me a strange interpretation.

they explain it something like this----- government create laws for the people and these are created to see people are treated equality by other people in dealings they have with them.

or coarse this is incorrect, it is government that must treat all people equally, .....not citizens.
 
I only disagree [to the bold].depending on how the money is collected, if it is by force, then its not legal, if collected thru a voluntary tax say consumption, then I am fine with it.

as far as a business has long as it does not violate rights of the people or the public health and safety I have no problem with it.

We're pretty much on the same page. Almost all services to the 'poor' at the local level are usually via public referendum or voting on bond issues or whatever. In other words the community has input into what they wish the city to do. That is what I mean about the liberty to form whatever sort of society the people wish to have. That may not be to some people's liking but those who seriously object can choose a different community more to their liking or move to a remote location where they won't be obligated to participate in any kind of mandatory community decisions. Social contract is tougher to do democratically at the state level, especially in the larger states, though it can be done. And at the federal level it is nigh onto impossible without stripping people of their unalienable rights and liberties plus there is the problem that there is no place to go to escape federal law without leaving the country and losing all our unalienable rights and liberties.
 
To me, equality under the law means that the law is applied equally to every individual.

That said, equality under the law loses much of it's meaning if the law itself is not just.

As an example, take two laws:

A law stating that a person who is defined as "black" may not own land in a given area.
A law stating that an adult is not allowed to have sex with a minor.

Now, obviously, the first is racist and unjust, while the second is reasonable and just (IMO of course).

However if you stretch the meaning of "equal under the law", it could be argued that a pedophile is discriminated against because he/she is not allowed to freely express his/her sexual desires, unlike hetrosexual, homosexual, and bisexual persons.

This of course disregards the point of the law, which is to prevent abuse of minors. Which makes it just.
 
To me, equality under the law means that the law is applied equally to every individual.

That said, equality under the law loses much of it's meaning if the law itself is not just.

As an example, take two laws:

A law stating that a person who is defined as "black" may not own land in a given area.
A law stating that an adult is not allowed to have sex with a minor.

Now, obviously, the first is racist and unjust, while the second is reasonable and just (IMO of course).

However if you stretch the meaning of "equal under the law", it could be argued that a pedophile is discriminated against because he/she is not allowed to freely express his/her sexual desires, unlike hetrosexual, homosexual, and bisexual persons.

This of course disregards the point of the law, which is to prevent abuse of minors. Which makes it just.

i think the true meaning of the law is being missed....

but the government cannot pass laws [and in that law] make it possible for 1 person, or group of people not adhere to the law, and make the rest of the population adhere.....that is equality under the law.
 
well i agree however i belive it has been taken to the extrem, where some believe becuase they did not recive the same treatment or product, that another peson recevied....they some how have had their rights violated.

Well we should not allow people to be treated unjustly. On the other hand you can't expect to get an "A" on a test SIMPLY because someone else got an "A."
 
Back
Top Bottom