The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

The Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses Are Being Abused

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/10/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,071 times Debate No: 102521
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




The Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States's Constitution guarantee procedural due process of law and do not guarantee substantive due process of law. This is the way the original Due Process Clause, which is a part of the Fifth Amendment and applies to the federal government, was originally interpreted until Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857). "Due Process and the Logic of the Law: A Response to Hadley Arkes" (2015) by Matthew J. Franck, The Due Process Clauses are not "anything reasonable goes" clauses, as they currently seem to be interpreted as. That sort of interpretation is inconsistent with individual liberties as encoded in the rest of the Constitution and its amendments. Government works best when the will of the majority is in effect, not when the will of minorities are imposed over the majority. Government also works best when laws are interpreted according to their original intent, as those interpretations represent the laws that are truly superior in nature. If the interpretation of a law should be changed, then, in order for a reinterpretation of the law to become law, that reinterpretation must pass the legislative and executive obstacles put in place to try the reinterpretation.

Similarly, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States's Constitution guarantees the procedural equal protection of the laws and does not guarantee "the substantive equal protection of the laws." The context of the Equal Protection Clause, which includes that it immediately proceeds the Due Process Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment, suggests this. Facebook post (2017) by "Increase Sexual Liberty," The Equal Protection Clause guarantees the equal enforcement of the laws and does not guarantee the equal content of the laws. For example, it is possible that "a state with a law that prohibits all black people from driving motor vehicles on public ways does not violate the Equal Protection Clause," but the state does violate the Equal Protection Clause if it only enforces this law for all black people 30 years old or older. The famous phrase "equal justice under law" does not mean the law allows all people to do the same things, but rather, it means the law is equally enforced on all people within the law's jurisdiction, regardless of the composition of all those people and regardless of the composition of the law.

By "the equal protection of the laws," the Equal Protection Clause is referring to the equal enforcement of the laws. This view is supported by the following argument.

Statements (Reasons)
1. If a law is enforced, then it protects. (Premise)
2. If a law is not enforced, then it does not protect. (Premise)
3. A law is enforced if and only if it protects. (If a conditional statement and its inverse are true, as is the case with (1) and (2) above, respectively, then the biconditional statement of the conditional statement is true)
4. A law protects if and only if it is enforced. (The exactly two component statements of a biconditional statement, such as biconditional statement (3), can validly be interchanged with each other)

Since all valid definitions can be represented by biconditional statements, "Larson Geometry" (2012) by Larson, Boswell, Kanold, and Stiff, p. 74, it is suggested that (4) shows that "the protection of a law" means "the enforcement of the law" and thus that the equal protection of the laws means the equal enforcement of the laws. See Facebook post (2017) by "Increase Sexual Liberty,"

The Supreme Court of the United States, however, interprets the Due Process Clauses as including the guarantee to substantive due process of law, and interprets the Equal Protection Clause as including the guarantee to the equal content of the laws. These interpretations contradict the interpretations that were argued for earlier in this round. These misinterpretations are exhibited in the Supreme Court of the United States's cases of Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), Roe v. Wade (1973), Lawrence v. Texas (2003), and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), possibly among many others. Therefore, the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses are being abused.


The Supreme Court hears cases arguing for a point made on Basic principle and legal precedent by description of Constitutional law. "Equal protection of the law." Is in effect impartiality law, along which equality under the law also meaning basic impartiality, In the Order of law it is the separation process which is guided, directed by those who enter it into the process which provided at the end a limited justice, not complete uniform justice. This too is also known as due process of law meaning separation because a prediction is not made. Which is saying the cost of the judicial enforcement is a process that must be paid in impartiality, in order to achieve equality as Justice is a manufactured product in the Judicial Separation.

1.If a law is enforced then it protects. (Premise)
If a law is enforced it is then not warning it is weaponized, so by Constitutional description this means a Imperial judicial separation must take place in order to uphold Miranda protection of legal counsel. The end of Miranda implied as council provided of criminal association to the actions of the accused. If this did not take place no person be it council or not would undertake representation and democratic dictatorship would rule by enforcement of law. "Rule of Law." Like a King or royalty might rule over a Kingdom.

2.If a law is not enforced it does not protect (Premise)
By the Separation created between Constitution and the drafting the United States Constitution and declaration of independence. There is a fundamental right to the basic principle of independence. Enforcement is a use of force to reach an end result. Law is always tested on merit of basic principle and legal past understanding and only enforced after a period of separation has taken place. The issue is that the public can also perform a test independent of the institutional impartial judicial separation creating an independent documented decision, the separation can only not be performed independently by the unwillingness to assume the burden of impartiality and cooperation in reaching of compromise or an equal cost to the burden of impartiality is not shared.

3.Gender equality
Under United States Constitution means that the impartial process of judgment is a measurement held by two genders equally between men and woman. Holding of the burden of impartially is not established by legislated Rule of Law. As rules of law can clutter judicial separation with pre-determined confessions and not create a basic principle and platform to which separation can ever take place.

4.A law is enforced if and only if it protects.
Law is always reason for test by process of Untied States Constitutional separation, or a judiciary tribunal. By basic principle and legal past record a law dictated only protects half of the all people under Rule of law. Only the Order of law describes laws are written to protect all people who understand them. For every two sides that argue truth, justice, and legal right before a separation process, receive enforcement, there is a second side which is turns out wrong before this same separation process. This truth is not just self-evident but it is constitutionally inalienable fact.

5.A law protects if and only if it is enforced.
A Law does not ever protect, it is a word. Law only removes a burden of independence in substitution for promise of impartial separation or not. It is the process of impartial separation itself which provides any and all protection by law. As an abandonment, disregard, or abuse of the impartial process becomes an admittance to guilt not a conviction describing a guilt. It is the authority of a judicial tribunal/panel which understands and assumes the burden of this difference.
In all cases mentioned it is the burden of the people to establish the State of argument. Roe Vs. Wade is an argument of privacy which was never set due to the nature of abortion as a confession to murder and not a murder itself. The Trial appears to be about general legality of self-incriminating confessions based on a lack of public privacy. The precedent of the issue confessions can be found to be illegal. The basic principle is that privacy can be individually achieved.


I think the public and Supreme Court lies to me. A woman does not have an abortion as this is a self-incriminating confession to murder. I openly see publicly that woman only have a gender specific amputation, all fact ever told publicly always justify the public confession by saying it was a medical amputation, for some unknown medical illness. The issue is does a Court have the right to place a limit on the flood of self-incrementing confessions being made if the person confessing knows they are untrue confessions?

No Cite at this time has been given.
"The Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses are being abused."
The Fourteenth Amendment is a change made on the United States Constitution and Declaration of Independence. The assertion of precedent set by these two documents gives legal right. To, yes in fact impose a punishment seen as abuse on principles placed after them in writing when proved to be in direct conflict with the common defense of the documents amended.

It is not a mandatory obligation for legal documentation to simple be left to yield without representation, to chance and changes made to it by simple democratic popularity in a United Republic.
Debate Round No. 1


I feel that you did not address many of the arguments I brought up.

Your argument from round 1 was hard to read. Much of what you brought up seemed irrelevant, unclear, and unnecessarily complicated. Much of it seemed too abstract. You assigned some of what you brought up to specific things I brought up, such as parts of my four step argument that the protection of a law means the enforcement of the law, but your assignments seem poor and are hard for me to understand. You seem to be making the topic more complicated than it really is.

I would appreciate it if you addressed my arguments more directly and more relevantly. It actually seems that parts of your argument may be incoherent or nonsensical.

You have suggested there is another type of due process of law "meaning separation." I am unsure of what you mean by that. I believe there is one and only one type of due process of law. I performed a Google search on "Due process of law," and the results support my belief. I know there is a separation of powers within the federal government and outlined in the United States' Constitution, but your use of the term "separation" is not as clear.

You mentioned Roe v. Wade (1973). I personally believe abortion should be legal. Roe v. Wade, however, was decided invalidly as it improperly invoked the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See "Roe v. Wade" (2017) from Wikipedia,

Your apparent hesitation so far in this debate strengthens my side of the debate.

You should better address the arguments I brought up in the previous round, and provide a response that is more relevant and more coherent.


Law is a test to separate. The process in Due Process of law is the separation process. In all its complexity, righteous, declaration of union, under the United States Constitution to the simplistic state of Constitutional alone. Constitution bearing not state just the description of creation of state.

The United States Constitution describes all legislated law as a separation process only. It cannot legally be describe by all people, in an impartial way as justice, not everyone received justice. It is not equally shared. Simply by having some, or making a false public claim that justice is served in the system. Does not make it a justice system. Justice is the manufactured product of the imperial separation only. This is fact, it is very relevant as you are making a claim in defense of an Amendment, the change to the United States Constitution, which as a change can to this date still be tested and proved as not legal. Even as an Amendment to the United States Constitution. Meaning; State united by only these two things, basic principle and legal precedent.

Fact. Two sides are always separated in a court of law. It is not about justice, as the word justice is a prediction made in advance about two sides who may gain and lose favor are right. This is not absolute truth as the court leaves room for appeal of outcome. Given reason. Only one side received justice the other side only separation. The common outcome is explained as separation, as it is the only outcome of the test process that is insured.

"You should better address the argument, I brought up in the previous round, and provide a response that is more relevant and coherent."

I cannot win this debate by disagreeing with you. You are not wrong the due process and equal protection clauses are being abused. The disagreement rests in justification only, not semantics of opinion about what is happening. We know what is happening is true and fact. As con it is my burden to present facts to you and relate them as coherent as to why we see them in different light. The why of justification and vindication.

This burden falls on us by United States Constitution.

"I personally believe that abortion should be legal."

I believe that Gender Specific Amputation is legal as it might be addressed publicly as a Constitutional abortion, in some limited condition, without being attached to a self-incriminating confession, a felony crime.
Why an abortion in not legal, it is not limited to the one crime it confesses public, or the one crime tied to the extremely limited choice made by a woman. There are several crimes including the one"s associated to confession. Woman who may have had Gender Specific amputation does not share the same identical confession made by abortion. It is of a different type agreement.

The legality of abortion is due to the self-incrimination of the confession type, unconstitutional, yes! It met the basic principle of constitution, but it ignored the legal precedent of self-incriminating confession completely. It has no basic limit to stop its effect on a public who shares the self-incrimination. It is forcing that some legal action must be taken always, at all times, or the public becomes an accessory after the fact of crime, with no chance of representation under Order of Law. No Test of Separation.

Law is a Test that can or cannot be applied. Once an outcome is reached from the test, a punishment is then made part of the separation by degree, placed upon the person separated by test, this is described as enforcement. You can try and interpret till the end of time about this but the United States Constitution is a basic separation process only.
When a law is tested, a law is separated by crime.

When a law passes a test of separation, then too must a separation of enforcement pass test.
When an enforcement has met the separation expectation of test, a claim of justice is made by the distance provided by said separation only.

"I think the United States Supreme court lied to me."

Of course The Supreme Court lied to us, so did mom, dad, sister, brother and friend. The Supreme Court reacts like us to a limited amount of truth. It cannot make a separation without the creation of a lie by some means, at some point, the basic principle of truth falls on need to know by non-bias separation. The point of separation is to create an order of things regarding general welfare to which relevance is created. There are very few universal or absolute truths to be found in the world and life. Every condition the Supreme Court faces is fixed in a single position or as close as possible, in any or all other condition it can become an untrue, false, or lie. In regard to fact.
Debate Round No. 2


For all I know, you could win this debate by disagreeing with me. In fact, you have accepted the challenge of taking that other side in this debate. So far you are disappointing me, not because I feel you're winning, but because I feel your discussions are unclear and off topic. Perhaps you are trolling. I hope that is not the case.

You have agreed with me that the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses are being abused. That implies you are not on the other side of this debate as you have opted to be. Perhaps you shouldn't have accepted this debate challenge.

I believe there are many people out there who believe that the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses are not being abused. It's a shame you have taken this opportunity from them to state their case.

Perhaps I shall debate this matter again with somebody else.


"I think the United States Supreme court lied to me."

Of course The Supreme Court lied to us, so did mom, dad, sister, brother and friend. The Supreme Court reacts like us to a limited amount of truth. It cannot make a separation without the creation of a lie by some means, at some point, the basic principle of truth falls on need to know by non-bias separation. The point of separation is to create an order of things regarding general welfare to which relevance is created. There are very few universal or absolute truths to be found in the world and life. Every condition the Supreme Court faces is fixed in a single position or as close as possible, in any or all other condition it can become an untrue, false, or lie. In regard to fact.

The Fourteenth Amendment is challenging the United States Constitution and Declaration of Independence. The Abuse of the Amendment is as foreseeable as the abuse of the United States Constitution and Declaration itself in this matter.
Dred Scott Vs Sandford (1857)

By Constitution this case is over liberty granted person"s in the place of freedom to a P.O. W. (Prisoner of war). Slaves are, and have always been POW"s, Council ignoring this fact is abuse as well. In a Civil Trial it is criminal negligence. Hindsight being 20/20 the slave issue was never handled on a Constitutional level. This abuse of the United States Constitution being direct causes of Civil War. The civil case completely fails to provide any self-value to a request of a humans liberty from an Unconstitutional bondage of War. Instead it imposes legislated freedom, ignoring a basic principle that freedom holds no self-value.

The intellectual blunder of the decision was not on the side of a slaves United States Citizenship as implied. It was in the fact that the civil action made a case against the wrong issue intentionally out of fear. Not accepting that a Slavery was not a citizen and why that was true. As a transfer of power from State to public private power had been taken place for Centuries and this is where the Constitutional battle was precedence to take place. We could go on to link slavery to Wars in Europe, Africa, and the Arabic nations. The Point of Judicial Separation chosen was the Southern United States. First step would have been to address citizenship of POW"s, then liberty not freedom.

Lawrence Vs. Texas ( 2003)

It is unclear if Texas defened the United States Constitution in this matter properly. However the issue Texas law is addressing with legislation against sexual acts of sodomy has Constitutional merits as listed when represented correctly.
The issue in this case becomes a claim of justification in relationship to equality of liberty to marriage for sexual conduct when addressing Legal Separation. This is where a lack of experience plays a role in choice of Constitutional defense. Lawrence was representing himself and no longer the Untied States Constitutional liberty.

The issue is addressing constitutional right without burden of representation. The article blames public morality for poor application of United States Constitutional understanding. Meaning judicial separation governing legislation based on basic principle and legal precedent. The majority of the argument is that a Gay and Lesbian couple is arguing as group asking the United States Court to separate a sexual act by law as only belonging to this group, who now consents to this sexual act.
The burden ignored or avoided by the group of people, with use of civil Court and accusation was the burden of Common defense. The group was to share with the Court, before it used civil law as a weapon of forced ownership, without a common defense, so the Court could defense itself from self-incrimination to the many crimes and not one public choice.

In defense of the United States Constitution and State of Texas the Constitutional common defense is a declaration of Binivir or Unosmulier and the follow a precedent of marriage and Civil Union. In an understanding of the process of Separation to obtain sustainable civil order.

Obergefell Vs, Hodges(2015)

The Fourteenth Amendment does in fact require State. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that State be provided for equal governing. Not the other way around Separation of Church and State. This is the instigation of a violation of a longstanding likelihood. It is marked as a violation by the simple instigation of public plagiarism.
The neglect of Constitutional obligation is astounding here.
1.Public acceptance of plagiarism.
2.The incrimination of judicial separation into contract describing sexual acts publicly to impartial witness.
3.The total lack of representation being made to those who are simple accused of being Gay or Lesbian without clear course of judicial Separation.

Again the representation in defense and preservation of the United States Constitution. Basic principles A. private contracts between men and private contracts between women. B. Legal Precedent was never established to any limitation imposed by law to these two types of likelihood with the acceptation of discrimination.

The issues of social value exist outside the boundary of legal right to plagiarize a longstanding contract between a title given man and woman by men and woman. The word Constitution grants witness liberty to declaration Binivir and UnosMulier. Legal precedent grants right to declaration Binivir and Unosmulier by understanding Marriage is not Civil Union. An obligation to judicial separation cause a common law Marriage a Civil Union. A Common law same gender couple grants judicial separation right to place title of Binivir and Unosmulier.

Holla 1755 in our lifetime it would not be surprising to me if this one issue goes on to be found to be a religious test to hold public office. As it relates to immigration and taxation more than civil right. As the basic civil right was never denied by law. That basic right and United States Constitutional obligation was and is title, by name.

"Perhaps I should debate this matter with somebody else."

By liberty granted a person under a declaration of independence, I most certainly hope you do keep debating it. We all want justice, the use of God as axiom, has not yet granted all people the wisdom to understand justice only comes to all through impartiality of Separation.

Best of luck sincerely
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by John_C_1812 3 years ago
I would like to point out only the pledge of allegiance makes a connection to liberty and justice for all. A republic use an axiom of GOD not religion of mankind to establish this as fact.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.