If they had cited a "turkey" as the basis of their newly made up law, even the stupid people in the nation would have realized this was bullsh*t.
By citing the 14th as the basis for their made up law, they can claim legal authority for making it happen and most people won't bother to challenge them on their made up bullsh*t.
That's how this works. The latter portion of the 14th is so badly written that it can be interpreted by an activist court into meaning anything the activist court wants to do.
No, the 14th doesn't actually say these things, but it gives the courts so much power to "interpret" it, that they can turn it into anything they want.
If the 14th had to go through an actual valid ratification process, this never would have happened, but with the Washington DC sockpuppet "states" ratifying what Washington DC ordered them to "ratify", they could get away with writing it really crappy and giving all that power to liberal judges.
It wouldn't have passed a valid ratification process.
This we can agree on. Where we part, is where you take the made up stuff seriously. If it's made up then its made up and that's all there is. It's not real. You're tilting at windmills.
"No, the 14th doesn't actually say these things, but it gives the courts so much power to "interpret" it."
I don't see how this is any different than with the second or with the attacks they are planning on building for the first amendment. (see here) You seem stuck on attacking the 14th even while admitting the 14th doesn't say these things - the ultimate irony - but you won't do the same for any of the rest and you won't do that to progressives either.
Who controls the schools? That's where this is coming from.
Help me to understand your disconnect. How can you go so far as to openly admit that the 14th does not say these things, but you still somehow cling to the premise that it does say these things? How did you end up in this place? At this point you're the only one holding you there.
"they could get away with writing it really crappy and giving all that power to liberal judges. "
Bork says this better than I can. He wrote: (Tempting of America, p. 181-183)
It is not easy to imagine the northern states, victorious in a Civil War that lead to the fourteenth amendment, should have decided to turn over to the federal courts not only the protection of the rights of freed slaves but an unlimited power to frustrate the will of the Northern states themselves. The only significant exercise of judicial review in the past century had been Dred Scott, a decision hated in the North and one hardly likely to encourage the notion that courts should be given carte blanche to set aside legislative acts. ... Had any such radical departure from the American method of governance been intended, had courts been intended to supplant legislatures, there would be more than a shred of evidence to that effect. That proposal would have provoked an enormous debate and public discussion.
You're fighting ghosts. This is a power that the progressives stole. It's not real. Bork concludes "There is no evidence that the ratifiers imagined they were handing ultimate governance to the courts." And there isn't. There is no evidence for what you believe. The 14th was not a judicial revolution, the progressives are simply liars. This is not complicated.
The progressives did this. They stole it. They manufactured it whole cloth.