[Notary Sojac]

"Equal protection under the law" was originally intended to apply to Federal laws and issues only (Federal tariffs, accusation of treason and other Federal crimes, etc) as we were originally constituted as a Federal republic of soverign states.

Over the last eighty years, the 14th Amendment, expansive interpretation of the commerce clause, and Presidential executive orders have been used to jam the Federal government into thousands of state and local issues where it has no business at all.

You apparently see that power and say "Why not use it for good?"

I look at that same power and say "The temptation to use it for evil is too great. It must be destroyed."

[wagglebee]

"Equal protection under the law" was originally intended to apply to Federal laws and issues only (Federal tariffs, accusation of treason and other Federal crimes, etc) as we were originally constituted as a Federal republic of soverign states.

NOBODY in Congress thought that the states were sovereign when the 14th Amendment was passed.

As far as "intent", you can't have it both ways. Either the entire Constitution and all of the Amendments are open to interpretation based upon what someone THINKS was the "intent" at the time they were written, or they are "living, breathing" and based on what someone THINKS they should mean now, or they mean EXACTLY WHAT THEY SAY. Which would you choose?