Replies

The Fifth and the Fourteenth discuss the Government Taking action to deny someone their right to life, they have no relation to actions taken by any group or individual operating separately from official government sanctioned action. It requires a real twist of meaning to claim that an individual requesting assistance from his private doctor has any connection to Official State Action. Find any book on Constitutional law and read what the fifth and fourteenth mean.

The fourteenth is the only one that mentions a restriction on any type of government, specifically the state. The fifth mentions no type of government, but only the freedoms and rights that the federal government has been charged to protect. One of those is life. I've read plenty of books on Constitutional law, not all of which agree with each other. Therefore I've resorted to the fairly unsophisticated practice of recognizing that "is" means "is." In other words, "No person shall...be deprived..." means just that, and not, "Government shall not deprive anyone..." etc. The idea that we need alleged scholars to tell us what the Constitution means when its language is clear is an affront to the entire concept of self-government

The Fourteenth specifies STATE if you take the time to read it; in case you don’t understand the term it refers to government, not private citizens. People sue the government and win when their constitutional rights are violated. Have you ever heard of a murder victim suing the government for a violation of their Fourteenth Amendment rights because there was no due process of law before the murder happened? They may have tried but never won the case. Have you ever heard a murderer being charged and convicted of violating Fourteenth Amendment rights? Are you now going to pretend that the Fourth forbids burglary and since age is not mentioned a parent can’t legally search their child’s room or read their diary without first obtaining a search warrant? The Fourth never mentions either State or government. It does not matter which constitutional law book you read none of them will support your contention. As for your condescending attitude educate yourself before you adopt it.