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. Example: 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.