The Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses Are Being Abused

Summery: 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.