The Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses Are Being Abused

The Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States's Constitution guarantee procedural due process of law and do not guarantee substantive due process of law. This is the way the original Due Process Clause, which is a part of the Fifth Amendment and applies to the federal government, was originally interpreted until Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857). "Due Process and the Logic of the Law: A Response to Hadley Arkes" (2015) by Matthew J. Franck, http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com.... The Due Process Clauses are not "anything reasonable goes" clauses, as they currently seem to be interpreted as. That sort of interpretation is inconsistent with individual liberties as encoded in the rest of the Constitution and its amendments. Government works best when the will of the majority is in effect, not when the will of minorities are imposed over the majority. Government also works best when laws are interpreted according to their original intent, as those interpretations represent the laws that are truly superior in nature. If the interpretation of a law should be changed, then, in order for a reinterpretation of the law to become law, that reinterpretation must pass the legislative and executive obstacles put in place to try the reinterpretation. Similarly, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States's Constitution guarantees the procedural equal protection of the laws and does not guarantee "the substantive equal protection of the laws." The context of the Equal Protection Clause, which includes that it immediately proceeds the Due Process Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment, suggests this. Facebook post (2017) by "Increase Sexual Liberty," https://www.facebook.com.... The Equal Protection Clause guarantees the equal enforcement of the laws and does not guarantee the equal content of the laws. For example, it is possible that "a state with a law that prohibits all black people from driving motor vehicles on public ways does not violate the Equal Protection Clause," but the state does violate the Equal Protection Clause if it only enforces this law for all black people 30 years old or older. The famous phrase "equal justice under law" does not mean the law allows all people to do the same things, but rather, it means the law is equally enforced on all people within the law's jurisdiction, regardless of the composition of all those people and regardless of the composition of the law. By "the equal protection of the laws," the Equal Protection Clause is referring to the equal enforcement of the laws. This view is supported by the following argument. Statements (Reasons) 1. If a law is enforced, then it protects. (Premise) 2. If a law is not enforced, then it does not protect. (Premise) 3. A law is enforced if and only if it protects. (If a conditional statement and its inverse are true, as is the case with (1) and (2) above, respectively, then the biconditional statement of the conditional statement is true) 4. A law protects if and only if it is enforced. (The exactly two component statements of a biconditional statement, such as biconditional statement (3), can validly be interchanged with each other) Since all valid definitions can be represented by biconditional statements, "Larson Geometry" (2012) by Larson, Boswell, Kanold, and Stiff, p. 74, it is suggested that (4) shows that "the protection of a law" means "the enforcement of the law" and thus that the equal protection of the laws means the equal enforcement of the laws. See Facebook post (2017) by "Increase Sexual Liberty," https://www.facebook.com.... The Supreme Court of the United States, however, interprets the Due Process Clauses as including the guarantee to substantive due process of law, and interprets the Equal Protection Clause as including the guarantee to the equal content of the laws. These interpretations contradict the interpretations that were argued for earlier in this round. These misinterpretations are exhibited in the Supreme Court of the United States's cases of Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), Roe v. Wade (1973), Lawrence v. Texas (2003), and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), possibly among many others. Therefore, the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses are being abused.