> Is the 14th Amendment really written in such a way that you can justify just about anything with it?

The 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the United States Constitution are known as the Reconstruction amendments. They were passed in the aftermath of the Civil War to fix the fundamental problems in the 1792 constitution.

Reconstruction Amendments: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_Amendments

The Bill of Rights (Amendments 1-10) had been held to only constrain the powers of the federal government.

The 11th Amendment had to do with citizens of one state suing another state. The 12th Amendment had to do with the details of electing a president and vice president, and dealt with the problem of the elected president and vice president being opponents of each other (imagine Hillary Clinton being Trump's vice president, and Trump being Biden's vice President).

The 13th Amendment abolished slavery. But it wasn't enough to say 'no slavery', as the freed slaves found they were still second-class citizens.

The 14th amendment said that citizens of the states are also citizens of the United States, and thereby they have all the rights accorded in the Bill of Rights, and required "equal protection of the laws". Section 1 is the origin of this branch of rights:

> Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The Institute for Justice has some great podcasts about this period of history: https://ij.org/center-for-judicial-engagement/sc/14th-at-150...

Ep 1 - Before the Fourteenth: John Rock and the Birth of Birthright Citizenship - https://soundcloud.com/bound-by-oath/before-the-fourteenth

My efforts in the federal courts on behalf of my friend wouldn't be possible without the 14th amendment. (Summary: After the state supreme court shot me down, I found an attorney who was oddly familiar with my state court habeas corpus petitions and appeals. I said, "I don't even know that I can petition for habeas corpus on behalf of my friend." The attorney replied, "It's fully within your rights to petition for habeas on behalf of your friend, and the statutes are clear that you can. But you're dealing with a rural judge who will never rule against the community's non-profit mental health service provider." Me: 'Oh.' [I got screwed by the state judiciary.] Then the attorney said he couldn't help me, on account of his having already consulted for the person I was suing.)

Federal judges are supposed to be more insulated from local politics because they have lifetime appointments, and are thereby trusted to make politically-inconvenient decisions. In theory. In practice I think they have too much drudgery ("hard menial or dull work.") putting drug mules in federal prison to deal with fundamental mistakes in our treatment of the mentally ill. My district court judge passed the buck up to the court of appeals, who didn't want to deal with me either. I'm going to get a favorable ruling on my current appeal, I hope...

[edit: clarity]