Talk:Equality before the law

The Entire Internet Communities Are Still Waiting For Essays And Rebuttal For This Caption/Article.

11-13-03 (revised 6-02-04)

Is There Such A Motion As Achievements In Religion!!? The General and The Chief Knew!? Perspective By Geo. E. Burks.

*With the Question of the achievement of science versus the sacredness of religion, the admiration of their highest place in the progressive evolving strives of the multi-cultural democratic nation and the separations in their objectives with the respects for all individual’s decisions as their way of strife for the betterment of humanity and to have everyone sense of trust placed on a foundation that holds all rights for respect in full consideration.

Revised from (*=) Neal Postmann’s Technopology

Attorney General Bill Pryor of Alabama made a comment during the open procedures, which was quoted in the November 13, 2003 issue of the New York Times that Alabama’sChief Justice Roy Moore is demonstrating "utterly unrepentant behavior" by strongly opposes the removal of nearly a ton of one of the ‘Ideas Of Justice’s’ oldest symbol. An action attempted, due to the idea of a progressive democracy seeking a sense of separation of church and state.

The General (Pryor) has a stall in his opening deliberations while facing the Alabama Court of the Judiciary Supreme Court. In order to challenge the age old position of "what do you do with people who move in such a self-righteous way without a challengeable doubt or questions and in so; leaving no respectable open reproach for any type of grounds to stand on for reconsideration?" Well, to start with one must approach every step with care. As in the case involving the removal of a display (in a form of a rotunda,) bearing the works of Ten Commandments from one of the State of Alabama’s court building (more recognized by the title of The Halls Of Justice), where The Chief (Moore) was been charged for ethical violations for defending the display’s rightful place in The Halls Of Justice walls did make some stepping with care.

What The General insubvertly confessing to are the ideas of syncretizing the ideologies of a more modern court system could truly be symbolized as a sounder representation of a justice system in an openly shown sense of the more liberal and not stringent environment for legal deliberations, liberations and deliveries with the original conceptual ideologies of parity and with society's social cohesion trusts as an openly known growth and progress. Since the birth of the ideas of social parity, social cooperation and socio-economics this ideology evolved into and was lead on the grounds and practices with a known virtuous sense and an acceptable sense of justice.

A movement or representation of an idea of the church separation from state for better democracy in form of a case in The Hall Of Justices against the definition of the virtuous justice enacted within that foundation by a prosecutor of this case can never win the opposition of that prosecutor’s opponent actions or behavior. The actions of The Chief states soundly that any movement to remove from sight the symbols from justice’s ideological birth, on and within The Halls of Justice physical foundations (or a court building as politically corrected known in these days) on display can never be seen or accepted on any grounds that having any signs or ideas of a beneficial movement!?! For as long as all involved in the past, present or the future of our justice procedures are borne by the academic’s or institutional’s sound fundamentals within the field of law. This argument can never be approach on any grounds within that exact field without restraining and/or conceding to the facts of, "what are the definitions of truth in the symbolic phrase of TRUTH AND JUSTICE FOR ALL?!"

What this writer also saw impressive in The General’s comment was the idea of guilt and objective reasoning while showing an open respect in using the taxpayer’s time and money against The Chief’s (Moore’s) sentiments. All can easily recognized by this stand as insubvertly or direct in support to keep in constant view of those of the symbolic and the signatures of the definition of termed "ALL," from the phrase in the former question, for those whom enter "The Bama’s Halls Of Justice. " With this pillar of society’s original statures for civility undergoing a trial for its rightful measure of usefulness coming into mind also was The General comment with one easily finding a sign of resignation.

In this pursuit of a disavowing grounds that The Chief was found erected on, all who has a sentiment to contend against the grounds must first recognized The General comment with the affirmation that there is no place in considering resistance to The Chief’s stand. One also must noted thru the fundamental observations for all parties’ blessing that The Chief have nothing more erected to stand on, yet the foundations that were always there since the beginning of the practice of judging for parity and exact consolidation.

Within the comment lie many moving adjustments for all observations for the evolution of modern justice. Proving that in opposition of The Chief position, nothing more than the rightprayer will allow continuous deliberations for one’s own precarious grounds for reproach and only can be handled carefully in the prosecuting of this case. With this The General can continue into the deliberations solidly with nothing more erected in one’s own grounds to step forward with by showing the recognition of that unrepentant-able revelation of the foundation’s cornerstone threatened in our continuous future for progress in the social evolution of civility, law and justice.

It’s a resounding place for The General in a case where all sides are showing one’s saving grace to rescue the ideas of progress in a field of social sciences where science is the dirty word. Progress in the field of law has nowhere else for weighting new abstractions and new academics applications outside the university without the even more treacherous approach of dividing the theorized practical perspectives theology and justice. Where does one have to avoid the seemly, knowing offensive speculative of a subscriptive leit-motif build on or to avoiding those heated classical torrid debates of the prescriptive applications of a theological, governing state or system?!? (For all who late on what is a leit motif, with the term "build on" instead of build up, the phrase would mean "evolution is an artistic growth!?!")

Yes, in the practice of judging for parity, reparation and socio-economics it’s the justice foundation under trial in The Bama’s court system and that foundation is threaten by the removal of a dedication bearing one of its original symbols for reason not found yet, heard and weighted with conniving acceptance by a general and under open, direct protest by a chief of it’s foundation’s post. Who by both intents and actions in keeping the virtuous justice’s past syncretized evolution of symbols and signs which grew into The Halls Of Justice’s complete identity in full view with their actions and with a demeanor showing all the power invested from where that infuse endowment rooted and grown with time. Since this challenge were heard by a panel of even more Justices, supreme ones at that, who must make a motion that can show a sign for the continuing symbolism of The Ten Commandments’ and other representations of justice for its tenure, future or dismissal within a new systems to engaged into the future with…!?! Yes, this is the quest within the case or may I surmised as it’s a question???

So, this one writer insists on the question for" THE ALL IN THE BIG BAMA’S" to answer; in defense of either their General, their Chief, their Supreme Justices or their foremost identity of the Halls Of Justice; "Is there progress or a continuous future for the Ten Commandments and other symbols and noted signs like ‘TRUTH AND JUSTICE FOR ALL" on the exact and actual grounds and within the exact and actual foundations of The Bama’s Hall Of Justice??!"

As for this one response to such a question when this one observed such a proceeding in one’s own state; would be to opt in questions on "what are the hidden motivations leading to its conniving acceptance on how such a regressive motion could have start on, within and brought forth for one’s own state’s affirming Justice’s foundation?!?" In which is an evolving existences without borders, even with or without the governing state in question of a true justice system and still will meet the criteria of an existence governing foundations over the state in all definitions found in the difference between a justice system and a legislative system. In conclusion justice is not over state government while its original symbols and signs are and even more of a sounder theology for virtue and not of a governing theory. In law alone all relationships to its symbols and signs are leading to its actual growth with all that exist and these symbols and signs can only differ in growth and become evermore self-alienating within The Hall Of Justice; no matter where the state’s borders lies.

Moved from legal egalitarianism =

I moved this article to Equality before the law from legal egalitarianism. The term legal egalitarianism is kind of obscure. The most common name for this is "Equality before the law" or "Equality under the law." A Google search helps verify this. Since no one seems to pay much attention to this article I figured this was a safe thing to do. VersaWorka 04:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Merging?

Shouldn't this article merge with isonomia? A.Cython (talk) 06:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Cut to stub

Just about everything in this article was OR ranging from dubious claims to obvious nonsense. Some of the content of isonomia could usefully be merged in, but without the obscure (Hayekian?) jargon. This ought to the be the main article, but it needs some substantive content, preferably free of attempts to claim this fundamental democratic concept for some particular political POV.JQ (talk) 08:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Magna Carta

A history of equality before the law should include the Magna Carta. The charter was an "important part of the extensive historical process that led to the rule of constitutional law in the English speaking world," and the presumption of innocence which is a form equality in prosecution and criminal procedure. This is an important principal that should be appropriately included in this article.

— RW Marloe (talk) 11:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Wtf?

"However, some radical feminists have opposed equality before the law, because they think that it maintains the weak position of the weak."

WTF? This smells like a troll. Can anyone verify it? --95.144.114.170 (talk) 08:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course. Equality is just equality, so a separate feminism naturally creates a space for those who prefer female superiority or additional privileges/protections/considerations.

Now, I'm not saying those feminists aren't trolls, given how undermining liberalism and the rule of law is over time inevitably going to undermine the status of the physically weak... but they generally take themselves quite seriously. — LlywelynII 04:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Legal Equality - Scope and Content

This article IS worth retaining but as it stands its content is of dubious relevance and is woefully incomplete. I would like to know the thoughts of others, but I would suggest we might restructure and grow it to include:

• Some robust definitions

 -- The term equality under the law in the US, UK and other jurisdictions
 -- Systems of codification of equalities and their philosophical basis

• Some of the history

 -- Roman and Medieval 'value' placed on the lives of the various political, landowning and racial classes (an interesting item might be King Ine of Wessex and his two values for the blood price for an Anglo-Saxon and a Celtic Briton
 -- Access to legal remedy, who had it, who didn't 
 -- 1600 to 1950 - a review of the US constitution, abolition of slavery, native rights, women's votes (1920s), 
 -- Modern legislation intended to advance and protect legal equality
 -- Legal Aid and how the state has funded access to legal representation
 -- Human rights conventions and legislation
 -- Courts of appeal and their role in assuring legal equality (including EUCHR)

• Present day challenges including:

 -- Wealth, poverty and access to effective legal representation
 -- Political inequality, power and increasing inequality in the courts
 -- Prior assumptions on guilt and innocence and impact on supposed legal equality

Artowalos (talk) 21:47, 26 December 2012 (UTC)artowalos

Equality before the law and equality in the law.

" is the principle under which all people are subject to the same laws of justice (due process)."

Often confused this does not suggest that all people are the same when it comes to applying the logic of law.

We may be equal before the law, however we are not all equal in the law; its a matter of logic and justice?

For example, the disabled, the elderly, the young, the aboriginals get special rights equally applied to all those within that group due to the logic of justice and with special justifiable reasons.

--174.5.37.143 (talk) 09:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

First Paragraph Quote

Is the line "The author Anatole France said in 1894, 'In its majestic equality...'" really necessary? I feel that the quote, in itself, is ironic and doesn't really serve the serious nature and neutral point of view to be taken in this article. I'm going to remove it if nobody objects. 72.219.45.14 (talk) 09:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Changes reverted by User:Roscelese

There is a difference between 'feminism is about' and 'feminism claims to be about'. Former is an opinion masquerading as a fact. Latter is a fact. Could you please explain how exactly former is WP:NPOV and latter is not?

Also don't revert my changes before discussing this it here because we ought not to wage WP:EDITWAR, instead we ought to be objective.--Cubancigar11 (talk) 08:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

One more thing - this is about equality before the law and not about feminism. This article MUST be objective.--Cubancigar11 (talk) 08:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. Wikipedia is not here to reflect your own personal views about feminism, and you've sadly misunderstood policy if you think "no edit-warring" means "the burden of consensus rests on anyone who reverts me." Revert your own disruption, please. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Wow, no one is that obtuse. Even newspaper say 'Scientists say that gravity is real' and not 'Science is gravity la la la la'. Please show me where exactly I have mentioned my 'personal opinions' or otherwise you can take YOUR personal opinions to someplace else where at least law is not being mentioned.

Seriosly, authoritative much? And btw, my account may not reflect it but I was on Wikipedia in 2003 and I know why these rules were constructed. There was absolutely no reason for your revert because "that's just like your opinion, man." is not a valid reason.--Cubancigar11 (talk) 17:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Once more, I suggest that you revert your own disruptive edit. Neither the article nor the talk page may be used as a soapbox for your personal views. Please take this opportunity to demonstrate good faith. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Once more, I urge you to show any problem with my edit otherwise you are just harassing me.--Cubancigar11 (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

As I've stated already several times, the problem is that Wikipedia is not here to host your personal opinions. If you personally believe that feminism is secretly about making women superior to men, write on your livejournal about it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The only person who has personal issues is you. If you do any more personal attack or revert the edit without any reason I will report this to arbitration. This is not your personal webpage and don't attack me personally again. I have been civil with you so far but you are testing my limits.--Cubancigar11 (talk) 20:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Seriously, you have severe WP:OWN problems. Get away for 2 days then come back.--Cubancigar11 (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Unless someone finds me a single reason behind their objection, it is a clear case of WP:CABAL. When I quoting directly from a journal you don't have the authority to call that language. Go through the citation, I am quoting actual journals, not some kid whose only job is playing on wikipedia.--Cubancigar11 (talk) 02:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I see no reason to switch to using weasel words, "with the explicit mandate which foreground the implications of the law for women and women's lives" is close to gibberish (and synthesis), and your last addition is unsourced. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

It has literally been copy-pasted from the journal's introduction. I can rewrite it if there is a problem of copy-paste, but it is definitely not a use of 'weasel words', as source is the authority here, and everything else follows from it.

First paragraph changes - same issues. Second paragraph is a copy-paste job. A relevant bit of Feminist legal theory can be added if it is rewritten appropriately and is on point. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Please read through the sources before commenting on it. There has been no copy-paste job, but a quote has indeed been added from a second source. Read the sources. May god give more knowledge to all of us.--Cubancigar11 (talk) 18:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

---

This is the source added into the article. It concludes with this:

"Their attack on "the masculine voice of rights, autonomy and abstraction" bodes ill for a liberal society... Their effort to abolish male privilege while preserving and expanding female privilege is likely to create the very backlash feminists fear. Moreover, most women do not want their brothers,husbands, or sons to live under a legal system that presumes them guilty; nor do they believe that sex is rape, freedom is a male plot, and an abused woman can be her own judge, jury, and executioner."

Unless anyone can come up with a formula that converts above statement into 'Feminism calls for equality', I suggest refrain from adding that statement without proper source.--Cubancigar11 (talk) 18:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I have left the article as it is in the hands of the cabal who are keen on reverting even the above statement - apparently rest of the world can't have knowledge if it doesn't suit latest White American fad.--talk 05:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

How to expand last section

I didn't want to delete the last content section about the Japanese criminal code stuff because it hints at a neat angle for that section, but I couldn't figure out what to do with it in the shorter-term, so I renamed it to "legal matters." Thoughts on what that section should become? I'm thinking disputes or legal/court actions related to equality under the law in various countries. I came across it as a section created specifically to house that fact, and that seemed too bizarre and specific for a full section, but I think it would be at home in the article if several descriptions of that sort were present. Adamtrain (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Famous quote

The article should probably include the well-known Anatole France quote: "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." -- AnonMoos (talk) 05:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)