Dreamers legal status vs Unborn The conservative argument that the Dreamers law is unconstitutional is that it ascribes equal protection to non-US citizens under the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment lays out clearly and explicitly that only US born or naturalized citizens have equal protection. Why doesn't the same logic follow that laws granting equal protection to a non-citizen fetus would be unconstitutional?
The conservative argument that the Dreamers law is unconstitutional is that it ascribes equal protection to non-US citizens under the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment lays out clearly and explicitly that only US born or naturalized citizens have equal protection. If anyone makes that argument, it's an extreme fringe. The 14th Amendment does not prevent states from giving equal protection to non-citizens. In fact, in general, the 14th Amendment means states are required to give equal protection to non-citizens. See Graham v. Richardson: The Fourteenth Amendment provides, &quot;[N]or 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.&quot; It has long been settled, and it is not disputed here, that the term &quot;person&quot; in this context encompasses lawfully admitted resident aliens, as well as citizens of the United States, and entitles both citizens and aliens to the equal protection of the laws of the State in which they reside. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356, 118 U. S. 369 (1886); Truax v. Raich, 239 U. S. 33, 239 U. S. 39 (1915); Takahashi v. Fish &amp; Game Comm'n, 334 U.S. at 334 U. S. 420. It's also settled that illegal immigrants are fully entitled to equal protection of the laws. See Plyler v. Doe: That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter. Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish. The dissent to Plyler also agreed that illegal immigrants are entitled to equal protection of the laws: I have no quarrel with the conclusion that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to aliens who, after their illegal entry into this country, are indeed physically &quot;within the jurisdiction&quot; of a state. However, as the Court concedes, this &quot;only begins the inquiry.&quot; Equal protection does not mean people in different situations must be treated identically. States are limited in their ability to discriminate against lawful permanent residents (Richardson), but there are situations where discrimination is appropriate (Foley v. Connelie, which held that a state can require police officers to be citizens). It's often considered reasonable for states to discriminate against illegal immigrants, but Plyler held that it was unreasonable to deny children the right to attend school because they were illegal immigrants. At the federal level, Congress has broad authority to discriminate against non-citizens (one reason states are fairly limited here is so they don't interfere with federal authority). The question in the case mentioned in the comments, DHS v. Regents of the University of California, was whether the Trump administration's decision to end DACA was legal. One argument raised was that it violated the Equal Protection Clause because it disproportionately hurt Latinos and was motivated by prejudice against them. The Court held that the claims of a prejudicial motivation were weak and that the disproportionate effect was just because illegal immigrants are disproportionately Latino. The Court didn't explicitly say &quot;you can constitutionally make immigration policies that discriminate against illegal immigrants,&quot; but that's so obvious that no one seriously thinks otherwise. What the Supreme Court did not rule was that the Equal Protection Clause does not apply to illegal immigrants. They held that it didn't ban this particular policy change, but that's not particularly surprising. They certainly didn't hold that DACA was illegal because it violated the Equal Protection Clause by protecting non-citizens. No one even bothered to address that claim.
In the United States, the constitutionality of a law can be challenged in any court. Unless and until the court is reversed by a higher court, then the law will be considered unconstitutional and invalid. A jury can also theoretically nullify a law for any reason, including unconstitutionality, however, the jury's finding will only hold for that one case that they are trying.
&quot;Discrimination&quot; is in some way treating people differently from other people. Much discrimination is a sound idea. Not letting someone fly a plane who does not have pilot training is discrimination, but not a bad kind. So is not allowing someone to do surgery who has not trained as a doctor. Unlawful discrimination is discrimination that a particular law in a particular country declares to be forbidden. Different countries have different laws for what kinds of discrimination is unlawful under what circumstances. Discrimination on a basis not forbidden by law is legal, even if immoral. For example, a restaurant could, in most if not all countries, ban left-handed people from being served there. This might be immoral, but would not be illegal, because no law has made it illegal. Commonly, discrimination on the basis of religion, ethnicity, national origin, sex, or political opinion is unlawful. In some jurisdictions discrimination on the basis of disability is unlawful. Other bases may be unlawful in some places. There may be exceptions. Employment discrimination may not have the same standards as housing discrimination, and admission to public places or ability to run for public office may be different yet. All this will vary based on the particular laws of particular places. Note that some of these protected classes are things about which people have no choice, such as sex and national origin, others are matters of choice such as religion and political opinion. Laws may create a protected class on any basis. Note also that many things about which people have little or no choice, such as height, handedness, or intelligence, are not protected categories in most places. To the best of my understanding being vaccinated or not is not a protected class in most if not all of Europe, so legal distinctions may be made based on vaccination status. In such jurisdictions, discrimination in favor of those who are vaccinated is legal, although some may think it wrong. A few US states have made it unlawful to restrict various public or private services or access to places on the basis of vaccination status. I am not aware of any country in Europe that has such a law.
Yes, certainly. A prominent example was Lawrence v. Texas. The defendants were charged in state court with "deviate sexual intercourse". They moved to dismiss on the grounds that the statute was unconstitutional. Their motion was denied and they were convicted and fined; the denial was upheld by the state's court of appeals. They then appealed to the US Supreme Court, which eventually ruled that the statute was indeed unconstitutional. A defendant likely wouldn't have standing to sue the state for enforcing the law in general, only for enforcing it on the defendant himself.
An existing law actually prohibits using census data "against" a person, see this recent question. The 5th Amendment ("nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself") is not interpreted to imply an absolute privilege to not answer, it means that your answer cannot be used against you in a criminal case. You can be compelled to testify "against yourself" if you are granted immunity from prosecution.
Does this mean that all four of the above are &quot;equipotent&quot;? No. The inclusion of these foundational documents in the Front Matter of the United States Code does not indicate anything regarding their legal status. It is more of a political statement, as a preamble to all laws in today's sovereign federal state, describing the foundation of the United States of America and its constitutional order. The only constitutional law in force today in the U.S. is the Constitution for the United States of America, beginning with We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. and the subsequent amendments. The ratification of the Constitution replaced any previous constitutional orders in effect between the States. A new government was created by the Constitution and replaced the old one under the Articles of the Confederation: Both Governments could not be understood to exist at the same time. The New Government did not commence until the old Government expired. It is apparent that the government did not commence on the Constitution being ratified by the ninth State; for these ratifications were to be reported to Congress, whose continuing existence was recognized by the Convention, and who were requested to continue to exercise their powers for the purpose of bringing the new Government into operation. In fact, Congress did continue to act as a Government until it dissolved on the 1st of November, by the successive disappearance of its Members. It existed potentially until the 2d of March, the day proceeding that on which the Members of the new Congress were directed to assemble. Owings v. Speed The States abandoned their old agreement (the Articles of Confederation) and subjected themselves to the new Constitution. Of course, the other documents remain historically very significant and may shine lights on the interpretation of the present Constitution, for example, in Texas v. White, the reference made to the concept of &quot;perpetual union&quot; found in the Articles. The Declaration of Independence is not so much a legal document per se but a declaration of the existence of the States sovereign from the British Crown; but such sovereignty is not a result from the declaration, but from the acts of war. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787, while remaining in effect under the Constitution by Acts of (the new) Congress, is in any case spent as its territorial extent is extinguished by the establishment and admission of states, who enjoy equal status under the Constitution. See for example, Permoli v. Municipality No. 1 of the City of New Orleans and Strader v. Graham.
Like the other rights in the First Amendment, religious freedom is not absolute. For example, you can't use religious freedom to get away with assault or murder (e.g. fulfilling the fatwa to kill Salman Rushdie). The basis of many anti-abortion laws is that the fetus is a person, and thus abortion is murder. So by the same logic that you can't kill a person out of the womb for religious reasons, you wouldn't be allowed to kill an unborn person. So whether the Satanic Temple is a real religion or a parody is moot, because religion cannot be used to justify murder. The RFRA doesn't get around this. It has the following exception: the government may burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) furthers a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. What falls under &quot;compelling government interest&quot; is up to the courts to decide. But in the past they've determined that paying taxes is a compelling government interest (Adams v. Commissioner), and even that getting a social security number is not a significant burden (Miller v. Commissioner). So it seems likely to me that actions that directly harm another person would not be allowed. The basis of most anti-abortion laws is that the fetus is a person, deserving of human rights, and abortion deprives them of the right to life. It's hard for me to imagine that preventing this would not be considered a compelling government interest in states that prohibit abortion. We can't be certain about this, since Roe v. Wade was only overturned very recently, and there's little precedent in how the anti-abortion laws that are now allowed will be interpreted in corner cases like this. But in the current political climate, I think it's almost certain that a question like this would be decided in the pro-life direction. While pro-life conservatives also tend to be pro-religion, they generally restrict this to Christian religious traditions (these same groups were in favor of Trump's Muslim travel bans). A fringe religion like TST would likely not receive favorable treatment. Because of this, perhaps the right place for a question like this would be Politics
It appears that the "leading" source of Freedom of Movement is the Privileges and Immunities Clause (Art. IV, S.2 , Cl. 1) of the US Constitution, that "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States". See Crandall v. State of Nevada, 73 US 35: "We are all citizens of the United States, and as members of the same community must have the right to pass and repass through every part of it without interruption, as freely as in our own states" (quoted from an earlier case); US v. Wheeler, 254 U.S. 281 In all the states, from the beginning down to the establishment of the Articles of Confederation, the citizens possessed the right, inherent in citizens of all free governments, peacefully to dwell within the limits of their respective states, to move at will from place to place therein, and to have free ingress thereto and egress therefrom citing the Privileges &amp; Immunities clause as the constitutional foundation. However, this article, sect. IB notes a number of additional constiutional sources: Various Justices at various times have suggested no fewer than seven different sources: the Article IV Privileges and Immunities Clause, the Fourteenth Amendment Privileges and [sic] Immunities Clause, a conception of national citizenship said to be implicit in the structural logic of the Constitution itself, the Commerce Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, and each of the Due Process Clauses. Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160 relates freedom of movement to the Commerce Clause, Aptheker v. Sec’y of State, 378 U.S. 500 points us to the Due Process clause. The argument hasn't apparently been made based on the First Amendment, since there are better arguments.