Fourteenth Amendment of U.S. Constitution literary analysis
The Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states, “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.” (U.S. Const., am. XIV)
This phrase: “Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property” is of a particular importance for this article. A woman’s body is her personal property. What is inside her body is her personal property. According to the Fourteenth Amendment a government cannot deprive, or deny the physical use or possession of her property, without due process.
Fifth Amendment of U.S. Constitution literary analysis
The Fifth Amendment says “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury. . .nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” (U.S. Const., am. V).
What is interesting to note here is the phrase, “nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” is shown again just as it was in the Fourteenth Amendment. When viewed within the context of this phrasing, we can see that even those accused of a crime are subject to the same protections of life, liberty and property which cannot be removed without due process of law. Due process of law requires guilt to be established by a jury or the person cannot be held to answer for the crime. Before a charge can be filed, however, a violation of a federal or state statute must be committed.
First Amendment of U.S. Constitution literary analysis
The First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” (U.S. Const., am. I). Therefore a violation of a religious rule or dogma does not constitute guilt in the eyes of the law, according to highest precedent of law, the U.S. Constitution.
Fourth Amendment of U.S. Constitution literary analysis
The Fourth Amendment says, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.”(U.S. Const., am. IV). Since a religious rule cannot be used as probable cause, a warrant for the government to seize control of the woman’s personal property, that which is inside her womb, cannot be issued. The government has no right to dictate the use of that personal property outside the standard dictations of government.
According to the text of the U.S. Constitution, banning abortion through federal or state legislative means is unconstitutional and violates this Law of the Land. Banning abortion be it through federal or state law violates the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.”
Same argument applied to same-sex marriage
Under that same literary view, if you took the line from the Fourteenth Amendment that says, ” No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” (U.S. Const., art. XIV) then federal or state laws that attempt to reduce privileges of joining together two citizens in legal process of matrimony due to not meeting a particular moral code (an action of reducing (abridge) the legal definition of process of marriage to a precise group) that has its roots in a religious rule would also be a violation of the Fourteenth and First Amendments. And any person who is of an authority of the state in performing such matrimonial privileges, such as court clerk, would also be in violation of this law, if they refused to do their duty on the grounds of abridging the privileges of citizens by a moral code that is based on a religious rule.