An article containing very little except the text of the amendment is not very useful. There are more convenient sources for the bare text of the Amendment than Conservapedia. No one goes to an encyclopedia looking for the text of a document..they go to the document itself. Encyclopedias are used to provide a broader context. It would be like looking for an article on George W. Bush and finding only a photograph of him. At the very least someone familiar with the area should write an article called "Legal Analysis of the 14th Amendment" and then link to it from here.--JesusSaves 20:57, 21 July 2007 (EST)
The last sentence of "The U.S. Supreme Court has used this Amendment to invent new rights, such as abortion and a separation of church and state, which were never intended by those who drafted or ratified it." is factually incorrect and should be removed from the article.
- First, sign your entries to the talk page using the signature box above. Second, those are factual statements and I've never heard anyone dispute them. Do you really think the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment intended to protect abortion? Please.
- More generally, don't delete factual material simply because you disagree with it, or you will be blocked.--Aschlafly 22:38, 21 February 2007 (EST)
The right to an abortion was granted as a continuance of the right to privacy granted by the precedent set in Griswold as well as the due process clause of the XIV amendment. To claim that the courts solely used this amendment for its decision in Roe is false.--Moniker 23:23, 21 February 2007 (EST)
- Moniker, abortion was not the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment, which is essential to Roe. You deleted something that was factual, perhaps due to misinformation that you've learned elsewhere, or perhaps due to bias. Such deletions are inappropriate here.--Aschlafly 23:42, 21 February 2007 (EST)
- Whether or not he was correct factually, he deleted unsourced information. Given that you've threatened to block people for adding sourced information it hardly seems reasonable to threaten this user for removing unsourced info. JoshuaZ 23:50, 21 February 2007 (EST)
- No, that doesn't follow. This project is in its infancy and of course not everything is sourced yet. But that does not authorize a visitor to delete material that is obviously true, albeit unsourced, in order to advance a biased agenda.--Aschlafly 23:58, 21 February 2007 (EST)
- Um, the statement as phrased isn't obvious to me nor apparently to this editor. I would presume a large amount of the matter would hinge on how you define terms. Furthermore, it isn't clear to me how any other "unsourced" claim you've complained about has been any less "obvious" nor for that matter where the Conservapedia Commandments make a distinction between "obvious" and "unobvious" unsourced claims. JoshuaZ 00:03, 22 February 2007 (EST)
Actual legal analysis
I have changed this article significantly, but all in keeping with accepted Constitutional law. Please address any problems you have with my legal analysis here, and I will deal with it. Note that I have dealt with only established legal or historical facts with very precise citations to either firm case law, or legal case books. I think you all should like it...--AmesG 18:33, 8 March 2007 (EST)