Can the CG Legal experts take a look at this please?

[Window_Seat]

Here is a post on a trucking industry board regarding the Nordyke decision(s). It is one of the replies to a post I made, and this statement has me concerned...

Here is the statement:

...you will see that the court upholds the county decision and rejects Nordyke, et all, and uphold the states right with the 14th amendment.

...

If I'm not mistaken, the Fourteenth had nothing to do with the "State's right" to make a law against this or that. Please fill me in on this and tell me if this statement is right or wrong, and why so I could learn more.

With that said, if I'm violating any rules by posting a link to another board, I'll gladly delete, or I'll support the Moderators deleting. Thanks.

(Edited to add the thread site)The post.

Erik.

[pnkssbtz]

If I'm not mistaken, the Fourteenth had nothing to do with the "State's right" to make a law against this or that. Please fill me in on this and tell me if this statement is right or wrong, and why so I could learn more.

Have you read the 14th amendment?

*ETA*

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.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

I've emphasized the pertinent sections of the 14th Amendment for you.

[AlexBreya]

doesn't it have to do with states not having the right to refuse someone life, liberty and property?

[pnkssbtz]

To the OP: Sorry, I misread your question.

doesn't it have to do with states not having the right to refuse someone life, liberty and property?

The justices confirmed incorporation under the 14th amendment but then restricted it by calling out Scalia's proposed "sensitive area" restrictions laid out in heller.

Thus, the 2nd was affirmed to be incorporated under the 14th but the plaintiff's case was rejected due to the state's right to define what and where something was deemed "sensitive".