# Polygamists are not a "class" for the purposes of Fourteenth Amendment EP analysis **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 17, 2011, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polygamists-are-not-a-class-for-the-purposes-of-fourteenth-amendment-ep-analysis/585762 "2011-06-17T00:08:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polygamists-are-not-a-class-for-the-purposes-of-fourteenth-amendment-ep-analysis/585762/81 "2011-06-17T06:06:33Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > Then they are a subclass of non-polygamist. But they are not treated differently than other non-polygamists. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 6:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polygamists-are-not-a-class-for-the-purposes-of-fourteenth-amendment-ep-analysis/585762/82 "2011-06-17T06:18:24Z")
Definition of [polygamy](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/polygamy): > [@](#): > > : marriage in which a spouse of either sex may have more than one mate at the same time — compare polyandry, polygyny No one is saying that _bigamy_ itself is a way of life. That is illegal here. But [polygamy](http://www.oprah.com/relationships/Polygamy-in-America) is practiced. [Christians](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/katy-hall/sister-wives-tlcs-polygam_b_736551.html) practice polygamy [Muslims](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90857818). > [@](#): > > Here’s how a man gets around the laws: He marries one woman under civil law, and then marries one, two or three others in religious ceremonies that are not recognized by the state. In other cases, men marry women in both America and abroad. > > Many women keep quiet for fear of retribution or deportation. > > For example, Sally’s husband moved to the United States from the Ivory Coast before she did. When Sally joined him, she found he had married someone else in America. But without legal immigration papers, she didn’t dare come forward and report him to the authorities. > > She said when she arrived in the U.S., her husband and his new wife put her in the basement. > > “They told me to cook, clean, do everything. I didn’t speak English. And he told me, ‘Don’t say nothing. You say something, she’s going make you deported. And me, I’m going to be in jail.’” > > Eventually, Sally left the house with her children, and now works at a hair braiding salon. But that fear of deportation prevents many from leaving their polygamous relationships. Secularists practice [polyamory](http://www.polyamorysociety.org/) Arguably, changing marriage laws offers protection to those who engage in unrecognized plural marriages. _thinks_ Kind of like how SSM protects gay couples and their families. My cousin was product of a poly relationship. Her husband ‘sprang’ it on her and she didn’t like it, but then she found herself a boyfriend and felt better. _That_ is not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about people who come into this idea together. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polygamists-are-not-a-class-for-the-purposes-of-fourteenth-amendment-ep-analysis/585762/83 "2011-06-17T06:38:18Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Here’s how a man gets around the laws: He marries one woman under civil law, and then marries one, two or three others in religious ceremonies that are not recognized by the state. In other cases, men marry women in both America and abroad. > > > > Many women keep quiet for fear of retribution or deportation. > > > > For example, Sally’s husband moved to the United States from the Ivory Coast before she did. When Sally joined him, she found he had married someone else in America. But without legal immigration papers, she didn’t dare come forward and report him to the authorities. > > > > She said when she arrived in the U.S., her husband and his new wife put her in the basement. > > > > “They told me to cook, clean, do everything. I didn’t speak English. And he told me, ‘Don’t say nothing. You say something, she’s going make you deported. And me, I’m going to be in jail.’” > > > > Eventually, Sally left the house with her children, and now works at a hair braiding salon. But that fear of deportation prevents many from leaving their polygamous relationships. That is not sidestepping the law. Anyone can “say” they are married. Hell, when I was five years-old I “married” my next door neighbor. We had a ceremony and everything with other friends as witnesses. We did it while the adults weren’t paying attention. All very lovely (and of course purely play acting but we thought it’d be fun). Anyone can have a ceremony that mimics a marriage ceremony. That is not even illegal even if you are already married and “marrying” your second husband. The breaking the law part is trying to obtain the 1138 legal benefits (forget if I cited that here or the other thread) from the government. There are two aspects, generally, to marriage in the US. The legal part and the religious part. The government couldn’t give a shit about the religious part. Yes, ministers and priests and mullahs and such are allowed to marry people in a manner that makes it legal but you can see a judge or a ship captain. Near as I can tell the requirements the state demands to be able to perform a legal marriage are shockingly minimal. Mostly they want you to fill out the marriage license and pay a fee. In the end, if you want the government benefits of marriage (which are plenty), you need to be legally married. You cannot do that with more than one person at the same time. If your religion wants to say you married 10 women the government is cool with that unless they try to access the legal benefits associated with marriage. Then you broke the law. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 6:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polygamists-are-not-a-class-for-the-purposes-of-fourteenth-amendment-ep-analysis/585762/84 "2011-06-17T06:40:47Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > That is not sidestepping the law. > > Anyone can “say” they are married. Anyone can have a ceremony that mimics a marriage ceremony. That is not even illegal even if you are already married and “marrying” your second husband. > > The breaking the law part is trying to obtain the 1138 legal benefits (forget if I cited that here or the other thread) from the government. > > There are two aspects, generally, to marriage in the US. The legal part and the religious part. The government couldn’t give a shit about the religious part. Yes, ministers and priests and mullahs and such are allowed to marry people in a manner that makes it legal but you can see a judge or a ship captain. Near as I can tell the requirements the state demands to be able to perform a legal marriage are shockingly minimal. > > In the end, if you want the government benefits of marriage (which are plenty), you need to be legally married. You cannot do that with more than one person at the same time. > > If your religion wants to say you married 10 women the government is cool with that unless they try to access the legal benefits associated with marriage. Then you broke the law. Um, don’t talk to me. Talk to NPR. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 6:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polygamists-are-not-a-class-for-the-purposes-of-fourteenth-amendment-ep-analysis/585762/85 "2011-06-17T06:50:27Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > Um, don’t talk to me. Talk to NPR. Huh? You can be married to your husband (legally) and then have 1000 ceremonies marrying you to other people. The government does…not…care. As far as the government is concerned that is play acting. Have even one of those thousand fill out a form claiming you as their spouse (e.g. for insurance coverage) and you/they broke the law. Play house all you want with as many people as you want. That is fine. Pass yourself off as married (unless you were the first one) when you sign a legal document and you are in trouble. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 7:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polygamists-are-not-a-class-for-the-purposes-of-fourteenth-amendment-ep-analysis/585762/86 "2011-06-17T07:48:54Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Underscoring in Italics of the word “or,” mine. > If any of the conditions obvious or immutable or distinguishing exist, then the group may be identified as a class. Children are a class although the overwhelming majority will eventually change into adults, (although many do fail the transition to becoming grown-ups, of course). Had to think on this awhile. It is interesting. A five year-old is an immutable trait at that moment (anyone’s age, at a given time, is immutable). But of course time marches forward and we get older so we have an immutable aspect (your age at any given moment) and a changing aspect (your age in the future). The law allows for this though. When you are five (something that cannot be changed when looking at you at that moment) certain legal protections and restrictions apply. As your age changes so do your rights. Seems rational to me. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 11:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polygamists-are-not-a-class-for-the-purposes-of-fourteenth-amendment-ep-analysis/585762/87 "2011-06-17T11:18:47Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Because you suggested that “polygamist” had a narrow definition. I did not. “If” is an important word! 😉 I said that _if_ **Dio** ’s definitions are right, then he’s right about polygamy not existing in the US. I then asked you if you mean the same thing by “polygamy” that Dio does. If you do, (there’s that important word again) then you should agree with him. If you don’t, then you and Dio are miscommunicating. I didn’t say this though: If (there it is again!) you two are using different definitions, there may be a discussion to be had as to which definition more closely matches standard usage of the term. This would be an empirical question. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 11:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polygamists-are-not-a-class-for-the-purposes-of-fourteenth-amendment-ep-analysis/585762/88 "2011-06-17T11:24:18Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > This, **Whack-a-Mole** and **Frylock** and all you others, is **Dio** ’s solitary point: there can be no such thing as a polygamist in the United States because you cannot legally have a polygamous marriage in the United States. So, if when you read about the plural marriages of the FLDS in Texas, you said to yourself, “Gracious! What a solecism! Those subsequent ‘marriages’ are no such thing! Those subsequent ‘marriages’ were void from the get-go!” then you agree > with **Dio** ’s point. Why are you pointing me out? This is exactly what I _said_ **Dio** said. I was even trying to highlight how ridiculous **Dio** ’s position is here, though I guess I was too subtle about that since Bricker seems to have thought I was actually supporting **Dio** ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 11:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polygamists-are-not-a-class-for-the-purposes-of-fourteenth-amendment-ep-analysis/585762/89 "2011-06-17T11:26:24Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > Why are you pointing me out? This is exactly what I _said_ **Dio** said. > > I was even trying to highlight how ridiculous **Dio** ’s position is here, though I guess I was too subtle about that since Bricker seems to have thought I was actually supporting **Dio** Yes, I missed the sense that you were heaping scorn on the position. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 11:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polygamists-are-not-a-class-for-the-purposes-of-fourteenth-amendment-ep-analysis/585762/90 "2011-06-17T11:26:25Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > @ **Whack-a-Mole** and **Frylock** : > > I hope this experience will teach you to be a little less credulous in the face of **Dio** ’s legal pronouncements. “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me,” and all that. ( **Wh-a-M** , you’re already getting a reputation for gullibility in this regard, so you may want to be particularly careful.) If this is a joke, I’m not getting it. Both **Whack-a-mole** and myself disagree with **Dio** in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 11:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polygamists-are-not-a-class-for-the-purposes-of-fourteenth-amendment-ep-analysis/585762/91 "2011-06-17T11:29:13Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, I missed the sense that you were heaping scorn on the position. Well, admitedly I was trying to avoid that sense, both for the sake of clear thought and for the sake of sarcasticness. (Probably not actually compatible motivations!) But I thought a simple logical laying out of his position would suffice to highlight how ridiculous it is! I thought my straightforward declaration that I’d call someone who wants to be married to two people a “polygamist” would definitely tip my hand here–since it shows I don’t agree with **Dio** ’s definition. I think his definition is definitely not even close to standard usage, so while he is correct in some logical sense, he’s not correct in any sense recognized by law or normal speakers of the English language. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 11:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polygamists-are-not-a-class-for-the-purposes-of-fourteenth-amendment-ep-analysis/585762/92 "2011-06-17T11:36:14Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > If this is a joke, I’m not getting it. > > Both **Whack-a-mole** and myself disagree with **Dio** in this thread. I think that, until Dio came along and left no room for error about how crazy his position was, that Whack-a-Mole was leaning towards a favorable interpretation of his views… "i.e., that Dio was just using a shorthand for “protected class” or “suspect class.” ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 11:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polygamists-are-not-a-class-for-the-purposes-of-fourteenth-amendment-ep-analysis/585762/93 "2011-06-17T11:43:50Z")
I thought that **Whack-a-Mole** and **Dio** were on the _same_ page on both accounts: definitions of class and if polygamy existed or not. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polygamists-are-not-a-class-for-the-purposes-of-fourteenth-amendment-ep-analysis/585762/94 "2011-06-17T15:41:56Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > People who speed are not being discriminated against. That’s like saying _all laws are discriminatory_ in the sense that they infringe on liberties. Theoretically, laws that restrict liberties are discriminatory, but laws that prevent people from exercising their ‘liberty’ in such a manner that it infringes upon another’s liberty are not. People who speed are discriminated against constantly. If I go out and drive 65 on the highway, I’ll arrive at my destination unharassed and unaccompanied by the state police. If another person leaves at the same time and drives 110, she’ll be pulled over and probably arrested. Discrimination! It is like saying all laws are discriminatory, in the strictest sense. I can’t imagine that there are any literally indiscriminate laws. It’s not unconstitutional unless the discrimination is of an impermissible kind (the law discriminates against certain kinds of discrimination, even), so it’s not like I’m claiming all laws are illegal. There aren’t many reasons to bother making the point that law is by definition discriminatory. It’s just that in answering this question we’ve reached a point where **Dio** is acknowledging that a class exists, but claiming no discrimination against it does. And discrimination does exist, in the form of punishment for the type of behavior it’s defined by. That isn’t the end of the conversation about polygamy - it probably isn’t even a beginning to it. But that is the particular point he’s hanging his hat on. [QUOTE=tomndebb] > [@](#): > > The District Court erred in judging the constitutionality of the statutory distinction under “heightened scrutiny.” The disadvantaged class is that comprised by parents, children, and siblings. Close relatives are not a “suspect” or “quasisuspect” class. As a historical matter, they have not been subjected to discrimination; they do not exhibit obvious, immutable, _or_ distinguishing characteristics that define them as a discrete group; and they are not a minority or politically powerless. > > SOURCE: LYNG v. CASTILLO, 477 U.S. 635 (1986) Underscoring in Italics of the word “or,” mine. If any of the conditions obvious or immutable or distinguishing exist, then the group may be identified as a class. Children are a class although the overwhelming majority will eventually change into adults, (although many do fail the transition to becoming grown-ups, of course). [/QUOTE] I’m still not sure everybody’s on the same page, so apologies if we are; I know it’s been addressed. But to reiterate, there’s a difference between a “class” and a “suspect” or “protected class.” A “suspect class” is one that fits the language above about discrimination or distinguishing characteristics or political vulnerability. That matters in terms of what kind of scrutiny the court uses, as discrimination against protected classes is viewed with a more skeptical eye. You can be a “class” without being a “suspect class,” though. Every group that you can name that doesn’t fit the definition of a “suspect class” is still a “class.” In the example above, children are a class regardless of the fact that the court finds that they don’t meet the “suspect or quasi-suspect” criteria. Note that the paragraph begins by defining the disadvantaged class (the class being discriminated against), and _then_ determines whether it is a “suspect” one. That there is a class is never in question; the only question is what kind of class we’re dealing with. Historical discrimination, immutability, discrete & insular minority, lack of political power, and all that are irrelevant to whether or not a class exists - there’s always a class. Those only come into play when you’re trying to argue that a given class is a suspect one. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polygamists-are-not-a-class-for-the-purposes-of-fourteenth-amendment-ep-analysis/585762/95 "2011-06-17T21:17:45Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I think that, until Dio came along and left no room for error about how crazy his position was, that Whack-a-Mole was leaning towards a favorable interpretation of his views… "i.e., that Dio was just using a shorthand for “protected class” or “suspect class.” > [@CitizenPained](#): > > I thought that **Whack-a-Mole** and **Dio** were on the _same_ page on both accounts: definitions of class and if polygamy existed or not. Yes and no. It all turned into a semantic nitpick. Are polygamists a class? Yes and no. Yes, they are a class inasmuch as any group with a distinguishing characteristic they all have in common is a class. And… No, they are not a class because they do not actually exist in the US. No US citizen has multiple wives/husbands in the eyes of the law. And… Yes, there are obviously people who play at polygamy in the US and believe themselves to be married to multiple partners. And… No, they are still not married legally and the additional spouses have no legal recourse or marital rights. They can play at it all they want. They still aren’t married in a legal sense any more than I was married to my five year-old neighbor (when I was also five years-old and we had a make-believe wedding). And… Yes, despite not being legal polygamists could theoretically try to make a case before the court that they are being unfairly discriminated against and demand protection under the Equal Protection clause of the constitution. And… No, they clearly cannot be defined as a suspect/protected class (not sure which term is correct now) given the tests the court currently employs. You never know I guess but I wouldn’t bet on them winning such a case. So, in reality I was neither for or against anyone in particular. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2011, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polygamists-are-not-a-class-for-the-purposes-of-fourteenth-amendment-ep-analysis/585762/96 "2011-06-18T00:40:13Z")
but since there are actual bigamists who are breaking the law, then bigamists are a class, but polygamists aren’t? Note that the definition of POLYGAMY does not require government sanction. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2011, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polygamists-are-not-a-class-for-the-purposes-of-fourteenth-amendment-ep-analysis/585762/97 "2011-06-18T02:50:13Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > but since there are actual bigamists who are breaking the law, then bigamists are a class, but polygamists aren’t? > > Note that the definition of POLYGAMY does not require government sanction. Huh? You can live with as many men as you like. You can only marry one legally. You can have a ceremony of any sort pretending you are married to husband 2, 3 & 4 in the eyes of God (or in your hearts or whatever) but as far as the state is concerned you are married to only one person. If any of your other husbands beyond the first attempts to claim legal benefits that accrue to marriage he and/or you are breaking the law. And the State does not considered you married to #2, 3, & 4. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2011, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polygamists-are-not-a-class-for-the-purposes-of-fourteenth-amendment-ep-analysis/585762/98 "2011-06-18T03:35:46Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Huh? > > You can live with as many men as you like. > > You can only marry one legally. > > You can have a ceremony of any sort pretending you are married to husband 2, 3 & 4 in the eyes of God (or in your hearts or whatever) but as far as the state is concerned you are married to only one person. > > If any of your other husbands beyond the first attempts to claim legal benefits that accrue to marriage he and/or you are breaking the law. And the State does not considered you married to #2, 3, & 4. You are confusing bigamy with polygamy. I can’t help you understand that any better than I already have. edit: not all states outlaw polygamy. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2011, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polygamists-are-not-a-class-for-the-purposes-of-fourteenth-amendment-ep-analysis/585762/99 "2011-06-18T03:39:12Z")
Is this thread another “We have to distinguish polygamy from same sex marriage so that we can’t be called on our bullshit equal protection argument”? ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2011, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polygamists-are-not-a-class-for-the-purposes-of-fourteenth-amendment-ep-analysis/585762/100 "2011-06-18T03:43:10Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Is this thread another “We have to distinguish polygamy from same sex marriage so that we can’t be called on our bullshit equal protection argument”? That thread is down the hall, where you will be called a homophobic bigot if you dare suggest such a thing. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polygamists-are-not-a-class-for-the-purposes-of-fourteenth-amendment-ep-analysis/585762.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polygamists-are-not-a-class-for-the-purposes-of-fourteenth-amendment-ep-analysis/585762.md?page=6)