Constitutional law

In reference to the Constitutional law purposes, we are interested in the collective equality rules that are of the form that "everyone must have the same X," where X stands for any body of lawful “privileges” which is of the rightful arrangement from an individuals point of view. All individuals are supposed to have same fortification of the laws says the Equal Protection Clause. The Privileges or Immunities Clause, argue that the rights and resistance of all individuals must not be shortened, therefore they must be same.

Therefore in this provision the X could be the safeguarding of the laws or the rights and invulnerability of individuals. (It is however assumed for the sake of this discussion that the fortification of laws and the rights of citizenship include official authorized arrangements, not the realistic results). (Mange, p1, N/A) Statements regarding the rights of the people should be transformed into the declarations of the laws that provide those rights.

For example the Immunities or Privileges Clause are regarding the privileges of entering into contracts and thus has insinuations for the related contract laws. The point here can be constructed in a manner that the Privileges or Immunities Clause demands that all individuals must have the equal right to enter into certain contract, which means that the contract laws should be the same for all citizens. However if put this way there is some possibility of vacuum, which means that there will always be some formulation under which the laws regarding the contracts must be the same for everyone.

(Mange, p1, N/A) If the demands of the collective sameness in relation to the particular official privileges are to have motivating inferences for example the forbidding of the Black Codes, as the Privileges or Immunities Clause was perceived to do, they must not be confined to the related regulations are of the collective form. And it is also essential that the legal regulations and laws must be universal in nature when they are expressed in particular manners.

If the law that states that only freed slaves are reproved for lingering around, is considered then, in its collective nature it must state that if someone is a freed slave he is not supposed to loiter around. However in its non-collective aspect, it states that one must not loiter around but is not applied to everyone. If as to the criminal law, the Black Codes are prohibited by the obligation of the collective sameness, it then must be clearly understood or perceived that there is a ban on lingering around, and if one is as freed slave he can loiter around.

(Mange, p1, N/A) The switch from the collective sameness to the consequential constrictions, on the government’s actions is thus dependent on the boundaries on the authorized characterization of official rules. The notion of X here comes again as every single person must be equal with regard to the legal rules and thus the legal regulations must equal for every single citizen, when the regulations are explained in a certain way or several ways.

If someone wants to enforce a rule of collective sameness on a segment of law, the main principle would be to discuss the relevant official rights or the relevant regulations or the ones which can be treated as negligible; this means that which explanations are the ones under which all of the citizens must be treated as equal and which are the ones under which people can be treated with described difference.

Some may argue that legal rules have some natural nature that forms their meanings. Therefore it can be concluded that id the universal equality or collective sameness is to be achieved then the official rules and regulations must be the same for all citizens of a particular society. (Mange, p1, N/A)