There might be individual from the 1866that the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment had provided with regulations for the private or personal laws for American society, and also that it provided for ‘all’ American citizens, to some extent this would be right. Therefore it could be implied that rules and regulations are meant to be applied to everyone, any specified group and intended to create equality and fairness among those for whom they are meant for.
It agreed by the officials at the time of creating the draft for the Fourteenth Amendment that federal government should not provide for the laws dealing with private issues of the States or authorize Congress to do this job. This was because it was intended that the States could have their own judgement regarding the private laws, but would then not be allowed to categorize their society’s members, however they were empowered to determine that what could be the citizen’s rights but they were supposed to apply them equally to all.
One rule can be corresponded to this condition: i. e. the rule we discussed already that the Ministry of Fruit must provide same number of apples to every citizen. Moreover, the Equal Protection Clause may also have the similar nature which means that no State is supposed to deny any individual within its own authority the same extent of protection under the law. “Everyone should be equal to X” can be referred to a collective parity rule, and such laws may have a number of significant characteristics.
The students of the normative equality might know that it is essential to derive the conceptualization of the notion of “X”, this conceptualization provides that statements under which everyone is subject to sameness. The remaining part provides that there might be possibility that people maybe to some extent different or must be different. And the last part states that there actually are equality rules but some may just be gibberish.
Moreover it could be implied that it may not be impossible to give an equal number of apples to every single individual in the society, even of this number is zero, however it quite clear that it might not be possible to give an equally amount of benefit or satisfaction or utility, from the same amount of apples to everyone, therefore it could be again referred that the extent of hunger that is satisfied by the equal amount of apples may not be the same.
An n example of the baloney rules may be this that if the State says that “Everyone must be equal as to everything,” this implies that everyone must be treated the same on every explanation, therefore it is nonsense. As a result to the above discussion may be this that there are some collective equality rules that are easily implemented, accepted and practices, however there are some regulations to which it may not be possible for the citizens to abide by. An example of such law may be this that “every person should be the equal in some manner”.
The next category is the third category which demand more specified equality rules. This notion can be related to the our apple example in a manner that if same number of apples are to be given to all citizens in the society that equal amount of apples should be provided to all individual men and women and if equal amount of apples are to be given to all citizens in the society, then all of the individual whites and blacks should be given equal amount of apples.
The point derived from this notion, in simpler words could be this that if there is to be no distinction to be practiced among the citizens with respect to the number of apples, then it is also essential that distinctions must not be practiced by the authorities within the society in terms of age, race, gender, color, height or simply anything else, with reference to the number or apples they are provided with. (Arbour, p1, N/A)
So far in this discussion it has been discussed that in some or the other way individuals under particular description and regulations, which has to be collective in nature should be treated with equality in some manner. It has been argued that every single person must be given the same amount of apples with the underlying rule of assumption that “everyone be given the equal amount of apples”. Although X is a concept in this simple Apple example, which is quite clear with respect to its application to sameness among the individuals, then too it is a little formless. (Arbour, p1, N/A)