What does the ECOHR have to do with US Law?!

@DavidSiegel It was a mere international law comparison, and the origin of the curiosity. You can also look at a couple of international law analyses of the U.S. Supreme Court where they looked at how European courts and legislations dealt with certain questions. One case was about Article 36 notices under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and their relevance. The Supreme Court argued the notice is no basis for the exercise choice of counsel since before Strickland v. Washington no other country had any laws for the provision of counsel for indigent defendants.

The comparison is also warranted as it relates to such a fundamental matter that is axiomatic in any intelligent notions of the due process of law. If equal protection is not warranted, the rule of law is replaced by the rule of individual arbitrary interest. But the fact that the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly talks about the State, and I found no trace of the broadly used principle of the “equality of arms” permitted a substantial possibility that, however fundamental it seems, it was intentionally designed so to give more latitude to the federal government. Think the case where SCOTUS […]

Found it “axiomatic” that the U.S. can only be sued with its consent. That supports a stance substantially contrary to the Equal Protection Clause.

I am sorry for the inciting orthography I used yesterday. However, I see no reason to tag the question ECOHR or to use this much younger declaration for the discussion of the older US text, that is in a vastly different Jurisdiction.

Is there a particular legal meaning behind "squeak out" - it sounds derogatory to me, may just be a misunderstanding though.

The answer from cpast is correct, but, just to provide a bit of additional context, the largest function of the 14th Amendment was to apply restrictions that had already been applied to the federal government since the Constitution was ratified to the state governments. Prior to the 14th Amendment, most of the Bill of Rights did not restrict the actions of state governments, but rather only the federal government. It was completely legal for a state to have an established state religion prior to the 14th, for example, and several did for a few decades after the Constitution was ratified.

@LioElbammalf No. But litigation is a game. Both sides want to win. To me, it never seemed a very easy case to make; it basically meant to convey, if possible at all, a win on this case that would probably be achieved by a mere inch, or barely achieved. Despite my lack of success finding the right case deciding it, it did appear "axiomatic in any intelligent notion[] of the due process of law" (see my comment above) that the U.S. also be held to the same standard otherwise "the rule of law is replaced by the rule of individual arbitrary interest". Just think the blind folded Justitia statues…

Will you please make that much more simple? Can you please drop at least most of that, to make the rest clear?

@RobbieGoodwin I'm unsure who you addressed your question, and what it relates to, but presuming to me, and the question, I made some changes to address how I could interpret it so as to be able to answer it.

Stack Exchange assumes that without specific attribution, Comments apply to either the Question or the Answer under which they're Posted. In this case it can hardly matter, since you raised both the original Question and many of the Comments about it. If you see '…addressed your question, and what it relates to, but presuming to me, and the question, I made some changes to address how I could interpret it so as to be able to answer it…' might be helpful could you please find a better interpreter… much better?

Focusing on how you made changes to address how you could interpret it so as to be able to answer it, what was the result, please?

“Stack Exchange assumes that without specific attribution, Comments apply to either the Question or the Answer under which they're Posted” this is only true so long as there are no other comments under a question or an answer hence you can’t @ anyone when a comment thread is empty, and the permission to do so once comments are posted implies that you ought to do so. It helps others not having to read through other comments to see if a comment may relate to another comment or another’s comment. I didn’t check your question against other comments so I went off of the presumption that the […]

[…] interpretation was the only reasonable interpretation. Also, by asserting that SE “assumed” you clearly consider that the governing rule which should also mean that when as OP I wrote “ I made some changes” you would, by your own interpretation of some rules you alluded to, be able to interpret it as changes made to “the Question […] under which they're Posted”. See the changes in the question. But if you, indeed, referred to my comment just above your own first, then do clarify, it was not clear.

@kisspuska No. Sorry but what 'please find a better interpreter… much better' relates to is up to me, not you. If you doubt that, Post a plea for support. When you talk about what I refer to as an “interpretation” apparently alluding to a presumptive translation of my comment on your part, how can justify that? Most obviously, can you re-phrase that three or four different ways?