The amendment prevents the states from taking away or limiting citizen's right to life, liberty, or property.
Explanation:
"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." Directly from the amendment itself.
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.
The attitude of Fernando is best explained by the cognitive dissonance theory which is the one responsible for the person to gain the consistency with their beliefs, opinions, etc. With Fernando's attitude of changing from capital punishment to opposing argument best describes the said theory.
I believe the answer is: universal vs. context specific development
universal vs. context specific development is an argument on whether there is multiple pathways for people to develop, Universal side of the argument view that all people are experiencing the same stage. Context specific side of the argument see that the model of stages development are different between one individuals with another.
