If the repeal by Ohio and New Jersey had been illegitimate, South Carolina would have been the 28th state to ratify the amendment, enough to be part of the Constitution. Otherwise, only 26 of the 28 requested States have ratified the amendment. The resignations of Ohio and New Jersey (which took place after the Democrats took over the state legislature) caused considerable controversy and debate, but as that controversy arose, ratification by other states continued: But beginning in the 1920s, the Supreme Court increasingly applied 14th Amendment protections at the state and local levels. Judgment on Appeal in Gitlow v. 1925 In New York, the Court stated: That the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment protect First Amendment rights to freedom of expression from violations by the state and federal government. Section Two of the 14th Amendment repealed the three-fifths clause (Article I, Section 2, Clause 3) of the original Constitution, which counted slaves as three-fifths of a person for the division of representation in Congress. Since slavery was outlawed by the 13th Amendment, it has been made clear that all residents, regardless of race, must be counted as one person. This article also guaranteed that all male citizens over the age of 21, regardless of race, had the right to vote. In Hernandez v. Texas (1954), the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment protects those who transcend the racial classes of whites or «blacks» and extends to other racial and ethnic groups, such as Mexican Americans in this case. [142] In the half-century since Brown, the Court has extended the scope of the equality clause to other historically disadvantaged groups, such as illegitimate women and children, although it has applied a slightly lower standard than discrimination on the basis of race by the state (United States v.
Virginia (1996);[ 143] Levy v. Louisiana (1968)[144]). [145] The Fourteenth Amendment deals with many aspects of citizenship and citizens` rights. The most commonly used – and frequently challenged – term in the amendment is «equal protection of laws,» which is used in various landmark cases, including Brown v. Board of Education (racial discrimination), Roe v. Wade (reproductive rights), Bush v. Gore (recount), Reed v. Reed (sex discrimination) and University of California v. Bakke (racial quotas in education). Learn more. The first section of the amendment contains several clauses: the citizenship clause, the privilege or immunity clause, the due process clause and the equal protection clause.
The citizenship clause provides a broad definition of citizenship and overturns the Supreme Court`s decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), who ruled that Americans descended from African slaves could not be citizens of the United States. Since the fall of the slaughterhouse (1873), the privilege or immunity clause has been interpreted in such a way that it has very little effect. Our editors will review what you have submitted and decide if the article needs to be revised. This section was also a response to violence against blacks in the South. The Joint Committee on Reconstruction found that only a constitutional amendment could protect the rights and well-being of blacks in those states. [6] In Shelley v. Kraemer (1948), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the historical context that led to the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment must be taken into account, that this historical context reveals the fundamental purpose of the amendment, and that the provisions of the amendment must be interpreted in light of that fundamental purpose.
[7] In its decision, the Court stated: More than seventy proposed amendments have been prepared. [237] In a detailed appendix to his dissenting opinion in Adamson v. In California (1947), Justice Hugo Black analyzed and detailed the statements of those «who drafted, approved, and passed the amendment,» shedding light on the history of the amendment`s adoption. [238] [239] [240] In late 1865, the Joint Committee on Reconstruction proposed an amendment stipulating that citizens excluded from voting by a state because of their race would not be counted for the purposes of state representation. [241] This amendment passed the House of Representatives, but was blocked in the Senate by a coalition of radical Republicans led by Charles Sumner, who saw the proposal as a «compromise with injustice,» and Democrats, who opposed black rights. [242] The review then turned to an amendment proposed by Representative John A. Bingham of Ohio, which would allow Congress to ensure «equal protection of life, liberty, and property» for all citizens; This proposal failed in plenary. [242] In April 1866, the Joint Committee forwarded a third proposal to Congress, a carefully negotiated compromise that combined elements of the first and second proposals and dealt with issues of Confederate debt and ex-Confederate voting. [242] A few weeks later, the House of Representatives passed Resolution 127, 39th Congress and sent it to the Senate for decision.