The Dirty Little Secret About the Fourteenth Amendment

[GrandEagle]

#28 came out snarkier than I intended. Sorry.
No problem - Sometimes happens to me too. :)

Cordially,
GE

[inquest]

Did he actually use the term "equal protection"? Becuase that term did not have the same meaning that the courts have placed on it nowadays. It simply meant, literally, equal protection against crimes, torts, etc. It did not mean everyone had to be treated the same in every respect.

[connectthedots]

No, not exactly. It has been upheld by the SCOTUS that a state is not required to have a Grand Jury system, which in fact - just under half of them don't. A Grand Jury is specifically called out in the Bill of Rights.

I've been interested in this topic regarding grand juries. could you cite a case?

[theDentist]

I suggest you go to the source I noted, write the author and ask him. He was the expert.

[Alberta's Child]

The one damning piece of evidence about the true intent of the Civil War and the adoption of the 14th Amendment can be found in one key issue: gun control. If the 14th Amendment was as benign as you seem to think it was, then the eradication of gun ownership rights -- a blatant violation of the 2nd Amendment -- that began in the post-Civil War period (including the elimination of the state militias that had been in existence before the Civil War) would never have passed constitutional muster.

[Wolfstar]

Specifically: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;"
I couldn't find any mention of the Bill of Rights - please point it out.

It isn't necessary to specifically use the words "the Bill of Rights." Section 1 of the 14th is what is being discussed on this thread, and it's language is quite clear.

Section 1. 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.

Section 1 of 14th defines who are citizens of the United States and the states in which they reside. It then goes on to mandate that no state can abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens. Most of those privileges and immunities are found in the Bill of Rights. In fact, Section 1 of the 14th concludes with a brief reiteration of several of those rights.

[Alberta's Child]

I actually think he used the term "independence" -- since it was his famous Independence Day address in Rochester, NY that was the basis of my comment. His point was a valid one (I paraphrase here): "What the hell does Independence Day mean to the black man who is prohibited under the law from voting -- even here in the North?"

[GrandEagle]

New Jersey was NOT the last state to abolish slavery
I stand corrected about New Jersey it was 1846
Please accept my apology - Got my states mixed up.
gone to do research

Cordially,
GE

[Merchant Seaman]

I posted on the premise that the Constitution is a contract between three parties (i.e., the Tenth Amendment). My contention is that because of the Civil War, South v North or States v Federal Government, the Fourteenth Amendment was a Reconstruction Era amendment in that the United States imposed conditions on what the States cannot do. But on the premise of a superior government imposing conditions upon the subordinate government would it not be logical that the conditions placed on the subordinate and not on the superior would imply by omission that the superior can do what the subordinate may not do?

As suggest by someone above, let's compare the Fifth Amendment with the Fourteenth Amendment.

Isn't the Fifth Amendment a prohibitive declaration against the Executive and Judicial Branches of the U.S. Government?

And isn't the Fourteenth Amendment a prohibitive declaration against the Legislative and Executive Branches of State Governments?

NOW FOLLOW MY LOGIC (EVEN IF FLAWED. I WELCOME CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM - NOT INSULTS).

The Fifth Amendment, in the literal sense, does not prohibit the U.S. Government from legislating for the deprivation of life, liberty, or property. Once such legislation becomes law it becomes "due process" for the Judicial and Executive Branch of the Federal Government to determine constitutionality.

Fifth Amendment

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Fourteenth Amendment, Sec. 1, 2nd sentence

"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 Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments do not prohibit the same things to the same branches of the comparable governments. If this logic is worth building, even though it may be weak or flawed I hope to improve it with your criticisms and critiques.

Thank you.

[GrandEagle]

could you cite a case?
No, not right not. I did the research a while back.
I'll try and dig it up though tonight if I get time.

Cordially,
GE

[Jim Noble]

Why is the United States missing from the prohibitive declaration, "No State shall"?

Because XIV was passed to empower the United States against individual States, so that a State could not pass a Black Code which would impair rights granted either by the Constitution or otherwise at the Federal level.

[inquest]

You might want to look here and scoll down to the heading "Initiation of the Prosecution". It's a short paragraph, but footnoted with cases.

By the way, that page is just part of Findlaw's annotated Constitution. You can go to that site and find information regarding how any given provision of the Constitution has been implemented over the years.

[Wolfstar]

theDentist: The amendment was ratified on July 28, 1868. Southern states were required to ratify it in order to be readmitted into the Union.

MACVSOG68: ...but those responsible for the Civil War could only return to the Union and participate in its governance by ratifying the Amendment.

You both bring up an interesting, if esoteric, moot point. I hadn't thought about this before, but if any former Confederate state did not ratify the 14th Amendment, and they could not return to the union, their goal of secession would have been realized.

So was there some other, perhaps implied threat to those states if they failed to ratify? For example, might their territory have been broken up and given to neighboring states? Or might the federal government taken their land?

Seems to me a fundamental principle in law is that any contract entered into through coercion on one party is, by definition, null and void.

[inquest]

In fact, Section 1 of the 14th concludes with a brief reiteration of several of those rights.

Actually only one: the requirement of due process.

[Les_Miserables]

Interesting. Not only was it coersion but since the premise of the war was it was not possible for the states to seceed and leave the union in the first place any condition on their "re-admission" was needless punitive arrogance.

[Wolfstar]

If this logic is worth building, even though it may be weak or flawed I hope to improve it with your criticisms and critiques.

See my post #53. I think it may touch on what you're trying to get at.

BTW, I am not Southern. I was born in New Jersey and moved to Los Angeles 30 years ago. So this, to me, is an intellectual exercise devoid of emotion. I also love discussions about the Constitution.

[LK44-40]

You missed the 10TH AMENDMENT

Oh, so you want to resurrect the lost (10th) amendment? You must be one of these radical, right-wing extremist who want to refer to the constitution and read what is written there to figure out what it means! [/sarcasm]

[Merchant Seaman]

"Because XIV was passed to empower the United States against individual States, so that a State could not pass a Black Code which would impair rights granted either by the Constitution or otherwise at the Federal level."

But isn't "federal gun control laws" a form of the "Black Codes"?

And do "federal gun control laws" violate the Thirteenth Amendment prohibiting slavery and "involuntary servitude"?

[Wolfstar]

Actually only one: the requirement of due process.

"Life, liberty and property" is what I was referring to, but your reading is also accurate.

[stainlessbanner]

placeholder