Talk:Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

An event mentioned in this article is a July 28 selected anniversary

Early talk

It tells you what the text of the amendments means other than the exact text from the constitution is hgreatthat way you understand what it is saying without taking so much time to look up the words.

---

The prior contributor's emphasis on the "equal protection" clause over the "due process" clause (neither of which refer to all of section 1...just a part of it) in the current article is interesting. Most constitutional rights applying to states that people recognize today arose out of DP not EP: right to abortion; right to birth control; etc...plus basically the rights referred to in the bill of rights. EP issues usually only arises in matters like discrimination. Reliance on EP has expanded. For example advocates of homosexual rights used to primarily argue for the recognition of homosexual unions under DP now also argue that recognition of homosexual unions should be recognized under the EP clause. B 22:39 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC)

---

"The framers' main intent was to ensure equal protection regardless of race, while including some protection of the right to vote." This has to be changed. First, there was no "main intent," for every section there were at least two main intents. Second, even if we were to name one or two, there is no reason we would name these over others. Many scholars would argue that the "main intent" was to enforce the Bill of Rights against the States. (See Michael Kent Curtis, "No State Shall Abridge") Third, while those that wrote the amendment certainly wanted to protect the right to vote they fell FAR short of consensus on the topic, which is why there is no protection for the right, but only consequences in rerpresentation for its denial. On January 22, in committee, it was proposed that the amendment protect the vote outright. This proposal got 2 yeas, and 10 nays. (See Benjamin B. Kendrick, "The Journal of the Joint Committee of Fifteen on Reconstruction, pg. 55)

---

I think that there is one very important outcome of the Fourteenth Amendment that deserves mention in the main article: U.S. corporations have come to be defined as virtual 'persons' under this law. Under this interpretation, the right of a corporation to make advertising claims or to contribute to political campaigns are protected in the same manner as an individual person's free speech or political activity. The implications for U.S. society and for the world have been enormous.

Before this interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment became entrenched, corporations existed under state charters. People took it for granted that corporations could and should be regulated as governments saw fit. It is a matter of vigorous and important debate whether the former approach is better than our current situation. The Wikipedia article should, I think, make reference to this issue and provide links to related sites.

History of the text??

Given that this one has had such huge implications for the US legal system, it would be nice if somebody in the know could write a bit about the history of its writing and passing: who suggested it, who wrote the text, why was it worded the vague way it is, etc. -- 84.57.71.188 09:42, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The principal framer was Rep. John Bingham (R-Ohio), called by Hugo Black among others, "the Madison of the Fourteenth Amendment" in his dissent in Adamson v. California. The history of its writing and passing and its later fate are entwined in a complicated and very important way in the tragic history of later (mis)interpretation. By very circuitous routes, it has pretty much returned to its original understanding (largely through the "activist" Warren Court and its "activist" predecessors.) It originally and was explicitly stated by Bingham in Congress - and manifestly - was meant to overturn Barron v. Baltimore and was intended to essentially apply the Bill of Rights to the states by the "privileges and immunities" clause. Unfortunately the Slaughterhouse Cases utterly screwed up the law, made the P & I clause a dead letter, and the courts had to take over a century to stretch the due process and equal protection clauses - that's why the writing seems vague - to do the work intended for the P & I clause. Black was made fun of at the time, with a supposed "refutation" by Charles Fairman, but subsequent work has shown he was basically right in his book-length dissent covering the history of the 14th. Akhil Amar's Bill of Rights is a/the standard first rate work with a lot of history - see if I can find where it went on my shelves - I clearly have expressed a POV here, but I don't think it wrong to say that the main trend in law and scholarship has been as I say.--John Z 21:17, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The principal framer was Rep. John Bingham (R-Ohio), called by Hugo Black among others, "the Madison of the Fourteenth Amendment" in his dissent in Adamson v. California. There were multiple versions of the Amendment proposed to the committee responsible for its creation. The first version would have required equal protection of a set of rights that would have been defined by an act of Congress. Concern by Republicans that a later Congress, dominated by Democrats, would use this new Congressional authority in ways that the Republicans would disaprove of, Bingham changed the wording from a positive grant of legislative authority to a negative restriction on the rights of the States to violate the "Privilages and Immunities" of the citizens of the United States, or deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

For an excellent overview of the intent and understandings of the drafters and those that voted on the amendment in Congress see Chapter 7 "The Intentions of the Drafters of Section One" of Earl M. Maltz's book "Civil Rights, The Constitution, and Congress, 1863-1869." The conclusion drawn in this book is that Bingham (the author of the amendment) and Howard (the representative who reported the bill from committee) almost certainly considered the rights of the first 8 Amendments to be incorportated into the concept of "Privilages and Immunities," while it is suspect that their contemporaries agreed. Other authors of note on the subject include Charles Fairman, Raoul Berger, James E. Bond, and Michael Kent Curtis

After first reading the 14th Amendment to grant Congress only the authority to enforce the rights found in the Civil Rights Bill, the Court (beginning with a dissent by Hugo Black) has embraced the concept of incorporation. However, while the framers of the Amendment most likely intended any incorporation to be accomplished by the Privilages and Immunities clause, the later courts have read nearly all of the Bill of rights (and other rights as well) into the Due Process clause. It originally and was explicitly stated by Bingham in Congress was meant to overturn Barron v. Baltimore and was intended to essentially apply the Bill of Rights to the states by the "privileges and immunities" clause ("the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States ... are cheifly defined in the first eight amendments to the Constitution of the United States" - Bingham, followed by a verbatim reading of the first eight amendments; Congressional Globe, 42nd Congress, 1st Session, app. 84 1871 - Note this statement was made after ratificaton). Bingham believed that the States were already restricted from violating the rights found in the first 8 Amendments by virture of the Comity Clause and the Due Process requirement of the Fifth Amendment, and the incorporation of the Bill of Rights by the Fourteenth Amendment was simply a restatement of the law, properly understood. Unfortunately the Slaughterhouse Cases, which based the interpretation of "Privilages and Immunities" on an earlier discussion of the meaning of these terms found in Confield v. Coryell, made the P & I clause a dead letter, and the courts had to take over a century to stretch the due process and equal protection clauses - that's why the writing seems vague - to do the work intended for the P & I clause. Black was made fun of at the time, with a supposed "refutation" by Charles Fairman, but he has been vindicated by history. Akhil Amar's Bill of Rights is a/the standard first rate work with a lot of history - see if I can find where it went on my shelves - I clearly have expressed a POV here, but I don't think it wrong to say that the main trend in law and scholarship has been as I say.--John Z 21:17, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) (as altered by anonymous user, 23:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC))

Corporations, "legal person" under the Fourteenth Amendment

It would be nice to see some entries on this.

These might help

• "The Corporate Return to Power"
• "Natural vs Artificial Persons"

--Pointyfingers 16:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I concur--leaving out the late 19th century Supreme Court case that made corporations people makes this article very incomplete, to say the least. Far more than upholding civil rights, the 14th A. has been used to corporatize the U.S. funkendub 16:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

This would be essential - I just started reading Thom Hartmann's book, "Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights" and he quotes a Supreme Court justice complaining that the 14th Amendment had been used far more often to defend corporate interests (and this was in the 50s) than to pursue civil rights for the freed slaves. This issue is also what allows companies to lobby under the "freedom of speech" rights meant for flesh-and-blood people. - Carter —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.158.70.254 (talk) 21:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

Exclusion of Native Americans

Someone should note that Native Americans were excluded from this amendment untill Standing Bear brought the matter to court in 1879. Also note that there was a trial to decide whether or not an Indian was a person and could bring suit against the government.

I just feel that this should be mentioned as I see it has been oddly omitted.

The 39th Congress had no intention of including Indians. They considered "subject" to mean "fully and completely subject." In light of the recorded debates I am astonished that there could be any question on the subject. See The Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, First Session, May 30th, Page 2897 at Mr. Williams. Notice that Howard, a member of the Joint Committee of Fifteen, certainly disagrees that Indians are included.

• 1) Actually, american indians (of untaxed tribes) were never included under the 14th Amendment. Some tribes were citizens, some weren't. This didn't change until 1924, when all indians were granted citizenship by an Act of Congress.
• 2) The dissenting opinion in Elk v. Wilkins was based on a literal reading of the amendment. If one was born in the United States, under any circumstance, and later subjected themself to the complete jurisdiction of the US, they would be a natural born citizen.--Magic pumpkin 00:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment on external links and POV

I am going to restore the external links that were removed by an anonymous user with the edit summary: "removed extremely biased external links". I've written this elsewhere before, and I suspect I've written this with better elegance elsewhere as well. But while the Wikipedia articles themselves should be unbiased, our sources, and our pointers for additional reading need not be. In fact, getting our information from a great diversity of views is our best way to combat bias. So we should not be deleting external links; rather, if we find the links leaning to much to one point of view, we should be adding other links that lean to other points of view.

— DLJessup 05:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

While I agree with the principle you state, I do not think it is appropriately applied here. The problems I would see with the linked articles -- and I cannot determine whether the original deleter recognized this -- is that they are drawn from the most polarized extremes of political debate, excluding mainstream commentary entirely, and that the issues they principally discuss are not significantly reflected in the main text. They are also not very good, particularly with regard to historical accuracy. The Hammerstrom piece is almost diametrically opposed to the other two linked pieces, so the issue should not be over balance per se. (The other two pieces are essentially from the same source, as LewRockwell.com is operated by the founder of the von Mises institute; linking to both simply gives double recognition for a single point of view (and a fringe POV at that).)

I have therefore deleted the links (again); the low quality of the essays, their partisan sources, and their lack of substantive relation to the discussion actually contained in the article justify, I believe, this decision. Judge Magney 19:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I find that I too support this view. If a source is of substantially poor quality or applicability, it should not be referenced. However, I find it unwise to leave the determination of quality to one individual. Someone referencing a highly opinionated source may themselves be opinionated, but the person removing that source may be equally, and oppositely, opinionated. Just my two cents, no action here.--Magic pumpkin 00:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Right to vote

"Though the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment did not believe the Amendment would create new political rights" This statement is misleading and should be changed. It doesn't seem to have any bearing on the 'one man one vote' topic that it introduces, and while it is logically correct, it implies a certain perspective on constitutional jurisprudence that is not accurately attributed to all 'framers of the Fourteenth Amendment.'

The fourteenth amendment was not understood to protect voting rights, nor was it intended to do so. See Harlan's dissent, in Reynolds v. Sims. WikiAce 01:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

This assertion is obviously incorrect. Section 2 of the Amendment expressly penalizes states whose actions "deny", or "abridge" (to male citizens, reflecting prevailing law at the time) "the right to vote." Judge Magney 17:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Subtracting them from apportionment does not really 'protect' their right to vote. Did the fact that slaves used to count as only three-fifths of a person protect their right to vote? It's irrelevant anyway, as section 2 is a separate matter. The article refers to the equal protection clause as protecting voting rights, which is historically inaccurate. The very fact that the amendment proscribes effects for denying voting rights to male citizens over the age of 21 proves that the amendment does not ban their being denied the right to vote. WikiAce 17:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The idea that section 2 does not 'protect' voting rights (good call JM - I deserve a d'oh for not remembering the obvious) is eccentric. Do laws against murder not protect (prospective) murder victims because they only penalize murderers rather than resurrect corpses? The relevancy of the 3/5 is unclear, and though the wording suggests the EP clause was the one used, it does not say this, it could perhaps be improved, but it is much better and more accurate than the deletion. --John Z 18:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

If the 14's apportionment rule is a 'penalty' for not letting certain people vote, the 3/5 rule was a 'penalty' for not abolishing slavery, since then they would have more representation. You might as well call Virginia only having 11 representatives a penalty for not having more people. I don't really know what's unclear about that. When you use a semicolon, you are continuing a thought—and this article, as it reads now, makes it very clear by implication that the equal protection clause was intended to protect voting rights, which is factually inaccurate. WikiAce 18:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

This is a non-sequitur. The 14th's rule is manifestly a penalty, and of course was considered one at the time. No one has ever considered it anything different from what it very, very plainly is. Your point with the 3/5th clause is obscure. It is not clear to me that you understand it - the fact that the slave states did not get the "1" they wanted and had to settle for "3/5" (while the anti-slavery forces did not get the counting of blacks as zero that they wanted) could be considered as a penalty for slavery in the eyes of abolitionists and posterity, yes. The word penalty and your argument regarding Viriginia is silly - shenanigans with votes and keeping slaves are nowadays and in 1868 thought to be bad things, unlike absence of people. Unlike you, I am not sure that the EP was not so intended. I'd have to check with the references I cited way above and Foner's Reconstruction at least. I disagree with your point on semicolon usage, but have changed the text to avoid the problem and the suggestion you claim is inaccurate, and now the text makes no real claim subject to reasonable dispute that I can see. --John Z 19:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The change in apportionment was not considered to be a penalty. Even Democrats at the time did not think it was a penalty, but rather attacked it as bare political expediency. The disenfranchisement provision, and the fact that the southern states were forced to ratify the amendment was the penalty. The change in apportionment was a response to the political relatity that, there being no more slaves the South would be counting all of their disenfranchised blacks as 1 instead of 3/5, and therefore would have substantially increased representation in Congress. The Republicans were not willing to have fought a war to increase the represenation of the opposition. Plenty of Republicans would rather have given blacks the right to vote, but this was politically impossible, and would have brought about the total rejection of the Fourteenth Amendment, and would very likely have thrown reconstruction back into the hands of the Democratic President.

IIRC, and the Wiki 15th amendment page lends a little support, at first it was thought that the 14th might be enough to secure the black franchise, while it was only with later experience of voting prevention shenanigans that it was clear that another amendment was necessary.--John Z 19:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

In the House, Thaddeus Stevens introduced debate on the amendment by noting it fell short of his wishes:

"I believe it is all that can be obtained in the present state of public opinion. Not only Congress but the several States are to be consulted. Upon a careful survey of the whole ground, we did not believe that nineteen of the loyal States could be induced to ratify any proposition more stringent than this."

Justice Harlan noted that in explanation of this belief, Stevens asked the House to remember "that three months since, and more, the committee reported and the House adopted a proposed amendment fixing the basis of representation in such way as would surely have secured the enfranchisement of every citizen at no distant period," but that proposal had been rejected by the Senate.

Stevens explained the impact of the equal protection clause with these words:

"This amendment . . . allows Congress to correct the unjust legislation of the States, so far that the law which operates upon one man shall operate equally upon all. Whatever law punishes a white man for a crime shall punish the black man precisely in the same way and to the same degree. Whatever law protects the white man shall afford `equal' protection to the black man. Whatever means of redress is afforded to one shall be afforded to all. Whatever law allows the white man to testify in court shall allow the man of color to do the same. These are great advantages over their present codes. Now different degrees of punishment are inflicted, not on account of the magnitude of the crime, but according to the color of the skin. Now color disqualifies a man from testifying in courts, or being tried in the same way as white men. I need not enumerate these partial and oppressive laws. Unless the Constitution should restrain them those States will all, I fear, keep up this discrimination, and crush to death the hated freedmen."

He called the second section "the most important in the article." In unmistakable terms, he recognized the power of a State to withhold the right to vote:

"If any State shall exclude any of her adult male citizens from the elective franchise, or abridge that right, she shall forfeit her right to representation in the same proportion. The effect of this provision will be either to compel the States to grant universal suffrage or so to shear them of their power as to keep them forever in a hopeless minority in the national Government, both legislative and executive."

Mr. Bingham:

"The amendment does not give, as the second section shows, the power to Congress of regulating suffrage in the several States."

Senator Howard, also a member of the Committee, explained the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause as follows:

"The last two clauses of the first section of the amendment disable a State from depriving not merely a citizen of the United States, but any person, whoever he may be, of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or from denying to him the equal protection of the laws of the State. This abolishes all class legislation in the States and does away with the injustice of subjecting one caste of persons to a code not applicable to another. It prohibits the hanging of a black man for a crime for which the white man is not to be hanged. It protects the black man in his fundamental rights as a citizen with the same shield which it throws over the white man. Is it not time, Mr. President, that we extend to the black man, I had almost called it the poor privilege of the equal protection of the law?"

Continued: "But, sir, the first section of the proposed amendment does not give to either of these classes the right of voting. The right of suffrage is not, in law, one of the privileges or immunities thus secured by the Constitution. It is merely the creature of law. It has always been regarded in this country as the result of positive local law, not regarded as one of those fundamental rights lying at the basis of all society and without which a people cannot exist except as slaves, subject to a depotism."

So no, the amendment was not understood to confer voting rights upon anyone. Please back up your assertion of the contrary. WikiAce 19:35, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

At most, what you show demonstrates the falsehood of what is not claimed in the article, that the EP protected the right to vote. These quotes make quite clear that section 2 was so intended, which is what the article says, more clearly now. I hope this is OK. It never said "confer voting rights" As I note below, 14th amendment original intent scholarship has greatly changed since Harlan's time, and I will have to look at more recent sources that look more extensively at the full debates to be more sure that your EP (or P& I) point is correct. --John Z 19:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

As I noted above in talk, the understanding of the 14th amendment soon after it was passed was violently different from its original understanding and intent, the modern understanding being much closer to the original one. I believe there is some basis for the sentence you deleted. If I can ever find my books and the time, I might even put it back, with references. :-) --John Z 02:35, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Removal of "Application" section

The text that was added was facially incorrect. Section 1 applies to the federal government and, as I recall, has been applied by the Supreme Court to invalidate some Congressional legislation regarding deprivation of citizenship (e.g., depriving a native-born citizen of national citizenship for voting in a foreign election.) Section 2, by its own terms, requires a change in Congressional apportionment under specified circumstances. Section 3 barred a class of individuals from federal office. Section 4 barred the federal government from assuming any Confederate debt. Section 5 empowered Congress to enforce the other provisions of the amendment. Rather than attempting to guess the editor's original intentions and reconstructing a text, I have deleted the new section entirely to allow him/her a clean slate to (re)write on. Judge Magney 12:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Topical points

In the interests of putting some topical impications of the 14th amendment - perhaps a fit a section on some of the every day implications.

Such as: Non-US citizens who have a child in the US, legally now have a child who is a US citizen.

I have added more detail on the two High Court cases, Elk v. Wilkins and United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which frame the issue of jus soli. Personally, I and many of my foreign friends are admirable of the United State's acceptance of the US-born children of non-citizens, as citizens. Many counries simply don't do this. That being said; the added material may be objectionable to some people, such as the US-born children of illegal aliens. I have only reported what is contained within the two rulings. Both rulings are very explicit to the matters which were before the Court. Elk v. Wilkins explicitly applies itself to american indians, and Wong Kim Ark (WKA) explicitly applies itself to people legally within the territory of the United States. This may be particularly contentious, because many people cite WKA as proof that the children of illegal aliens are US citizens; however, it makes no such finding. If anything, WKA enumerates who are citizens, and the children of illegal entrants are not included in the list. In short, no whining, gross role backs, or out-of-context quotes, please.

Also, there is a statement, "implicit is meaningless". Chief Justice Marshall once said, in a ruling, that the Court only rules on the matter at hand, and that the ruling is only applicable to that situation. I cannot remember which case that was. If anyone can, please put a reference to it there, as it seems most appropriate to the content.--Magic pumpkin 01:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The 14th Amendment was not ratified

The 14th Amendment was never ratified
Fifteen (15) States out of the then thirty-seven (37) States of the Union rejected the proposed 14th Amendment between the date of its submission to the States by the Secretary of State on June 16, 1866 and March 24, 1868, thereby further nullifying said resolution and making it impossible for its ratification by the constitutionally required three-fourths of such States, as shown by the rejections thereof by the Legislatures of the following states:

Texas rejected the 14th Amendment on Oct. 27, 1866.

Georgia rejected the 14th Amendment on Nov. 9, 1866.
Florida rejected the 14th Amendment on Dec. 6, 1866.
Alabama rejected the 14th Amendment on Dec. 7, 1866.
North Carolina rejected the 14th Amendment on Dec. 14, 1866.
Arkansas rejected the 14th Amendment on Dec. 17, 1866.
South Carolina rejected the 14th Amendment on Dec. 20, 1866.
Kentucky rejected the 14th Amendment on Jan. 8, 1867.
Virginia rejected the 14th Amendment on Jan. 9, 1867.
Louisiana rejected the 14th Amendment on Feb. 6, 1867.
Delaware rejected the 14th Amendment on Feb. 7, 1867.
Maryland rejected the l4th amendment on Mar. 23, 1867.
Mississippi rejected the 14th Amendment on Jan. 31, 1867.
Ohio rejected the 14th amendment on Jan. 16, 1868.

New Jersey rejected the 14th Amendment on Mar. 24, 1868.

For More Info Read These Links

Link #1 (Great Overview!)
Link #2
Link #3

— Preceding unsigned comment added by NarrowPathPilgrim (talk • contribs) 22:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

One can undoubtedly contend the validity of the 14th Amendment, as evidenced by the informative links provided above. However, it is nevertheless important to maintain a certain degree of neutrality in this article, and the underlining of contentious points should be used only sparingly.

The author of Link #1's page states that "The federal courts actually refuse to hear argument on the invalidity of the 14th Amendment, even when the issue is presented squarely by the pleadings and the evidence as above." Indeed, until a different decision is reached, the 14th Amendment remains a part of the U.S. Constitution, and people will continue to rely on it.

<Expletive deleted> the barefootsworld article! I had looked up the reference for Florida (because it's not listed in this article as having rejected the amendment prior to ratification, unlike the barefootsworld article), and it cited "House Journal" and "Senate Journal". I, of course, immediately look up the House Journal and Senate Journal and find nothing there about Florida ratification. So I'm about to write up a harangue about the barefootsworld article, when I realize—the barefootsworld article author was referring to the Florida House and Senate Journals.

— DLJessup (talk) 06:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The controversy over the Fourteenth Amendment and its ratification requires a page of its own. The tidbit in the article doesn't do it justice in the least. Another's comment about the neutrality of Wikipedia is not being reflected, the two viewpoints involving the validity of the Amendment. Being a relatively new user I would not be able to do this effectively and I hope others will be able to. 67.171.43.170 02:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a marginal topic not worthy of a separate article. There is no mainstream discussion of this issue, nor is it taken seriously (if at all discussed) in academia. It's akin to the claims that paying federal income tax is voluntary. The fact that federal courts refuse to hear argument on the issue does not mean that it's up in the air, it means they consider challenges to its ratification frivolous. Postdlf, law school graduate, 03:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

P.S., not that it's really worth the time to respond to those claims, but please note that the 14th Amendment did not contain a time limit on ratification, so I don't know how the March 24, 1868 date could be significant as a cut-off. From the list above of initial rejectees, Georgia subsequently ratified July 21, 1868 and again on February 2, 1870; Florida ratified June 9, 1868, Alabama ratified July 13, 1868, North Carolina ratified July 2, 1868, Arkansas ratified April 6, 1868, South Carolina ratified July 8, 1868, Kentucky ratified March 18, 1976, Virginia ratified October 8, 1869, Louisiana ratified July 9, 1868, Delaware ratified February 12, 1901, Maryland ratified 1959, and Mississippi ratified January 17, 1870.

Even if Ohio and New Jersey's "withdrawal" of their ratifications were effective (which is questionable, to say the least), Ohio re-ratified September 17, 2003, and New Jersey re-ratified November 12, 1980. All states have now ratified it without a doubt, so the claim that it was never ratified is patently false. And even if those two withdrawals were initially effective, then the biggest consequence is that the Amendment was effective on July 21, 1868, when Georgia, the 28th state not counting Ohio and New Jersey ratified (Alabama also had ratified in the interim), not on July 9, 1868.[1] Postdlf 04:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The quote from Ackerman is a complete mischaracterization of what his point is. Ackerman is trying to illustrate the revolutionary nature of the Amendment, not question its legitimacy.

The so-called Fourteenth Amendment was not ratified: [2]Burk Hale 17:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

A Georgian resolution isn't a reliable source for the proposition that the Fourteenth Amendment was never ratified. The only possible reliable source on point, methinks, would be SCOTUS (at least for the flat out proposition that the 14th Amendment wasn't ratified; the GA resolution is certainly evidence that segregated GA of the 1950s believed the 14th was never ratified, but your comment here didn't include such a qualifier). Additionally, one Wikipedia article cannot serve as a source for another Wikipedia article, as Wikipedia is not a reliable source. · j e r s y k o talk · 18:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

A Wikipedia editor isn't a reliable source for the proposition that Georgia law enacted to establish its legal position (and not states have disproved the 1957 Georgia Memorial to Congress in any legal manner) on it's (or other states it references) ratification is unreliable, especially when the Georgia law has not been disproved by the U.S. government for over 50 years and the U.S. government has acquiesced and admitted to the Georgia Memorial by their silence and failure to respond (DEFAULT). The reference to the Wikipedia article in this article should not have been assumed to have been used as a "reliable source" for non-ratification. It was used as other Wikipedia references are commonly used. The bias is obvious as Jersyko persists in stating the memorial is merely a resolution when in fact it has been verified as Georgia Law. Jerseyko's propensity towards segregation issues reveals the direction of the spin employed to avoid the simple facts stated regarding the false ratification, and is typical of those that persist in such political correct agendas. The Georgia Memorial to Congress does not address any politically correct agenda either way, and simply makes note of subversive acts in violation to the Constitution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burk Hale (talk • contribs) (on 9 April 2007)

Dear fellow editors: The repeated POV pushing by user Burk Hale has already been addressed in detail at the talk page for 1957 Georgia Memorial to Congress. Yours, Famspear 21:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors: Famspear enlarges the shadow on the so-called 14th amendment and the US government by political correctness, and his comments have indeed been addressed and refuted at the talk page for 1957 Georgia Memorial to Congress as well. Famspear means to make a personal matter out of this, but I prefer to end that here if possible, and simple state that the truth stands on its own, and that the article here is non-neutral in its avoidance of facts that prove that it was not properly ratified. Also, I'd like to point out that bringing up the 1957 Georgia Memorial to Congress was only meant to encourage valid discussion on the POV issue with this article.Burk Hale 00:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Reversal of Dred Scott

User 69.230.64.206 just deleted the paragraph explaining that the first clause of the Amendment was intended to reverse Dred Scott. Unless there is a very convincing argument for this, I suggest that it be reinserted. Grover cleveland 16:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Reinserted a modified version of the deleted material that I think fits in better with the structure of the article. Feel free to improve. Grover cleveland 15:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed this sentence since it didn't seem to add anything to the discussion:

The phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is enclosed within a pair of commas, with the first comma placed before the coordinating conjunction "and."

If you want to reinsert it in the article, please explain what implication this rather obvious fact has for the interpretation of the Amendment. Grover cleveland 12:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a comparatively minor debate about whether "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is a restrictive or nonrestrictive clause, and does that difference alter the intended definition of who was included and who was excluded from being a citizen. The phrase occasionally pops up during the debate over so-called "anchor babies," as well as debates over whether suspected terrorists who were born in the United States to foreign citizens ought to be treated differently than other terrorism detainees. It is also a favorite argument of those who believe that compliance with U.S. law is voluntary. --Weazie 22:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Relevance of a Utah Supreme Court decision regarding a bad check conviction?

Regarding the following language in the article:

In the case of Dyett v. Turner, 439 P.2d 266 (1968) the Supreme Court said:

"In order to have 27 states ratify the Fourteenth Amendment, it was necessary to count those states which had first rejected and then under the duress of military occupation had ratified, and then also to count those states which initially ratified but subsequently rejected the proposal.

To leave such dishonest counting to a fractional part of Congress is dangerous in the extreme. What is to prevent any political party having control of both houses of Congress from refusing to seat the opposition and then without more passing a joint resolution to the effect that the Constitution is amended and that it is the duty of the Administrator of the General Services Administration to proclaim the adoption? Would the Supreme Court of the United States still say the problem was political and refuse to determine whether constitutional standards had been met?

How can it be conceived in the minds of anyone that a combination of powerful states can by force of arms deny another state a right to have representation in Congress until it has ratified an amendment which its people oppose? The Fourteenth Amendment was adopted by means almost as bad as that suggested above."

First, as any lawyer can see, the citation is obviously wrong or incomplete. Second, I do not have easy access to the Pacific Reporter, so someone else may be able to check this faster than I can. However, the "Supreme Court" in question apparently is the highest court of the State of UTAH -- not the United States Supreme Court. Third, this verbiage appears to be obiter dicta in a case involving a bad check conviction, perhaps only tangentially related to the Fourteenth Amendment. The case is printed in various unofficial places on the internet, but I don't trust the web sites. I will try to get a copy of the decision and find out what this is, but I can't deal with it right now. In the mean time, saying this is a "Supreme Court" case in an encyclopedia article -- without more explanation -- is TOTALLY misleading! I argue that the average person would incorrectly assume that this verbiage is from a United States Supreme Court case. Maybe someone else can clean this up before I get to it, though. Yours, Famspear 03:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The quote is accurate, as is your conclusion that it was dicta. The case was a 1968 habeas corpus decision by the Utah Supreme Court, most of which is an irrelevant and irreverant blast of resentment against the "social reformer" Supreme Court for attacking state sovereignty through its contemporary expansion of individual rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. "In regard to the Fourteenth Amendment, which the present Supreme Court of the United States has by decision chosen as the basis for invading the rights and prerogatives of the sovereign states, it is appropriate to look at the means and methods by which that amendment was foisted upon the Nation in times of emotional stress. We have no desire at this time to have the Fourteenth Amendment declared unconstitutional. In fact, we are not asked to do that. We merely want to show what type of a horse that Court has to ride in order to justify its usurpation of the prerogatives of the states." 439 P.2d at 269. Except for three District Court of Utah decisions, only Utah state courts have ever cited to this decision. Two of those three federal decisions cited to it only to clarify that they did not believe the Utah Supreme Court was suggesting that it was not bound to follow SCOTUS precedent; the third was simply the federal habeas proceedings for the same prisoner, Dyett, in tandem with the state court proceedings, and that federal decision didn't refer to the Utah court's 14th Amendment ramblings. Postdlf 05:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Postdlf: Thanks for the enlightenment, and for the corrections to the article! Yours, Famspear 13:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Fourteenth Amendment and the Corporation

Since the Fourtheenth Amendment is the go-to law when it comes to understanding the origins of the modern Corporation (specifically corporate personhood) shouldn't there be a seperate section in the article about the impact the Fourteenth Amendment has had upon Corporate Law rather than two paragraphs in the Civil Rights section? The Fading Light 16:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe not; there are extensive comments on talk:corporate personhood about how the Court did not use the 14th to create the concept of corporate personhood, but instead found that corporations were encompassed by the term "person" in the 14th. I'm not an expert in this area by any means (worst law school class ever), but that at least suggests that the interpretations of the 14th didn't change the law of corporations as much as the law of corporations changed how the 14th is interpreted. Postdlf 17:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Two more areas for possible discussion

At present, the only discussion of implications for immigrants (legal and otherwise) seems to be that of their children's citizenship. However, in the 1990s, this amendment came up in the context of anti-"illegal alien" and anti-immigrant legislation such as Proposition 187 with respect to denying of equal protection for non-citizens within U.S. borders, especially those unlawfully present. I'd like to see this discussed in the article, but lack the credentials to do it up right.

Also, doesn't the topic of Japanese-American internment with respect to this amendment at least deserve a *little* mention beyond the link at the end to Korematsu? Again, I couldn't do it justice, but it surprised me not to see it discussed. Lawikitejana 19:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merge

I'm proposing that all content regarding Anchor babies be merged with the Anchor babies article.71.74.209.82 21:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Section 3 -- Participants in rebellion

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm not sure about this: "The third section prevents the election of any person to the Congress or Electoral College who has engaged in insurrection, rebellion, or treason."

Below is the text:

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

It specifically says, "who, having previously taken an oath, as," and then goes on to list certain positions. I read that as being more limited than "any person" ... "who has engaged in insurrection, rebellion, or treason." Maurreen 16:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

What is your question in reference to? Have you seen it quoted this way somewhere? Stick to the Facts 04:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

GA status

Did this article have a good article review, per Good article candidates? If not, the {{GA}} tag and the listing on Wikipedia:Good articles should be removed. Thanks. Twinxor t 22:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the page histories, it seems the GA tag was added by Quadell on December 14, 2005. Presumably Quadell evaluated the article per GA criteria and found that it passed, but did not leave any comments (there isn't any other, more formal review process). The article was listed as GA by Llywrch on December 15, 2005 (they weren't used the Candidates subpage at that point). If you disagree, you can list it at Wikipedia:Good articles/Review. schi ^talk 23:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Proof of invalidity? Please

I'm pretty sure that section lacks neutral POV, and really doesn't 'prove' anything, other than the desperation of Georgia to resist the expansion of Civil Rights. I really don't think that section is appropiate to this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.149.104.196 (talk) 23:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

Court packing

I removed the following fragment from the article:

However, it is important to note that as popular as Roosevelt was, his court packing plan failed miserably because it was seen as fundamentally changing the blueprint of the government. Also, we must note Footnote 4 of the Carolene Products case, in which the Supreme Court already noted the change in their stance, and their desire or at least felt obligation to inflate the balloon of equality rights liberalism opposed to freedom of contract liberalism.

The court packing plan did fail, and it was unpopular, but things might have turned out quite differently if Senator Joe Robinson, on whom FDR depended to get the measure passed, had not died unexpectedly. So let's avoid that tone of historic certainty that things had to turn out the way they did because . . . they did.

The second sentence is not only oddly written (balloons?) but wrong--Carolene Products came out in 1938.

I would also take issue with the statement

Though the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment did not believe the Amendment would create new political rights (leading to the passage of the Fifteenth Amendment, protecting the right of blacks to vote on equal terms with whites), . . .

but I will leave that to someone with more knowledge in this area. The fact that Congress found it necessary to draft the Fifteenth Amendment to secure the voting rights of freed slaves does not necessarily mean that they did not intend to "create" political rights for them in the Fourteenth; after all, the new national citizenship was as significant a political right as can be imagined. Italo Svevo 22:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Clarified, "voting rights." Hope you like. Rocketfairy 20:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Summarizing Section on "Citizenship and Civil Rights"

I've just inserted links to the main articles, at the start of the section titled "Citizenship and Civil Rights". Since there are main articles to link to, it seems like this section can be trimmed down a bit.Ferrylodge 05:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Swayne quote

Anyone else feel the Swayne quote is a bit too esoteric for a presumed lay readership? Can we find a more timely or lively reference point to what is doubtless the most important change in U.S. Constitutional history? Rocketfairy 20:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I like the Swayne quote. Here's what the article says:

"The other two post-Civil War amendments are the Thirteenth Amendment (banning slavery) and the Fifteenth Amendment (banning race-based voting qualifications). According to Supreme Court Justice Noah Swayne, 'Fairly construed, these amendments may be said to rise to the dignity of a new Magna Carta.'"

It doesn't seem esoteric to me. Just about everyone's heard of the Magna Carta, and a wikilink is provided for those who haven't. A wikilink to Swayne is provided too. He was appointed by Abraham Lincoln, and was strongly anti-slavery; he knew what he was talking about when he compared the Civil War Amendments to a new Magna Carta. The Swayne quote may not be recent, but it is certainly timely.Ferrylodge 20:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV TAGS REMOVED - THIS ARTICLE IS UNDER DISPUTE

This article contains non-neutral points of view. Editors have removed content that disputes the ratification of this so-called amendment.Burk Hale 00:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Which editors? The controversy over ratification has a whole subsection, appropriate under WP:NPOV (minority points of view may receive less space and be less prominently placed). Virtually all prominent legal scholars consider the Fourteenth Amendment an Amendment; we don't need to put "purportedly" in front of each mention any more than we need to call Bush the "purported President" because some dispute his election. Readers are welcome to read the controversy section and make up their own minds; we ought not give them the idea that this is an area of major legal dispute. --Rocketfairy 00:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Good question, who is removing the content? You imply that mob rule dictates where content goes, if at all. I'm sure that virtually all legal scholars in Communist China believe murdering dissidents or monks in Tibet is totally fine too. If mob rule determines what is fact and what is not here, then we see here the devolvement of mankind at work. I've witnessed with the 1957 Georgia Memorial to Congress article that the word "purported" was demanded by editors if content was not established as a verifiable fact. What's the difference here with this article (that has been clearly shown the so-called 14th Amendment was not ratified in the discussion section)? It IS a major legal dispute. 12 Southern state governments were subversively overthrown to force this amendment upon all the states. "Purported" goes back in the article.Burk Hale 01:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Burk, you are welcome to characterize Wikipedia policies as requiring mob rule, but they are nevertheless the policies at issue: "We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view," per WP:WEIGHT. Does anyone on the federal bench dispute ratification? Does the dean of any major law school? Reality may not operate by consensus, but Wikipedia does, so statements such as "'Purported' goes back in the article" don't comport with Wikipedia's process. --Rocketfairy 01:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Burk Hale: I would argue that a "legal dispute" is a dispute that is actually being handled through the legal system. Unless you can come up with an example of a current dispute in a court of law regarding the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, there is no current "legal dispute" about ratification. If a court or similar forum is not currently being used, then not only is there no major legal dispute, there is no legal dispute at all.

There may of course be a historical dispute about the topic -- a controversy between or among historians, etc. I think the article already addresss that to some degree.

I have not personally researched the matter, but I know of no court decision where the Fourteenth Amendment (or indeed any of the twenty-seven amendments certified as having been ratified) has ever been specifically ruled to have been "not properly ratified." If there is such an example, then perhaps it should be cited. Hint: Dicta in Dyett v. Turner, the Utah Supreme Court case you have cited over and over in the article on the 1957 Georgia Memorial to Congress, is not a ruling on the Fourteenth Amendment -- or on anything else.

You say that "[t]his article contains non-neutral points of view." If so, so what? Contrary to what you seem to be implying, the Wikipedia concept of neutral point of view does not require that an article not contain non-neutral viewpoints. The Wikipedia concept of neutral point of view means that varying, competing views, even wildly opposing views, may indeed be presented -- but that all views must be presented so that Wikipedia itself does not take an express position that "this view is correct" or "that view is incorrect." Wikipedia rules do require, however, that minority viewpoints be presented for what they are: minority viewpoints.

An article on the Fourteenth Amendment can include information about the certification of the ratification of that amendment as well as information about what people have argued about that point.

If you would like to point out specific language that you believe represents a non-neutral presentation, then Wikipedia editors can discuss that.

Your argument -- which you have presented in the Georgia resolution article and its talk page -- essentially is that (1) a 1957 Georgia legislature resolution complaining of faults in the ratification process and asking the Congress to declare the Amendment invalid, and (2) non-binding dicta in a Utah Supreme Court case, and (3) the failure of the Federal government to "respond" to the Georgia resolution, somehow combine in some way to result in the legal invalidation of the Fourteenth Amendment -- is an extreme fringe, minority viewpoint and is, bluntly, legally frivolous. This is simply your own personal theory, your own unverifiable original research. And you are attempting to re-write this article, as you are attempting again with the article on the 1957 Georgia Memorial to Congress, to reflect your own vision -- to right what you see as the wrong engendered in the ratification process. Yours, Famspear 02:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

A minor issue, but removing policy tags like {{NPOV}} is only improper if they were placed in good faith and consensus has not developed for their removal. It is not improper to remove a policy tag placed in bad faith, in violation of WP:POINT, or if consensus clearly favors removal. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• I removed the tag. "article does not have a neutral point of view" is not the same thing as "article does not have my point of view". Right now we appear to be dealing with the latter and not the former. One editor continually adding the tag back because he disagrees with WP:CONSENSUS could be seen as disruptive WP:POINT making as Jersyko (talk · contribs) stated above.--Isotope23 14:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I replaced the tag as this article is under dispute in good faith, and the tags placed by me are based on sound, verifiable documentation [3][4]. The so-called 14th Amendment was not ratified, and the article gives the OPINION that it was. If Consensus (or MOB RULE) is the basis for verification on this website, then there is no such thing as good faith on this website. FACT: The so-called 14th Amendment was illegally "declared" ratified by an illegal executive order after the Congress was subverted by the "Radical Republicans" (puppets). You will find that the duely representative states (not the puppet subversive organizations under the thumb of the new subversive federal government) REJECTED the so-called 14th Amendment.Burk Hale 16:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Burk, your weighted characterizations aren't doing much to build support for your position. Again, WP:WEIGHT requires that prominence be given to ideas in proportion to how widely they are held. If you'd like to place your position more prominently, please show evidence that it is (1) widely held by experts (say, by law review citations, statements from federal judges or law school deans), or (2) objectively right (say, by citations rather than increasingly hostile invective). (See also.)

Again: If you want to call Wikipedia policies "mob rule," so be it. The Internet is a big place and you are welcome to start the site of your choice with the policies of your choice. If you'd like to edit Wikipedia, please heed the relevant policies. You are, of course, invited to criticize them as well. --Rocketfairy 00:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

While I appreciate Burke Hale bringing the interesting Georgia Memorial of 1957 to Wikipedia, his repeated attempts to push his POV, ignoring several policies including those on concensus and original research, lead me to believe that he will never stop trying to push his theories unless he is blocked from editing the appropriate articles. He's clearly not willing to be reasoned with, claiming he has refuted others when he has done nothing of the kind and refusing to listen when people point out the flaws in his original research. Edward321 05:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)