2.4 History and Legal Elements of the 14th Amendment
Amendment XIV
14th Amendment
Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and 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.
The 14th Amendment reflected the Radical Republicans determination that southern states should not be re-admitted to the Union and Congress without additional guarantees. The 14th Amendment also sought to reflect the Radical Republican’s view that the rights of the newly freed slaves must be protected in the states. Immediately after the Civil War, the southern states had passed Black Codes to control the individual rights of the newly freed slaves. Before the war, southern states had suppressed fundamental rights, including free speech and press, in order to protect the institution of slavery. The Framers of the amendment intentionally drafted the doctrine to protect all PERSONS and not just citizens in the states. This intent on behalf of the Framers included non-citizens as well as citizens. It is the 14th Amendment that provides protection for all individuals on U.S. soil, not just citizens. This action by Congress and the ratification by the states would overturn previous Supreme Court cases and place the national government of the United States and the Constitution into the controlling doctrines of rights in America
In 1833 the United States Supreme Court held in Barron v. Baltimore, that the fundamental rights of the Bill of Rights were not guaranteed to the citizens of the several states. In 1857, the Court held in Dred Scott v. Sanford, that Blacks, including free Blacks, were not citizens and were therefore not entitled to the rights of citizenship upheld under the United States Constitution. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment makes all persons born within the nation citizens both of the United States and of the states where they reside. (reverses the Dred Scott decision) and prohibits states from abridging privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States and from depriving persons of due process of law or unequal protection of the laws. The implied enforcement or “police powers” (over citizen’s rights within the states) granted to the federal government by the 14th overturns the Supreme Court’s holding in Barron v. Baltimore. Justice Hugo Black argues that the intent of the 14th amendment was to give the federal government the power to guarantee in the states, a citizen’s right to the first eight amendments to the Constitution.
Due Process Clause: Procedural and Substantive; included in the 5th and 14th amendments. This clause requires that the federal government not deprive any person of "life, liberty or property without the due process of law" The aim of the doctrine of procedural due process is to assure fair procedures when the government imposes a burden upon an individual. These processes must not abridge an individual’s rights in respect to life, liberty or property. Substantive Due Process seeks to keep an individual free in his personal life from the intrusion of the laws of government. Government laws must not abridge upon the life, liberty, or property on an individual without just cause. The language is reprinted from the 5th into the 14th amendments so that it will also bind the states (reversing Barron)
Privileges and Immunities Clause: No state shall make or enforce any law, which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States. The Privileges and Immunities clause of the 14th is reprinted from Article IV section 2 of the Constitution. Again, the Framers of the 14th sought to establish fundamental rights, rights given by god, to persons living within the states. These rights shall not be abridged by the government or discriminated among the races (and later sexes).
Equal Protection Clause: No State Shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. This was included by the Framers to guarantee the equality of protection of the laws given to blacks and whites. Equality with respect to civil rights meant equal status in the legal relations of the private economy, coupled with the right to enforce that equal status. Equality with respect to political rights was more controversial at the at the outset, with many supporters of equal civil rights opposed to equal voting rights for African Americans. This discrepancy was resolved by the passage of the 15th Amendment.
Equal protection laws can be described in two ways. First, the Court distinguishes between statutes that themselves utilize racial or other 'suspect" classifications, and statutes that though state in non-racial terms, nonetheless have a "disparate impact" on racial minorities. If the statutes use racial terms, they must survive strict scrutiny. The use of racial terms means that the legislature must be trying to promote extremely important social goals and the establishment of racial categories is essential if that goal is to be met. If this is not the objective, then the statutes have created suspect classes. If the statute does not name race classification yet its intent is still to deliver a disparate impact upon minorities, then strict scrutiny will apply. If the statute creates a disparate impact upon minorities but it is as a secondary effect, not the primary intent of the law, then strict scrutiny is not automatically triggered.
Suspect Classification: The Constitution only prohibits discrimination that is invidious, arbitrary, or irrational. The validity of the government action depends largely on the criterion on which the discrimination is based. All other classifications are suspect. The Court has declared that Race and Religion are suspect classes, thus any law that discriminates upon these classes will be deemed unconstitutional. The Court has yet to elevate gender to the level of suspect classification.
Strict Scrutiny: This is triggered when a law discriminates against a class that has fallen under suspect classification or is infringing upon a fundamental right. Under strict scrutiny, the burden of proof is upon the government to prove that the statute that is discriminatory seeks to achieve a compelling government interest, that which is far greater than an individual's rights. Very few laws pass the Strict Scrutiny test.
Intermediate or Heightened Scrutiny or Quasi-Suspect-Classification: This level of scrutiny requires that the government’s intent is only substantially related to an important government interest. This level would regulate social and economic classifications as well as statutes based upon age, sexual orientation, and physical or mental handicaps.
Rational Basis Test: The burden of proof is upon the individual attaching the law to sustain that the law is discriminatory. The justification of the discrimination can advance a social need without discriminating against individuals.
De facto discrimination or segregation- those actions of discrimination or segregation that take place by virtue of custom or social standard but are not enforced by law. Thus, situations of de facto discrimination or segregation can be remedied by an action of an individual or the introduction of legislation.
De jure discrimination or segregation- those actions of discrimination or segregation that are established and upheld by law.