if you want to remove an article from website contact us from top.

    the enforcement clause of the fourteenth amendment states that congress has the authority to

    James

    Guys, does anyone know the answer?

    get the enforcement clause of the fourteenth amendment states that congress has the authority to from EN Bilgi.

    Fourteenth Amendment

    Fourteenth Amendment

    Primary tabs

    Fourteenth Amendment Primary tabs Overview

    The Fourteenth Amendment contains a number of important concepts, most famously state action, privileges & immunities, citizenship, due process, and equal protection—all of which are contained in Section One. However, the Fourteenth Amendment contains four other sections. Section Two deals with the apportionment of representatives to Congress. Section Three forbids anyone who participates in “insurrection or rebellion” against the United States from holding federal office. Section Four addresses federal debt and repudiates debts accrued by the Confederacy. Section Five expressly authorizes Congress to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment “by appropriate legislation.” The states ratified the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 in the immediate aftermath of the American Civil War, along with the other Reconstruction Amendments—the Thirteenth and Fifteenth.

    Citizenship

    Also known as the Naturalization Clause, the Citizenship Clause is contained in Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment. The clause conferred U.S. and state citizenship at birth to all individuals born in the United States.

    African-Americans

    In Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), the Supreme Court held that African Americans were not U.S. citizens, even if they were free.

    The Fourteenth Amendment, however, guaranteed that everyone born or naturalized in the United States and under its jurisdiction would be a United States citizen. It also ensured that federal citizenship was also made primary, which meant that states could not prevent freed slaves from obtaining state citizenship and thus federal citizenship. As such, the Fourteenth Amendment effectively overturned Sanford v. Scott.

    Native Americans

    In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), the Supreme Court held that children born to members of Native American tribes governed by local tribal governments were not automatically granted citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment. Congress, however, granted citizenship to Native Americans in 1924 when it passed the Indian Citizenship Act.

    Chinese-Americans

    In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court held that when a child is born in America to non-citizen Chinese parents, that child is a United States citizen. The Court in Wong Kim also applied that ruling "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States," finding that those persons "are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reisde."

    State Action

    The State Action Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment declares that a state cannot make or enforce any law that abridges the privileges or immunities of any citizen. In the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883), the Supreme Court ruled that the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which prohibited racial discrimination in public accommodations, was unconstitutional because it tried to regulate private actors. The Court decided in United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966) that the Enforcement Clause gave Congress the power to regulate the private of individuals who conspired with state officials to deprive people of their rights under Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment. In later cases, the Courts tried to distance itself from the Guest decision, and in United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000), the Supreme Court rejected Guest, and struck down part of the Violence Against Women Act that provided a civil remedy for victims of sex-related violence.

    The Court also handled a number of cases dealing with racial discrimination by private actors. In Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948), the Supreme Court decided that the judicial enforcement of a private restrictive covenant that prohibited non-Caucasian occupants violated equal protection to a black buyer, even though enforcing private restrictive covenants was generally valid and enforceable. In Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U.S. 715 (1961), a restaurant which leased space in a public parking garage was found to engage in racially discriminatory practices. The Supreme Court, influenced by the fact that the garage was used for public parking, ruled that the restaurant was closely tied to the state in such a way that the discrimination could be considered state action. As such, the Supreme Court decided that the restaurant's discrimination unconstitutionally violated the Equal Protection Clause. The Supreme Court in Reitman v. Mulkey, 387 U.S. 369 (1967) struck down a California constitutional amendment that prohibited enacting any law that restricted an individual from refusing to sell land to a buyer for any reason. The Court’s argument seemed to be that the amendment to the state constitution was a state action violating equal protection.

    In a number of cases, the Court has continued to limit state action claims against private individuals. In Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345 (1974), the Supreme Court ruled that Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply when electric utilities stop service to customers. The Court also determined in Flagg Brothers, Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149 (1978) that there was no Section One liability for a warehouseman selling stored property to make good back payments.

    Privileges and Immunities Clause

    There has been some debate over the meaning of the Privileges and Immunities Clause with several possible original meanings. A question arises as to whether the clause meant that all state laws should be applied equally to its citizens or that state laws should have certain substantive content. The substantive view can be further divided into two categories. One view is that these privileges and immunities include all of the rights in the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights. Thus, this view sees the purpose of the Privileges and Immunities Clause as applying all of the rights in the Constitution to all of the states. Another view is that it only meant to make the Bill of Rights applicable to the states.

    Source : www.law.cornell.edu

    Interpretation: The Fourteenth Amendment Enforcement Clause

    COMMON INTERPRETATION

    COMMON INTERPRETATION The Fourteenth Amendment Enforcement Clause

    by Erwin Chemerinsky

    Dean of Berkeley Law School; Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of California - Berkley Law School

    by Earl M. Maltz

    Distinguished Professor of Law at Rutgers University - Camden

    Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment vests Congress with the authority to adopt “appropriate” legislation to enforce the other parts of the Amendment—most notably, the provisions of Section One. As Senator Jacob M. Howard explained, Section Five “enables Congress, in case the State shall enact laws in conflict with the principles of the amendment, to correct that legislation by a formal congressional enactment.”

    By adding to the authority of Congress, Section Five changed the balance of power between the state and federal governments that is the hallmark of the federal system. The scope of the power conferred by this provision has been a matter of considerable controversy.  Initially, the Supreme Court gave a broad interpretation to Congress’s authority under Section Five. In Ex parte Virginia  (1879), the Court declared:

    Whatever legislation is appropriate, that is, adapted to carry out the objects the amendments have in view, whatever tends to enforce submission to the prohibitions they contain, and to secure to all persons the enjoyment of perfect equality of civil rights and the equal protection of the laws against State denial or invasion, if not prohibited, is brought within the domain of congressional power.

    However, subsequent decisions have at times construed the Section Five power more narrowly. These decisions have focused on two primary issues. First, who may Congress regulate? Second, what may Congress do? The debate over these issues that began in the late-nineteenth century continues to the present day.

    First, who may Congress regulate? In The Civil Rights Cases (1882), the Supreme Court struck down the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1875 that outlawed racial discrimination in a variety of private transactions, noting that Section One by its terms limits only the power of the states, and that therefore Section Five should not be read to provide Congress with the authority to regulate the activities of purely private parties. The Court declared: “It does not authorize Congress to create a code of municipal law for the regulation of private rights; but to provide modes of redress against the operation of State laws, and the actions of State officers.”

    By contrast, in United States v. Guest (1966), six Justices, although not in a single opinion, concluded that Section Five empowered Congress to outlaw private discrimination in some circumstances. However, in United States v. Morrison (2000), the Supreme Court held that Congress did not have the power under Section Five to enact a law called the Violence Against Women Act, which allowed victims of gender-motivated violence to sue the perpetrator in federal court. This decision expressly reaffirmed the Civil Rights Cases and disavowed the opinions to the contrary in Guest. The Court declared that it was reaffirming “the time-honored principle that the Fourteenth Amendment, by its very terms, prohibits only state action.”

    Second, what may Congress do? More specifically, does Section Five allow Congress to prohibit actions by the state governments that would not be outlawed by Section One itself? The Supreme Court has answered this question differently over time. At one point, the Justices expressed the view that Congress can use its power under Section Five to expand rights, as well as to provide remedies for violations. Thus, in Katzenbach v. Morgan (1966), the Court held that Congress could rely on its Section Five authority to outlaw the use of literacy tests as a qualification for voters who had been educated in Puerto Rico, notwithstanding the fact that only seven years earlier the Court had found that the use of literacy tests did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. The majority opinion concluded that Congress has the power to expand, but not limit the rights that would otherwise be protected by Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment.

    In subsequent cases, however, the Court has held that Congress cannot use its power under Section Five to expand rights, but rather only to provide remedies for rights recognized by the courts. In Oregon v. Mitchell  (1970), a deeply-divided Court held that Congress could not constitutionally require the states to allow eighteen-year-old citizens to vote in state and local elections.

    Most importantly, in City of Boerne v. Flores (1997), the Court held that Section Five does not empower Congress to create new rights or expand the scope of rights, and that even laws designed to prevent or remedy violations of rights recognized by the Supreme Court must be narrowly tailored—“proportionate” and “congruent”—to the scope of constitutional violations. City of Boerne involved the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), a law adopted in 1993 in response to a Supreme Court decision that had narrowed the protections of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. In essence, RFRA subjected the actions of state and local governments to the same level of scrutiny that had been applied in earlier Supreme Court decisions interpreting the scope of the Clause. However, the City of Boerne majority concluded that this part of RFRA was unconstitutional because Section Five did not authorize Congress to either create new rights or expand the scope of the rights recognized by the Court itself.

    Source : constitutioncenter.org

    the 14th amendment Flashcards

    Start studying the 14th amendment. Learn vocabulary, terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools.

    the 14th amendment

    3.5 30 Reviews

    The citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment says a naturalized person

    Click card to see definition 👆

    not- must have been born in a country other than the United States.

    Click again to see term 👆

    Read the excerpt from the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

    No state shall make or enforce any law which shall [take away] the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.

    This Fourteenth Amendment clause is about

    equal protection under the law.

    the right of citizenship.

    due process under the law.

    states' rights to enforce laws.

    Click card to see definition 👆

    equal protection under the law.

    Click again to see term 👆

    1/10 Created by mintiebadauskas

    Terms in this set (10)

    The citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment says a naturalized person

    not- must have been born in a country other than the United States.

    Read the excerpt from the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

    No state shall make or enforce any law which shall [take away] the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.

    This Fourteenth Amendment clause is about

    equal protection under the law.

    the right of citizenship.

    due process under the law.

    states' rights to enforce laws.

    equal protection under the law.

    The enforcement clause of the Fourteenth Amendment states that Congress has the authority to

    grant citizenship to people.

    change the Constitution.

    enforce only the Bill of Rights.

    make laws to apply the amendment.

    make laws to apply the amendment.

    The Fourteenth Amendment made the Constitution superior to state law because

    states do not have to follow the Bill of Rights.

    the Fourteenth Amendment applied to state law through incorporation.

    the due process law cannot be used to incorporate the Bill of Rights.

    the Fourteenth Amendment cannot be incorporated as needed.

    the Fourteenth Amendment applied to state law through incorporation.

    Read the excerpt from the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

    [N]or shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

    This clause ensures that

    anyone can enforce the law as long as they are citizens.

    all states follow similar rules and legal processes.

    any state can deprive its citizens of due process.

    all non-citizens are not covered by due process.

    all states follow similar rules and legal processes.

    The citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment says a naturalized person

    must have the same rights to become a citizen as someone born in another country.

    must have the same rights to become a citizen as someone born in the US.

    must have been born in the United States, not in another country.

    must have been born in a country other than the United States.

    not- must have been born in a country other than the United States.

    Why did the Supreme Court expand the incorporation of the Bill of Rights?

    to ensure they always had the last word

    to ensure equal treatment for all citizens

    to ensure all naturalized people could be citizens

    to ensure all legal cases came before the Court

    to ensure equal treatment for all citizens

    If two people of different ethnic backgrounds were guilty of the same crime, but only one of them were accused and tried, this would be a violation of

    due process and equal protection under the law.

    the right of citizenship and equal protection.

    the right of citizenship and due process.

    due process and the enforcement clause.

    the right of citizenship and equal protection.

    Read the excerpt from the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

    The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

    This Fourteenth Amendment clause means that

    Congress cannot do anything in relation to the Fourteenth Amendment.

    all states have the authority to make laws to apply the amendment.

    all citizens will be subject to the same set of legal procedures.

    Congress has the authority to make laws to apply the amendment.

    Congress has the authority to make laws to apply the amendment.

    Why was the Supreme Court's ruling important in Gitlow v. New York?

    because it used the equal protection law to interpret the issue of incorporation

    because it used the due process law to interpret the issue of incorporation

    because the Supreme Court believed Gitlow was guilty

    because the Supreme Court believed Gitlow was innocent

    because it used the due process law to interpret the issue of incorporation

    Sets with similar terms

    L Unit 4 14th amendment 14th corp. and Incorp…

    51 terms ciden25

    The Courts and the Government Process (2)

    88 terms YOLANDA_LOPEZ75

    The Fourteenth Amendment

    10 terms NancyTupsi

    CSUSB The Fourteenth Amendment

    10 terms InItToNguyenIt17

    Sets found in the same folder

    The Supreme Court and Civil Rights

    17 terms sammy_hares9

    The Supreme Court and Civil Rights

    10 terms KyannaGonzales1211

    Source : quizlet.com

    Do you want to see answer or more ?
    James 14 day ago
    4

    Guys, does anyone know the answer?

    Click For Answer