The fourteenth amendment to the Constitution states, "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."
The amendment was passed July 9, 1868, and overruled the Dred Scott decision by the Supreme Court in 1857. The intent of the amendment was to include the newly freed slaves and their offspring as citizens of the United States. Until that time, slaves were not even citizens of the states where they lived, and therefore, had no claim on citizenship in the United States.
The amendment was to insure compliance with the newly passed Civil Rights Bill of 1866, which stated in part, "people born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power are entitled to be citizens, without regard to race, color, or previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude". This law was brought up twice, and was twice vetoed by President Andrew Johnson. The second time the veto was overridden by a two-thirds majority in Congress and became law. However, the law had to stand up to several court cases. Therefore, the fourteenth amendment was introduced, which could be overturned in lower courts.
The first sentence in the amendment was not seen as controversial. That is, it formally announced a defining attribute of citizenship, granted to one born within the boundaries of the United States, and also granted state citizenship concurrently. However, the controversy, at the time, was granting "due process" and "equal protection" at the state level. This was seen as by a nation recently scarred by civil war, as a means to deny contracts or debts attained by confederates in states that belonged to a union that no longer existed.
Some though the controversy was strong enough that the amendment had no chance of passing. At its core was the belief that the Bill of Rights limited the power of the Federal government over states, and the words in the fourteenth amendment seemed to tell the states what they could no longer deny.
In the end the fourteenth amendment stood, and was reckoned not to add any new limitations to the rights of the states. Today, the controversy over the fourteenth amendment is based on who was intended to be granted citizenship. The Civil Rights Bill of 1866 stated that citizenship was granted to those, "not subject to any foreign power". However this language is not found in the fourteenth amendment.
There are now circumstances that have given rise to questions that need to be worked out is over this issue. Does the fourteenth amendment grant citizenship to those born in the United States to those who are in the United States with no legal status? To a slave in this country in the 1860's, the answer was intended to be, "yes". Was it the same intent to grant the rights to those who are entering this country without legal status, today?
The amendment was passed July 9, 1868, and overruled the Dred Scott decision by the Supreme Court in 1857. The intent of the amendment was to include the newly freed slaves and their offspring as citizens of the United States. Until that time, slaves were not even citizens of the states where they lived, and therefore, had no claim on citizenship in the United States.
The amendment was to insure compliance with the newly passed Civil Rights Bill of 1866, which stated in part, "people born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power are entitled to be citizens, without regard to race, color, or previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude". This law was brought up twice, and was twice vetoed by President Andrew Johnson. The second time the veto was overridden by a two-thirds majority in Congress and became law. However, the law had to stand up to several court cases. Therefore, the fourteenth amendment was introduced, which could be overturned in lower courts.
The first sentence in the amendment was not seen as controversial. That is, it formally announced a defining attribute of citizenship, granted to one born within the boundaries of the United States, and also granted state citizenship concurrently. However, the controversy, at the time, was granting "due process" and "equal protection" at the state level. This was seen as by a nation recently scarred by civil war, as a means to deny contracts or debts attained by confederates in states that belonged to a union that no longer existed.
Some though the controversy was strong enough that the amendment had no chance of passing. At its core was the belief that the Bill of Rights limited the power of the Federal government over states, and the words in the fourteenth amendment seemed to tell the states what they could no longer deny.
In the end the fourteenth amendment stood, and was reckoned not to add any new limitations to the rights of the states. Today, the controversy over the fourteenth amendment is based on who was intended to be granted citizenship. The Civil Rights Bill of 1866 stated that citizenship was granted to those, "not subject to any foreign power". However this language is not found in the fourteenth amendment.
There are now circumstances that have given rise to questions that need to be worked out is over this issue. Does the fourteenth amendment grant citizenship to those born in the United States to those who are in the United States with no legal status? To a slave in this country in the 1860's, the answer was intended to be, "yes". Was it the same intent to grant the rights to those who are entering this country without legal status, today?
About the Author:
Who has answers to issues like this?. These can affect our lives today. Is there cause for concern over immigration deportation? Can I simply attempt to use the passport renewal post office services? There are more answers at our site at MexicoAndUs.com
No comments:
Post a Comment