14th Amendment Of Equal Protection : The 14th Amendment Of Equal Protection

The Equal rights Amendment was proposed to set equality for every citizen no matter the sex. The amendment has three sections. The first one states “equality of rights under the law should not be denied by the U.S on the account of one's sex.” Section two says that “congress has the power to enforce this law.” Last but not least, section three says the amendment will take effect two years after ratification.

What could be more important than the equality of rights for all American citizens? Women have tried without success for 80 years to be acknowledged as equals in our Constitution through an Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). Currently there is nothing in the United States Constitution that guarantees a woman the same rights as a man. The only equality women have with men is the right to vote. In order to protect women’s rights on the same level as men, I am in favor of an Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution today.

Interracial marriage was a very tough topic not very long ago, and most of the nation has grown to accept it. The Supreme Court delivered a verdict in favor for couples to marry interracially in 1967, they stated that the laws to prevent interracial marriage was nothing more than an attempt "to maintain white supremacy" (Stoddard 413). The United States Supreme court concluded that laws against interracial marriage served no purpose other than discrimination, and that they should be eliminated. The gay rights movement has become very similar to controversy about interracial marriage. The problem is of whether or not same sex marriages should be legitimate in the United States. In the aforementioned case, the Supreme Court ruled that marriage

Virginia do all this, but it also had some many unforeseen impacts in the future, as well. For example, similar anti-miscegenation laws in about 15 other states were eventually overturned like Virginia’s marriage ban. In the case Goodridge v. Department of Public Health in the November of 2003, a similar case to Loving v. Virginia, the restrictions on marriage were argued yet again. However, instead of interracial marriage being the problem, it was same-sex partners who were unable to wed. Like the case for the Lovings, the Supreme Court eventually ruled against the ban on members of the LGBTQ community marrying, as it was also deemed

According to the thirteenth amendment, “neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” The purpose of the thirteenth amendment was to end slavery or any form of involuntary servitude everywhere among the United States. There was new hope for African Americans throughout the country but unfortunately their freedom had a limit and coincidentally, President Lincoln was assassinated shortly after. Jim Crow laws were established among the states and local laws enforcing racial segregation in the southern states of the United States up until 1965. This is how white southerners

On July 9, 1868 the 14th amendment to the constitution was ratified. This amendment granted citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States," which included former slaves recently freed. Although the slaves were freed, there was still discrimination all around them. Discrimination is defined as "differences between things or treating someone as inferior based on their race". In 1800’s through 1900 there was a huge amount of cases that occurred due to violations of the 14th Amendment. Two well known landmark Supreme Court cases involving the 14th Amendment are Plessy vs. Ferguson and Brown vs. Board of Education.

The Equal Protection Clause derives from the Fourteenth Amendment, which specifies “no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws…” As a part of the Reconstruction Amendments, the aforementioned clause was meant to ensure racial equality in the Reconstruction Period and has been applied successfully against the affirmative action. Introduced in United States v. Carolene Products Co., the strict scrutiny has been applied to the cases, in which a fundamental constitutional rights have been infringed or a government action applies to a suspect classification (i.e. race, religion, national background). Specifically, in regards to Bakke v. Regents of University of California, the Supreme Court (“the Court”) concluded that, considering that the University of California, Davis received several Caucasian applicants for its special admission program in 1973 and 1974 and that none of the applicants received the admission to the program since the start, the program unfairly administered in favor of minority races and, therefore, violated the rights of the white applicants under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Furthermore, from Hopwood v. State of Texas, the Fifth Circuit Court ruled under strict scrutiny that, the affirmative action imposed by the University of Texas School of Law (“the law school”) violates the Fourteenth Amendment since neither the law school nor the University of Texas system has proved a proof of

Imagine living in a world where everyone was considered equal. Imagine living in a world where people were considerate of others. Imagine living in a world where everyone had the same rights and privileges. The Framers took a step at achieving this world with the passage of the 14th amendment. The intent of the 14th amendment was to prevent state governments from denying African Americans in the U.S. from their citizenship. At the time Africans were unable to attain citizenship because of their skin color. The Framer’s objective in formulating the 14th amendment was to grant citizenship to everyone born in the U.S., regardless of skin color. The 14th amendment expanded the protection of civil rights to all citizens in America.

John A. Bingham, Republican of Ohio had long been a believer in the idea of equal protection of the laws for all people, and was one of the leaders of the effort to pass the Fourteenth Amendment. While aware of the need to prove the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act with the Fourteenth Amendment, Bingham did not actually believe that the Fourteenth Amendment created any new rights. Rather, he believed that it created a new understanding of rights already in the Constitution. Bingham maintained that, “The…equal protection of each [in] those sacred rights which are as universal and indestructible as the human race…are by this Constitution guaranteed…’” The guarantee to which Bingham was referring is contained in the Fifth

From the moment Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, the United States of America established itself as a nation built upon the foundation of equality. In the legendary document, Jefferson proclaimed, “all men... are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights... life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (Declaration).” Contradictorily, when the separatists fled England for an auspicious future in North America, their treatment of the Native American and Spanish occupants was inhumane, barbaric, and not becoming of a civilization ingrained with the principles of equality. Moreover, the pioneers of the “free” world marginalized, ostracized, and chimerically represented the African race more than any other minority. Paradoxically dubbed the “man of the people”, Thomas Jefferson illuminated his true interpretation of equality in Notes on the State of Virginia. “We have had under our eyes the races of black and of red men, they have never yet been viewed by us as subjects of natural history,” he wrote. “I advance it... that the blacks... are inferior to the whites in the endowments both of body and mind (history).” Despite what the media conveys, this belief system lingered and particularly exists in the Department of Justice. For years, our government controlled the amount of accessible, viable, and financially rewarding opportunities for impoverished African Americans through the surreptitious agendas of law enforcement. However, Los Angeles

Three amendments of the U.S. Constitution, the 13th, 14th, and 15th, erupted from the radical Republican congress and their ratification under individual state constitutions were used as a requirement to re-enter into the Union. Firstly, the 13th Amendment (1865) eradicated slavery in the South and terminated the ineffectiveness of the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 that transformed “the fight to preserve the nation into a battle for human freedom” (“Thirteenth Amendment”). However, the ambiguous language of “neither slavery nor involuntary servitude…shall exist within the United States” presents in the 13th Amendment and challenges the modern practice of slave labor within non-U.S. territory (Wolff). The rise of globalization pioneers

Let's take a step back and look at the “Civil Rights act of 1875” which made it criminal to deny any individual of any race or color equal treatment(The Civil Rights Act of 1875). This act was a huge step for African Americans in becoming equal. Louisiana put in place a law that required separate rail cars for those of color and whites. Controversy then struck when Homer Adolph Plessy sat in the white only section of the rail car, when asked he then refuse to move to the car for blacks and was arrested Despite the fact that he half white and half black which gave him equal opportunity for either railcar. In this case which became known as the Plessy versus Ferguson case they ruled that the state law is within constitutional boundaries and did not violate the equality of the citizen. If Plessy was treated equally why was he not allowed to sit next to a white american if they were constitutionally equal. The hope that emerged from the civil rights act was then taken away. Congress shut down the Civil rights act claiming that the fourteenth amendment did not give congress any jurisdiction to prevent discrimination from private peoples. Keep in mind that the fourteenth amendment gave U.S. citizenship to any natural born or naturalized citizen, including free slaves (14th Amendment). Once congress shut down the

Well, they decided to get a divorce. The state granted the couple a divorce. She called the ban on gay marriage unconstitutional because, if you do not allow nor do you recognize same sex marriage, how could you grant a same sex couple a divorce (Marrow & Goldberg, 2009). I agree with this judge completely. How is this not a double standard? So it is safe to say that for Texas, it is okay to divorce whomever, whether it is male and female, male and male, or female and female, but they can not get married here unless they are opposite sex. How can you divorce someone that you do not recognize as being married. I feel like this couple should have been made to file for a divorce in a state that recognizes gay marriage. Otherwise, you should allow gay couples to get married as they wish. Who are we hurting? Each person is held accountable for his/her own actions, so let us be responsible and deal with our relationship troubles. It is a relationship. It is not any different from an opposite sex marriage or relationship. We have to deal with our sins, let us.

The social invention of marriage has changed over time, and as discussed above, it is no longer acceptable to separate black people from white while claiming to treat them “equally”. Similar to this, we cannot claim to be treating homosexuals equally, while enforcing laws that exclude them. The progression that our country has made towards civil rights have come about simply because we are all citizens of the United States. In a society so richly entrenched in the search for and the maintenance of equality, with a specified legal separation between church and state, we cannot ethically allow laws to be enacted based on the religious beliefs of specific groups of people. So, if the definition of marriage for one group of people holds its convictions in religious or biological nature, it should not be inflicted upon all citizens.

Education is represented in the US Constitution as the 14th amendment. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment fundamentally states that a state may not deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. This applies to public elementary and secondary schools. But education has not always been a right given to all people. People have been discriminated against for being uneducated or not meeting educational requirement. Immigrants and slaves in America have always faced discrimination even withstanding the 14th amendment. Specifically in Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1977), Willie Griggs, on behalf of African-Americans, filed a class action against Duke Power Company because workers were required to pass two separate aptitude tests in addition to having a high school education. African-Americans were not allowed to receive an adequate education or education at all, so how could they possibly be expected to qualify or pass these tests. Black workers were ineligible for promotion, transfer, or employment. But black slaves were operating machines long before being allowed in the workplace, without needing to pass a test. Yes, there are certain jobs that could be done without prior testing but when it comes to being able to perform in the world and in your everyday life, you should be required to pass certain tests. Careers like medicine, law, and aviation, are all required to take high-stakes standardized tests to ensure they have the necessary