Legal Liberalism Calls For Equality

The Slaughter-House decision by the Supreme Court limited the power of the Fourteenth Amendment. It declared that the Jim Crowe laws were state laws and that they could not over turn them because the federal government did not have power over state laws. It also declared that national citizenship and state citizenship were different. In the U.S. v. Cruikshank the court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment did not give the federal government power to act against the whites, who attacked a meeting of blacks and conspired deprive them of their rights, and they said that the duty of protecting equal rights for citizens was in the states hands. So the federal government could not do anything about one person violating another’s civil rights that lived in the same state.

The Fourteenth Amendment is relatively new compared to the Bill of Rights, having been passed in 1868. The first major case that dealt with the amendment were the Slaughterhouse Cases in 1872. In those cases, a group of slaughterhouses that were put out of business by a Louisiana law creating a monopoly claimed that they were denied equal protection under the law. Though the court ultimately denied their claim primarily on the basis that the Privileges and Immunities Clause does not apply to the states, they also

The constitutional issue involved in this case involved the incorporation of the 4th Amendment's prohibition against the

For centuries, the success of a democratic society has been measured by its commitment to equality, a resounding principle central to our nation’s founding. The Enlightenment-inspired language of the Declaration of Independence, namely the age-old axiom that “all men are created equal,” pervades our perception of the American creed. However, nearly a century passed before the Lockean principles espoused in the Declaration of Independence began to bear the force of law. Entitling American citizens to due process and equal protection of the law, the Fourteenth Amendment, perhaps the most transformative Amendment of all, has inspired the steady progression of American society. Nonetheless, while the Amendment serves as the chief legal force behind the democratic goal of equality, questions regarding its achievement of that goal

During the reconstruction a the 14th Amendment was passed, it protected the rights of the freedmen. Document A states, “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge [take away] the privileges or immunities of all citizens of the United States.” This was to protect the rights of the citizens of the United States’ rights and to avoid discrimination. This protects the citizens from the state government. Aslo in Document A it states, “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” This segment states that all the citizens must have equal treatment from the government. These laws are still used today and are brought up in courts all over America.

The Slaughterhouse Cases of 1873 played a part in restricting the extent of the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment guaranteed equality under law for all citizens, and that no State could deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due

In the case of Barron v. Baltimore in 1833, the Supreme Court ruled that the Bill of Rights are just restrictions on the federal government alone. To prevent the states from limiting rights granted to the citizens in the Constitution, the 14th Amendment was passed. The 14th Amendment was adopted on July 9, 1868 as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. The amendment addresses citizenship rights and equal protection of the laws and was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves after the American Civil War. It was severely contested, especially by the states of the Confederacy that were defeated and were forced to ratify it in order to regain representation in Congress. The amendment’s first section includes many clauses, but one important one is the Equal Protection Clause. This clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people, including non-citizens, within its jurisdiction. The clause has also been the basis for many decisions rejecting irrational or unnecessary discrimination against people belonging to various groups. Eventually, selective incorporation occurred in which the civil liberties granted in the Bill of Rights were applied to the states on a case-by-case basis through the 14th Amendment. Now, the same liberties that were granted to the federal government, were now enacted with the state governments. Same-sex marriage is one of these fundamental rights, rights that require a high degree of protection from government

In 1942 the Supreme Court, in Wickard v. Filburn, ruled unanimously in favor of restricting an Ohio farmer's acreage allotment to farm wheat grown for his own personal use. Congress’s authority to regulate local activities was questioned in reference to the 10th Amendment’s claim to states’ reserved powers (Oyez, 2015). However, Congress’s invocation of the Commerce Clause provided a loophole by which the case was settled. This sort of encroachment on personal matters was precisely the fear of Federalists when creating the Bill of Rights and in turn resulted in the 10th Amendment. The 10th Amendment was a precautionary measure to protect states from exploitative interpretations of The Constitution’s granted federal powers, and added a necessary provision to a system of mixed sovereignty in which each government has direct authority over citizens within the limits of said powers.

The Supreme Court decision in Buck v. Bell displays some clues to the values of early twentieth century American society. The interpretation of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution is the lynchpin of the decision, and the values of the court can be derived from it. In this essay I will demonstrate that the ambiguity of the Amendment in question has significant consequences, the ethics of the interpretation of the Amendment is derived form the paternalistic nature of the Constitution, and that equality of the law is subservient to the desire for a homogeneous and comfortable cultural environment.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) supports this case by stating that the 14th Amendment is “used as a vehicle for lawsuits upholding…important constitutional rights, such as the right to freedom of expression and the right to freedom from unlawful searches and seizures” because the rights of the American people have built the framework for future generations

The 14th Amendment provides that no government shall take away the individual right to life, liberty, and property, within its jurisdiction, without due process of law.

By their actions, Griswold and Buxton violated a statute and were convicted as accessories and fined one hundred dollars each. However, Griswold and Buxton argued that the statutes violated the Fourteenth Amendment, which states “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.” After both the Appellate Division of the Circuit

(1962) this was a landmark decision that decided that redistricting issues present justiciable questions, therefore the federal courts had to intervene and decide redistricting cases. It resulted in the defendants being unsuccessful. This case said that the law upheld by the Tennessee Constitution regarding the establishment of districts was a violation of the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution. It has to do with the equal protection clause; this clause forces every individual citizen of the United States to be treated equally and without bias with regard to their pursuit of happiness. The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution does not allow the government to infringe on the individual person’s rights to pursue a happy

Throughout the history of this ever-expanding nation as well as many others, there have been times in which words alone were able to stop an action. Consequences were bountiful and punishment seemed to be thought of on the fly. For instance, a convicted murderer may have gotten thrown in jail, however a man who may have sneezed on the king would have been burned at the stake for “Crimes against the Kingdom.”  In modern times it seems nearly impossible to think that such unfathomable treatment was commonplace and, worse yet, a public spectacle. After many years of being free of British rule, the Framers of the United States Constitution had envisioned a society based on the treatment from

In the United States Constitution, the Fourteenth Amendment states “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.” (Law.Cornell) Many of the cases that have been addressed in the Supreme Court book, written by Jack Fruchtman Jr., show the readers the rulings of the case and if either the Due Process of Law and the Equal Protection of the laws has or has not been applied.