What Went Wrong With The 14th Amendment

In March 5,1857, after deliberating for several months, Chief Justice Roger Taney issued the ruling. The Court determined, by a majority of seven to two, that Dred Scott and his family were still slaves. It stated that even if, the Scotts had traveled into free territory, moving back to St.Louis had made them slaves once more. However, The Court decided to go further and addressed other issues regarding slavery and blacks. On citizenship, the Court decided no black could ever be a citizen, in Taney's own words "slaves nor their descendants, whether... free or not, were then acknowledged as part of the people [citizens]"# According to this, Scott was only property , therefore he did not have the right to file suit, and as a result was never free. The Court also decided to rule the

　　　　Slavery was at the root of the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford. Dred Scott sued his master to obtain freedom for himself and his family. His argument was that he had lived in a territory where slavery was illegal; therefore he should be considered a free man. Dred Scott was born a slave in Virginia around 1800. Scott and his family were slaves owned by Peter Blow and his family. He moved to St. Louis with them in 1830 and was sold to John Emerson, a military doctor. They went to Illinois and the Wisconsin territory where the Missouri Compromise of 1820 prohibited slavery. Dred Scott married and had two

Dred Scott was a slave who sued for his freedom. He said that because he was a slave taken to a free state, even though he was brought back to a slave state, made him free. The court ruled that a free or enslaved African American was not a U.S. citizen and they could not sue in federal court. Also, they ruled that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. Abolitionists were not happy at the court’s decision.

Dred Scott was a slave to Peter Blow family who suffered financial constraints then later sold Scott to a surgeon John Emerson. Emerson moved with Scott to Fort Snelling where slavery was not allowed by Missouri Compromise. During his period at Fort Snelling, Scott married Harriet Robinson a slave too with whom they had two children. Emerson and Scott’s family later moved back to St Louis in the year 1940 where they lived. In 1946 Dr. Emerson passed on, and Scott’s family was left behind with Emerson’s widow as their master. After Dr. Emerson demise, Scott sued Emerson’s family arguing that by him having stayed in Fort Snelling, he had attained his freedom while there and he was a free man. In sought of his freedom, the case was presented to State court, but unfortunately, he lost in case. The case was appealed, and in the year 1857, the case was ruled out by Chief Justice Roger Taney. In the ruling, the court ruled out that, Scotts was not allowed to claim any US citizenship as blacks who were salves or free were not allowed to do so. The ruling also claimed that Scotts had never been free as he was a slave and they were considered as personal property (Konig, Finkelman, & Bracey, 2010). The ruling led to consequences and effects in the US that affected the country politically, culturally and legally as outlined in the paper.

The fourteenth amendment is also known as equal protection clause. Under the fourteenth amendment, the U.S. Constitution prohibits the states from denying a person that lives in the state the equal rights of the law (LII, 2017). The fourteenth amendment applies to education, especially those that are English language learners (ELL), this means that these students cannot be denied the same rights as non-English language learners. In the Supreme Court case of Lau v Nichols in 1974, this case involved a Chinese American student that attended the San Francisco Unified School District, this student was placed into a general education classroom despite the lack of being proficient in English (Wright, 2010). The school in which this student attended was found in violation, the school was giving ELL students the same material as all other students who speak proficient English and expected the Chinese American student to be able to comprehend the information that is being taught. School districts need to provide the same material, but in a modified form where the student’s will be able to access the information to learn it in the same manner as those non-English language learners.

In this thesis I am going to analyze the impact of the 14th Amendment during the Civil Rights years.

Sanford was another hot political issue. Dred Scott and his wife were taken to a free state by their master, and the ruling on this case stated that Scott was still legally bound to his master and must remain a slave. This decision was based on three main factors. The first factor was that Scott was not a citizen and could not sue in Federal court. The second factor was that it was unconstitutional for Congress to outlaw slavery in a territory. The last factor stated that although Scott and his family were heading in and out of Free states, it did not affect their standing as slaves.

Its goal was to extend national rights to all citizens no matter their race. it overturned the Scott VS Sanford act, and repealed the ⅗ clause

The Dred Scott v. Sandford case is regarding a slave in Missouri, his name was Dred Scott who resided in Illinois from the years 1833 to 1843. Illinois was considered to be a free state at this time, he lived in an area of the Louisiana Territory, this was a place where slavery was completely forbidden from the Missouri Compromise in 1830. Eventually Scott returned to Missouri, after doing so he decided to sue the Missouri court for his freedom, he was unsuccessful. His argument was that he claimed residency in a free territory area and this would make him a free man. Since this did not work Scott brought a new suit in federal court. But Scott’s master maintained that since he was a pure-blooded Negro of the African descent and also the descendant

According to the fourteenth amendment website the fourteenth amendment “is currently misinterpreted to give citizenship to children born in the United States of illegal alien parents. These children, via their birthright citizenship, act as anchor babies and can, upon reaching the age of majority, facilitate bringing their extended family into the US in order to obtain citizenship. Although some experts believe that a Constitutional amendment would be necessary to remedy the misinterpretation, many believe that Congressional action would be sufficient and is urgently warranted.” Not until later was it seen “With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship” (Fourteen Amendment). This was basically a warning for immigrants stating they are responsible for their child and they would not become legal just because they were born in the United States and they would both be claimed by their native land. For example, if a woman from Mexico was to come to the United States illegally, at 8 months pregnant, and have her baby they would not just become legal citizens.

The purpose of this article was to inform other about birthright citizenship. The article further explains how illegal immigrants use their child “anchor baby” to gain citizenship through birthrights, also known as the 14th Amendment. This article also explains the misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment. There is no specific author but was published by Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). FAIR is known as a non-profit, non- partisan organization. Their mission is to acknowledge and aware the public of immigration issues, present solutions, give answers, and ensure the public’s voice is heard. Since their mission is to inform the public, this article is easy and useful for the general public. The article explains certain terms

My view on Amendment 14 is indifferent. I believe that if your parent is not a documented citizen in the US you should not be able to become a US citizen even if you are born in the country. However, if your parent is a citizen and they have a child the child will be able to continue to live in the US. This covers the conflict with “Anchor Babies” too. Using this policy illegal immigrants will no longer be able to abuse the 14

In the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sanford decision, the U.S. Supreme Court denied citizenship to all slaves, ex-slaves and descendants of slaves and denied Congress the right to prohibit slavery in the territories.

In addition, the United States is created by a diversity of immigrant cultures. Currently, “approximately 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States” [Debate pg. 592]. Changing or repealing the fourteenth amendment, will leave many U.S citizens, children of immigrants stateless without an origin of birth. For example, Chinese came to the United States to work as

The Dred Scott case involved Dred Scott, his wife, and their owner. Dred Scott and his wife argued that they were free blacks since they were no longer in a slave state. On the other hand, their owner claimed that they were his property (chattel slavery), which meant that they were still his slaves, even if they moved to a free state. This case reached the US Supreme court in 1857. The Supreme Court Justice, Roger Taney, claimed that African Americans, whether they be free or enslaved, have no rights in the United States. He believed that the phrase “all men are created equal” did not apply to them because the US Constitution is a white man’s constitution. Additionally, he claimed that slavery could move anywhere inside the United States. Just because Scott lives in a free state does not mean that his slave status is gone.