essay on 14th amendment

  • History Classics
  • Your Profile
  • Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
  • Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
  • Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
  • Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
  • Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
  • This Day In History
  • History Podcasts
  • History Vault

14th Amendment

By: History.com Editors

Updated: December 20, 2023 | Original: November 9, 2009

Fourteenth Amendment, historic Little Rock school

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1868, granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States—including formerly enslaved people—and guaranteed all citizens “equal protection of the laws.” One of three amendments passed during the Reconstruction era to abolish slavery and establish civil and legal rights for Black Americans, it became the basis for many landmark Supreme Court decisions over the years.

In its later sections, the 14th Amendment authorized the federal government to punish states that violated or abridged their citizens’ right to vote by proportionally reducing the states’ representation in Congress, and mandated that anyone who “engaged in insurrection” against the United States could not hold civil, military or elected office (without the approval of two-thirds of the House and Senate).

It also upheld the national debt, but exempted federal and state governments from paying any debts incurred by the former Confederate states.

Reconstruction

Abraham Lincoln ’s assassination in April 1865 left his successor, President Andrew Johnson , to preside over the complex process of incorporating former Confederate states back into the Union after the Civil War and establishing former enslaved people as free and equal citizens.

Johnson, a Democrat (and former slaveholder) from Tennessee , supported emancipation, but he differed greatly from the Republican-controlled Congress in his view of how Reconstruction should proceed. Johnson showed relative leniency toward the former Confederate states as they were reintroduced into the Union.

But many northerners were outraged when the newly elected southern state legislatures—largely dominated by former Confederate leaders—enacted black codes , which were repressive laws that strictly regulated the behavior of Black citizens and effectively kept them dependent on white planters.

Civil Rights Act of 1866

In creating the Civil Rights Act of 1866, Congress was using the authority given it to enforce the newly ratified 13th Amendment , which abolished slavery, and protect the rights of Black Americans.

Johnson vetoed the bill, and though Congress successfully overrode his veto and made it into law in April 1866—the first time in history that Congress overrode a presidential veto of a major bill—even some Republicans thought another amendment was necessary to provide firm constitutional grounds for the new legislation.

Thaddeus Stevens

In late April, Representative Thaddeus Stevens introduced a plan that combined several different legislative proposals (civil rights for Black people, how to apportion representatives in Congress, punitive measures against the former Confederate States of America and repudiation of Confederate war debt), into a single constitutional amendment. After the House and Senate both voted on the amendment by June 1866, it was submitted to the states for ratification.

President Johnson made clear his opposition to the 14th Amendment as it made its way through the ratification process, but Congressional elections in late 1866 gave Republicans veto-proof majorities in both the House and Senate.

Southern states also resisted, but Congress required them to ratify the 13th and 14th Amendments as a condition of regaining representation in Congress, and the ongoing presence of the Union Army in the former Confederate states ensured their compliance.

On July 9, 1868, Louisiana and South Carolina voted to ratify the 14th Amendment, making up the necessary three-fourths majority .

Section One: 14th Amendment

The opening sentence of Section One of the 14th Amendment defined U.S. citizenship: “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.”

This clearly repudiated the Supreme Court’s notorious 1857 Dred Scott decision , in which Chief Justice Roger Taney wrote that a Black man, even if born free, could not claim rights of citizenship under the federal constitution.

Section One's next clause was: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” This greatly expanded the civil and legal rights of all American citizens by protecting them from infringement by the states as well as by the federal government.

The third clause, “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law,” expanded the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment to apply to the states as well as the federal government.

Over time, the Supreme Court has interpreted this clause to guarantee a wide array of rights against infringement by the states, including those enumerated in the Bill of Rights (freedom of speech, free exercise of religion, right to bear arms, etc.) as well as the right to privacy and other fundamental rights not mentioned elsewhere in the Constitution .

Finally, the “equal protection clause” (“nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”) was clearly intended to stop state governments from discriminating against Black Americans, and over the years would play a key role in many landmark civil rights cases.

Section Two: 14th Amendment

Section Two of the 14th Amendment repealed the three-fifths clause (Article I, Section 2, Clause 3) of the original Constitution, which counted enslaved people as three-fifths of a person for the purpose of apportioning congressional representation. With slavery outlawed by the 13th Amendment, this clarified that all residents, regardless of race, should be counted as one whole person. This section also guaranteed that all male citizens over age 21, no matter their race, had a right to vote.

Southern states continued to deny Black men the right to vote using a collection of state and local statutes during the  Jim Crow era. Subsequent amendments to the Constitution granted women the right to vote and lowered the legal voting age to 18.

Section Three: 14th Amendment

Section Three of the amendment, gave Congress the authority to bar public officials, who took an oath of allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, from holding office if they "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against the Constitution. The intent was to prevent the president from allowing former leaders of the Confederacy to regain power within the U.S. government after securing a presidential pardon. It states that a two-thirds majority vote in Congress is required to allow public officials who had engaged in rebellion to regain the rights of American citizenship and hold government or military office.

It states that: "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

Section Four: 14th Amendment

Section Four of the 14th Amendment states that the "validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned." Historians believe the clause was intended to ensure the federal government would not repudiate its debts, as some former Confederate states had done.

It also prohibited payment of any debt owed to the defunct Confederate States of America and banned any payments to former enslavers as compensation for the loss of human "property" (enslaved people).

Section Five: 14th Amendment

The fifth and final section of the 14th Amendment (“Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article”) echoed a similar enforcement clause in the 13th Amendment.

In giving Congress power to pass laws to safeguard the sweeping provisions of Section One, in particular, the 14th Amendment effectively altered the balance of power between the federal and state governments in the United States.

Nearly a century later, Congress used this authority to pass landmark civil rights legislation, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 .

Impact of the 14th Amendment

In its early decisions involving the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court often limited the application of its protections on a state and local level.

In Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the Court ruled that racially segregated public facilities did not violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, a decision that would help establish infamous Jim Crow laws throughout the South for decades to come.

But beginning in the 1920s, the Supreme Court increasingly applied the protections of the 14th Amendment on the state and local level. Ruling on appeal in the 1925 case Gitlow v. New York , the Court stated that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment protected the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech from infringement by the state as well as the federal government.

And in its famous 1954 ruling in Brown v. Board of Education , the Supreme Court overturned the “separate but equal” doctrine established in Plessy v. Ferguson , ruling that segregated public schools did in fact violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

In other landmark rulings, the Supreme Court has cited the 14th Amendment in cases involving the use of contraception (1965’s Griswold v. Connecticut ), interracial marriage (1967’s Loving v. Virginia ), abortion (1973’s Roe v. Wade ), a highly contested presidential election (2000’s Bush v. Gore ), gun rights (2010’s McDonald v. Chicago ) and same-sex marriage (2015’s Obergefell v. Hodges ).

essay on 14th amendment

HISTORY Vault: Black History

Watch acclaimed Black History documentaries on HISTORY Vault.

Amendment XIV, Constitution Center . Akhil Reed Amar, America’s Constitution: A Biography ( New York : Random House, 2005). Fourteenth Amendment, HarpWeek . 10 Huge Supreme Court Cases About the 14th Amendment, Constitution Center .

essay on 14th amendment

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

  • Mission & Strategy
  • About Jack Miller
  • Board of Directors
  • Academic Advisory Council
  • National Civics Council
  • Now Hiring: Director of Development
  • Now Hiring: Teacher Programs Manager for the Midwest
  • JMC Reports
  • Sign up for our newsletter
  • American Political Tradition Project
  • Constitution Day
  • K-12 Education
  • Academic Opportunities
  • The American Arc Blog
  • For scholars and teachers
  • JMC in the News
  • Upcoming Events: Spring 2024
  • Constitution Day 2023

essay on 14th amendment

The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified on July 9, 1868. The amendment granted citizenship to those born or naturalized in the United States and guaranteed freedom, due process, and equal protection under the law to all Americans. In doing so, it expanded the scope of the Constitution’s protection of individual liberty; now the Constitution protected rights not only from infringement by the federal government, but from infringement by state and local government as well.

The Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification generated some controversy for a time, particularly from legal scholars of the South who claimed that the amendment was invalid because of its ratification process. Despite withdrawing their approval of the amendment, two states (Ohio and New Jersey) were counted as ratifiers of the amendment. Aware of this difficulty, Secretary of State Seward waited until Alabama and Georgia had additionally ratified before officially certifying the Fourteenth Amendment on July 28. Southerners still argued that the amendment was invalid, however, because the beaten southern states, then ruled by federal military commissions, were forced to ratify the amendment in order to regain their full legal status.

Since the 1860s,  all of the originally dissenting states have approved the Fourteenth Amendment, putting to rest any question of its legal status. A number of landmark Supreme Court cases have relied on Section 1’s provisions for due process, equal protection, and privileges and immunities for all U.S. citizens.

Below is a collection of resources recognizing this important piece of American law. Browse these resources or jump from section to section by clicking the links below:

Full text of the Fourteenth Amendment

Relevant supreme court cases from the first amendment library.

Selected online resources

Commentary and articles from JMC fellows

Amendment XIV Section 1. 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. Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state. Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Explore the 14th Amendment at NCC’s Interactive Constitution >>

From JMC’s First Amendment Library:

Gitlow v. New York (1925)

Prior to the Fourteenth Amendment, the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government, and did not restrict state legislatures. In Gitlow , the Supreme Court decided that the Fourteenth Amendment extended the freedom of speech and press provisions in the Bill of Rights to apply to the individual states. During the first Red Scare in the wake of World War I, Benjamin Gitlow was charged under New York’s “Anarchy Law of 1902” for publishing a “Left Wing Manifesto” in a socialist newspaper. The court upheld Gitlow’s conviction, with vigorous dissents from Justice Brandeis and Justice Holmes, but in doing so ruled that the case fell under federal authority.

Read more about Gitlow v. New York >>

Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940)

In Cantwell v. Connecticut , the Court applied the Free Exercise Clause to state and local government for the first time. Prior to the Fourteenth Amendment, constitutional rights, such as those enumerated in the Bill of Rights, applied only to the federal government. In the Cantwell decision, the Free Exercise clause from the First Amendment was “incorporated” into the Court’s understanding of the protections guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment against both federal and state authority.

Read more about Cantwell v. Connecticut >>

Everson v. Board of Education (1947)

The Court examined whether a New Jersey law allowing reimbursements to parents who sent their children on buses operated by the public transportation system to public and private schools, including parochial Catholic schools, was indirect aid to religion and thus a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that the law was constitutional, because the transportation reimbursements were provided to all students regardless of religion. Also, the reimbursements were made directly to parents and not to any religious institution. This case also applied the Establishment Clause to the actions of state governments.

Read more about Everson v. Board of Education >>

Selected Online Resources

Selected online resources on the Fourteenth Amendment:

National Constitution Center’s Interactive Constitution

The National Constitution Center offers a collection of introductory essays by top liberal and conservative legal scholars that give overviews of each clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as agreed upon by both authors, as well as separate brief statements of these scholars’ disagreements about the meaning of each clause.

Visit NCC’s Interactive Constitution >>

The Library of Congress Web Guide to the Fourteenth Amendment

The Library of Congress has amassed a variety of resources on the Fourteenth Amendment, including primary documents from the time of ratification and related exhibitions and websites.

Explore the Library of Congress web guide >>

Harper’s Weekly Resources on the Fourteenth Amendment

Harper’s Weekly was one of the most widely read journals during the Civil War era. HarpWeek , an organization that has indexed all of Harper’s Weekly , has a webpage devoted to the journal’s coverage of the Fourteenth Amendment. The primary source materials on the site are include editorials, stories, illustrations, cartoons, as well as documents from key political and military figures of the time. Additionally, HarpWeek has added an annotated timeline, biographical sketches, and a glossary of terms.

Visit the HarpWeek Fourteenth Amendment page >>

The Heritage Guide to the Constitution

The Heritage Foundation’s Guide to the Constitution includes scholarly essays on each component of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Explore Heritage’s essays on the Fourteenth Amendment >>

* If you are a JMC fellow who’s published on the Fourteenth Amendment or its history and controversies, and would like your work included here, send it to us at [email protected]

Commentary and articles from JMC fellows:

The Impact of the Fourteenth Amendment

American Constitutionalism

Rogers Smith, “Birthright Citizenship and the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 and 2008.” ( University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law 11, 2009)

Keith E. Whittington (co-author), American Constitutionalism: Powers, Rights, and Liberties . (Oxford University Press, 2014) TEXTBOOK

Keith E. Whittington, “Congress Before the Lochner Court.” ( Boston University Law Review 85.3, 2005)

Federalism in America

Michael Zuckert, “Congressional Power under the Fourteenth Amendment.” ( Constitutional Commentary 3.123, 1986)

Michael Zuckert, “The Fourteenth Amendment.” ( Federalism in America: An Encyclopedia , Greenwood Press, 2005)

Reconstruction

Lincoln and Johnson political cartoon

Keith E. Whittington, “The Road Not Taken: Dred Scott, Constitutional Law, and Political Questions.” ( Journal of Politics 63.2, 2001)

Incorporation

1867 Mitchell map of the United States

George Thomas, “The Riddle of the Fourteenth Amendment: A Reply to Professor Wildenthal.” ( Ohio State Law Journal 68, 2007)

The Equal Protection Clause

Waud (1867) freed blacks voting

Rogers Smith, “Equal Protection Remedies: The Errors of Liberal Ways and Means.” ( Journal of Political Philosophy 1.3, 1993)

The Due Process Clause and Privileges or Immunities Clause

Trial of Four British Seamen at Canton - Scene Inside Court

George Thomas, “Who’s Afraid of Original Meaning?” ( Policy Review , Hoover Institution, December 2010 & January 2011)

Facebook icon

Want to help the Jack Miller Center transform higher education? Donate today.

Jack Miller Center 3 Bala Plaza West, Suite 401 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004

  • Resource Center

©2024 Jack Miller Center.

All rights reserved.

Web Design by Push10 Design

14th Amendment

The Fourteenth Amendment addresses many aspects of citizenship and the rights of citizens. The most commonly used -- and frequently litigated -- phrase in the amendment is " equal protection of the laws ", which figures prominently in a wide variety of landmark cases, including Brown v. Board of Education (racial discrimination), Roe v. Wade (reproductive rights), Bush v. Gore (election recounts), Reed v. Reed (gender discrimination), and University of California v. Bakke (racial quotas in education). See more ...

Primary tabs

Amendment xiv.

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.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age , and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

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

wex resources

Privileges and Immunities Clause

Civil Rights

Slaughterhouse Cases

Due Process

Substantive Due Process

Right of Privacy: Personal Autonomy

Territorial Jurisdiction

Equal Protection

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

Plyer v. Doe (1982)

Enforcement Power

Commerce Clause

Explore the Constitution

  • The Constitution
  • Read the Full Text

Dive Deeper

Constitution 101 course.

  • The Drafting Table
  • Supreme Court Cases Library
  • Founders' Library
  • Constitutional Rights: Origins & Travels

National Constitution Center Building

Start your constitutional learning journey

  • News & Debate Overview

Constitution Daily Blog

  • America's Town Hall Programs
  • Special Projects

Media Library

America’s Town Hall

America’s Town Hall

Watch videos of recent programs.

  • Education Overview

Constitution 101 Curriculum

  • Classroom Resources by Topic
  • Classroom Resources Library
  • Live Online Events
  • Professional Learning Opportunities
  • Constitution Day Resources

Student Watching Online Class

Explore our new 15-unit high school curriculum.

  • Explore the Museum
  • Plan Your Visit
  • Exhibits & Programs
  • Field Trips & Group Visits
  • Host Your Event
  • Buy Tickets

First Amendment Exhibit Historic Graphic

New exhibit

The first amendment, 10 supreme court cases about the 14th amendment.

July 9, 2020 | by NCC Staff

On the anniversary of the 14th Amendment's ratification, Constitution Daily looks at 10 historic Supreme Court cases about due process and equal protection under the law.

essay on 14th amendment

On July 9, 1868, Louisiana and South Carolina voted to ratify the amendment, after they had rejected it a year earlier. The votes made the 14 th Amendment officially part of the Constitution. But in the ensuing years, the Supreme Court was slow to decide how the new (and old) rights guaranteed under the federal constitution applied to the states.

In the early Supreme Court decisions about the 14 th Amendment, the Court often ruled in favor of limiting the incorporation of these rights on a state and local level. But starting in the 1920s, the Court embraced the application of due process and equal protection, despite state laws that conflicted with the 14th Amendment.

Here is a look at 10 famous Court decisions that show the progression of the 14th Amendment from Reconstruction to the era of affirmative action.

The Slaughter-House Cases (14 Apr 1873) ―In the Slaughter-House Cases , waste products from slaughterhouses located upstream of New Orleans had caused health problems for years by the time Louisiana decided to consolidate the industries into one slaughterhouse located south of the city. Slaughterhouse owners were incensed; they sued Louisiana and argued that the state-sanctioned monopoly infringed on their newly ratified 13th and 14th Amendment rights. Justice Samuel Miller dismissed the butchers' claims regarding due process and involuntary servitude. He then looked to Article IV, which entitled “the Citizens of each State” to “all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States” and to the 14th Amendment, which guaranteed the protection of the “ Privileges or Immunities  of citizens of the United States.” Miller reasoned that the two clauses protected different bundles of rights, with Article IV protecting the rights of state citizenship and the 14th Amendment protecting rights of national citizenship. The privileges and immunities of U.S. citizenship were narrow and only those specified in the Constitution, which included the right to freely travel throughout the states. Not included, Miller said, was the right to one’s livelihood or be protected against a monopoly. 

Plessy v. Ferguson (18 May 1896) ―The Louisiana legislature had passed a law requiring black and white residents to ride separate, but equal, train cars. In 1892, Louisiana police arrested Homer Adolph Plessy—who was seven-eighths Caucasian—for taking his seat on a train car reserved for “whites only” because he refused to move to a separate train car reserved for blacks. Plessy argued that the Louisiana statute violated the 13th and 14th Amendments by treating black Americans inferior to whites. Plessy lost in every court in Louisiana before appealing to the Supreme Court in 1896. In a 7-1 decision, the Court held that as long as the facilities were equal, their separation satisfied the 14th Amendment. Justice John Marshall Harlan authored the lone dissent. Passionately he clarified that the Constitution was color-blind, railing the majority for an opinion which he believed would match Dred Scott in infamy.

Lochner v. New York (17 Apr 1905) ―Lochner, a baker from New York, was convicted of violating the New York Bakeshop Act, which prohibited bakers from working more than 10 hours a day and 60 hours a week. The Supreme Court struck down the Bakeshop Act, however, ruling that it infringed on Lochner’s “right to contract.” The Court extracted this “right” from the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, a move that many believe exceeded judicial authority.

Gitlow v. New York (08 June 1925) ― Before 1925, provisions in the Bill of Rights were not always guaranteed on the local level and usually applied only to the federal government. Gitlow illustrated one of the Court’s earliest attempts at incorporation, that is, the process by which provisions in the Bill of Rights has been applied to the states. A socialist named Benjamin Gitlow printed an article advocating the forceful overthrow of the government and was arrested under New York state law. Gitlow argued that the First Amendment guaranteed freedom of speech and the press. On appeal, the Supreme Court expressed that the First Amendment applied to New York through the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. However, the Court ultimately ruled that Gitlow’s speech was not protected under the First Amendment by applying the “clear and present danger” test. The Court’s ruling was the first of many instances of incorporating the Bill of Rights.

Brown v. Board of Education (17 May 1954) ―It is impossible to mention the victories of the Civil Rights Movement without pointing to Brown v. Board of Education . Following the Court’s ruling in 1896 of Plessy v. Ferguson , segregation of public schools based solely on race was allowed by states if the facilities were “equal.” Brown overturned that decision. Regardless of the “equality” of facilities, the Court ruled that separate is inherently unequal. Thus public school segregation based on race was found in violation of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

Mapp v. Ohio (19 Jun 1961) ―What happens when the police obtain evidence from an illegal search or seizure? Before the Court’s decision in Mapp , the evidence could still be collected, but the police would be censured. Police had received a tip that a bombing suspect might be located at Dollree Mapp’s home in suburban Cleveland, Ohio. When police asked to search her home, Mapp refused unless the police produced a warrant. The police used a piece of paper as a fake warrant and gained access to her home illegally. After searching the house without finding the bombing suspect, police discovered sexually explicit materials and arrested Mapp under state law that prohibited the possession of obscene materials. Mapp was convicted of possessing obscene materials and faced up to seven years in prison before she appealed her case on the argument that she had a First Amendment right to possess the material. The Court held that evidence collected from an unlawful search should be excluded from her trial. Justice Tom Clark’s majority opinion incorporated the Fourth Amendment’s protection of privacy using the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, a very controversial move.

Gideon v. Wainwright (18 Mar 1963) ― Before 1962, indigent Americans were not always guaranteed access to legal counsel despite the Sixth Amendment. Gideon, a Florida resident, was charged in Florida state court for breaking and entering into a poolroom with the intent to commit a crime. Due to his poverty, Gideon asked the Florida court to appoint an attorney for him. The court declined to do this and pointed to state law which said that the only time indigent defendants could be appointed an attorney was when charged with a capital offense. Left with no other choice, Gideon represented himself in trial and lost. He filed a petition of habeas corpus to the Florida Supreme Court, arguing that he had a constitutional right to be represented with an attorney, but the Florida Supreme Court did not grant him any relief. A unanimous United States Supreme Court said that state courts are required under the 14th Amendment to provide counsel in criminal cases to represent defendants who are unable to afford to pay their attorneys, guaranteeing the Sixth Amendment’s similar federal guarantees.

Griswold v. Connecticut (07 Jun 1965) ―You know when you’re walking down the street at night with lights in front of you and behind you, and you get that really dark shadow? In the scientific community, that shadow is known as an “umbra.” Flanking that dark shadow on the ground are two or more, half-shadows, not quite as dark, but darker than the well-lit sidewalk around you. Those shadows are known as “penumbras” and were used to explain the most controversial issue of arguably the most controversial Supreme Court case in the 20 th century. Estelle Griswold was the director of a Planned Parenthood clinic in Connecticut when she was arrested for violating a state statute that prohibited counseling and prescription of birth control to married couples. The question before the Supreme Court was whether the Constitution protected the right of married couples to privately engage in counseling regarding contraceptive use and procurement. Justice Douglas articulated that although not explicit, the penumbras of the Bill of Rights contained a fundamental “right to privacy” that was protected by the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Griswold ’s “right to privacy” has been applied to many other controversial decisions such as Roe v. Wade. It remains at the core of substantive due process debate today.

Loving v. Virginia (12 Jun 1967) ―By 1967, 16 states had still not repealed their anti-miscegenation laws that forbid interracial marriages. Mildred and Richard Loving were residents of one such state, Virginia, who had fallen in love and wanted to get married. Under Virginia’s laws, however, Richard, a white man, could not marry Mildred, a woman of African-American and Native American descent. The two traveled to Washington D.C. where they could be married, but they were arrested in Virginia under a state law that prohibited inter-racial marriage. Because their offense was a criminal conviction, after being found guilty, they were given a prison sentence of one year. The trial judge suspended the sentence for 25 years on the condition that the couple left Virginia. On Appeal, the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia ruled that the state had an interest in preserving the “racial integrity” of its constituents and that because the punishment applied equally to both races, the statute did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The United States Supreme Court in a unanimous decision reversed the Virginia Court’s ruling and held that the Equal Protection Clause required strict scrutiny to apply to all race-based classifications. Furthermore, the Court concluded that the law was rooted in invidious racial discrimination, making it impossible to satisfy a compelling government interest. The Loving decision still stands as a milestone in the Civil Rights Movement.

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (26 Jun 1978) — Allan Bakke, a white man, had been denied access to the University of California Medical School at Davis on two separate occasions. The medical school set aside 16 spots for minority candidates in an attempt to address unfair minority exclusion from medical school. Bakke contested that his exclusion from the Medical School was entirely the result of his race. The Supreme Court ruled in a severely fractured plurality that the university’s use of strict racial quotas was unconstitutional and ordered that the medical school admit Bakke, but it also said that race could be used as one of several factors in the admissions process. Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr. cast the deciding vote ordering the medical school to admit Bakke. However, in his opinion, Powell said that the rigid use of racial quotas violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

More from the National Constitution Center

essay on 14th amendment

Constitution 101

Explore our new 15-unit core curriculum with educational videos, primary texts, and more.

essay on 14th amendment

Search and browse videos, podcasts, and blog posts on constitutional topics.

essay on 14th amendment

Founders’ Library

Discover primary texts and historical documents that span American history and have shaped the American constitutional tradition.

Modal title

Modal body text goes here.

Share with Students

The Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution Essay

Introduction.

  • Interpretation of the 14th amendment

Affirmative action

This amendment was approved on July 1868. The amendment contained two important clauses that marked the history of Civil rights movement in the US. These are the Equal protection clause and the Due Process clause.

The former guaranteed equal protection of the law while the latter protected individuals from deprivation of life, liberty and property by the state without the due process of law. This article looks into the various interpretations given to the Fourteenth Amendment, limitations to its applications and the affirmative action.

Interpretation of the 14 th amendment

The problem that faced the court was in determining what could qualify as equal protection. The first attempt to interpret the Equal protection clause was made in the infamous case of Plessy Vs Ferguson (1896) , which advocated for racial segregation. Justice Brown was concerned with the reasonableness of the clause.

He argued that when the court is reviewing state legislation it should consider regulation of public order and the tradition or custom of the people. “In short, the Court created a very lenient standard when reviewing state legislation: If a statute promotes order or can be characterized as a tradition or custom… the statute meets the requirements of the clause” (Peter, 1998, Par 3).

In Brown Vs Board of Education (1954) however, the Equal Protection clause was given a new meaning. Justice Earl Warren found that segregated facilities did not amount to equal protection in law. He stated:

“…the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others…are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment” (Brown Vs Board of Education, 1954).

Hernandez v. Texas (1954) the Court found that the Equal Protection clause to apply to not only whites and blacks but also other races and ethnic groups. Among these, other races were the Mexican-Americans. Since Brown case, women and illegitimate children have been included in the Equal Protection Clause.

“The Supreme Court accepted the concept of distinction by class, that is, between “white” and Hispanic, and found that when laws produce unreasonable and different treatment on such a basis, the constitutional guarantee of equal protection is violated” (Carl 1982. Par.2).

The Due Process Clause was not only meant to protect basic procedural rights but also substantive rights. In the case of Gitlow Vs New York (1925) , protection of press from abridgement by the legislature was held to be some of the fundamental freedoms protected by the ‘due process’ clause of the fourteenth Amendment from infringement by the state. Here it was dealing with the substantive rights incorporated in the bill of rights.

However, the decision in Muller Vs Oregon (1908), showed that the state could restrict working hours of women if doing so was in their best interest. This decision was made in due regard to the physical health of a woman. It was held that the physical role of women in childbirth and their social role in the society is an issue of public interest permitting the state to regulate their working hours notwithstanding the ‘due process’ clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Even though it offered a starting point, the Fourteenth Amendment was seen not to be enough to curb discrimination and racial segregation. More positive measures were needed to protect minority groups in the US.

“Affirmative Action refers to a set of practices undertaken… to go beyond non-discrimination, with the goal of actively improving the economic status of minorities and women with regard to employment, education, and business ownership and growth” (Holzer & Neumark 2005, Par. 1).

Affirmative Action was first introduced by President John F. Kennedy in the 1961 Executive Order 10925. Thereafter, several more orders were passed to deal with discrimination in employment. Other laws dealing with equal protection were subsequently enacted to outlaw discrimination such as the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Title II of the Act prohibited discrimination in public accommodations while title IV prohibited race and sex discrimination in employment.

Courts too have joined hands in the fight. For example in Davis vs. Bakke (1978) , where the court found that Bakke had been denied equal protection of the law by the University of California by being refused admission in the school even though his grades were better than the minority’s admitted. This was done in line with a two-track admission system for blacks and whites. Even thought the decision overruled the affirmative action policy, it was viewed as a victory to proponents of affirmative action because it was a fight against racial segregation.

Affirmative action-together with anti-discrimination laws and legislation-has rendered rights of minority groups in the labor market as well as public academic institutions more apparent. Therefore we cannot bow to the critics propositions that affirmative action promotes discrimination and racism.

“Laws barring race- or sex-conscious behavior in hiring, promotions, and discharges are likely to undermine not only explicit forms of Affirmative Action, but also any prohibitions of discrimination that rely on disparate impact analyses for their enforcement” (Holzer and Neumark, 2006, Par, 11).

The Fourteenth amendment has been classified as the most far-reaching amendment in the history of the US constitution especially to the minority groups. “The Fourteenth Amendment itself was the fruit of a necessary and wise solution for a comparable problem” (Howard 2000).

It came at a time when civil rights movements were at the peak and has contributed significantly to the redemption of minority from past discriminatory activities. It created awareness to the whole world on the injustices of racial segregation and prompted the public to take corrective measures, which have no doubt yielded a lot of success.

Brown V Board of Education. (1945). Massive Resistance” to Integration . Web.

Carl. V. (1982). Allsup, Hernandez V state of Texas . Texas. Texas State Historical Association.

Gitlow V. New York . (2011). In Encyclopedia Britannica. Web.

Holzer H. and Neumark D. (2006). Journal of Policy Analysis and Management: Affirmative Action: What do we know? Published by Urban Institute.

Howard. N.M. (2000). The Amendment that Refused to Die: Equality and Justice Deferred: The History of the Fourteenth Amendment. Madison Books.

Peter, M. (1998). Princeton university law Journals: Past and future of Affirmative action Volume I. Issue 2 Springs. Web.

  • Chicago (A-D)
  • Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, January 26). The Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-fourteenth-amendment-to-the-us-constitution/

"The Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution." IvyPanda , 26 Jan. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/the-fourteenth-amendment-to-the-us-constitution/.

IvyPanda . (2024) 'The Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution'. 26 January.

IvyPanda . 2024. "The Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution." January 26, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-fourteenth-amendment-to-the-us-constitution/.

1. IvyPanda . "The Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution." January 26, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-fourteenth-amendment-to-the-us-constitution/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "The Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution." January 26, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-fourteenth-amendment-to-the-us-constitution/.

  • Affirmative Action: Positive and Negative Results
  • A Discussion of Affirmative Action & Diversity Initiatives
  • Procedural and Substantive Law
  • The Diversity Program in American Universities
  • History of Applied Energy Services (AES) Company
  • The First Aid Education in Schools
  • The Fourteenth Amendment and Its Importance
  • Rethinking Women’s Substantive Representation
  • The Fourteenth Amendment - Constitutional Law
  • Grutter v. Bollinger: The Case Study
  • Should Politicians Resign Due to Sex Scandals?
  • Smoking Ban in New York
  • Religious, Governmental and Social Views on Same-Sex Marriage
  • Thinking Government: Conservatism, Liberalism and Socialism in Post World War II Canada
  • Chinese Censorship Block Chinese People from Creativity

What is the 14th Amendment? What is Section 3? What to know as SCOTUS hears Trump's appeal

essay on 14th amendment

On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear former President Donald Trump's appeal to a Colorado ruling that removed him from the presidential primary ballot due to his role in the Jan. 6, 2021 riots at the U.S. Capitol.

In the December 4-3 vote, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Trump is disqualified from the race because of the 14th Amendment, Section 3 . The post-Civil War-era provision bars anyone who has "engaged in insurrection" from holding office again.

Similar legal challenges to Trump's candidacy have been filed around the country, and Maine's Democratic secretary of state has ruled that he is ineligible for the ballot.

The ruling could have huge implications in this year's presidential election; if the justices reject Trump's arguments and uphold Colorado's decision, other states would be able to follow suit and remove him from the ballot.

Here is what to know about the Constitutional provision the arguments will hinge on.

Prep for the polls: See who is running for president and compare where they stand on key issues in our Voter Guide

Live updates: Follow Trump's case at Supreme Court

Trump's Supreme Court appeal: 5 arguments the former president can make in 14th amendment case

What is the 14th Amendment?

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was passed in the post-Civil War era, intended to extend liberties in the Bill of Rights to formerly enslaved people. It was passed by Congress in June 1866 and ratified July 1868.

It also established the right of due process at the state level.

The 14th Amendment was thrust into public debate in recent years when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. The due process clause in the 14th Amendment has been used to defend the right to privacy, a key argument in the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling protecting the right to an abortion.

Nevada primary takeaways: 'None' beats Haley. Trump wasn't on GOP ballot. Biden wins Dems

14th Amendment, Section 3 full text: What does it say about insurrection?

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is where debate about Trump's alleged involvement in the Jan. 6 Capitol riots lies.

Section 3 states :

  • No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

In summary, it bars anyone who has engaged in insurrection after swearing to uphold the constitution (by being sworn into office, for example), from holding office again.

Previously: Maine removes Trump from ballot, saying he's disqualified by 'insurrectionist ban'

14th Amendment, Section 3 and Trump's 2024 presidential run

Colorado's lawsuit was one of several across the country that invoked Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to say that Trump is disqualified from being president again.

His lawyers argue that it was never meant to apply to the office of the presidency, which is not mentioned directly, unlike "Senator or Representative in Congress" in Section 3.

Lawyers for plaintiff and watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington have argued that Trump's efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election, including his involvement with the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, mean he engaged in insurrection. He has been indicted by a federal grand jury for conspiracy and obstruction. The indictment alleges that Trump directed his supporters to march to the Capitol.

A lower court judge initially ruled in November that Trump would stay on the primary ballot. While Colorado District Judge Sarah Wallace found Trump "engaged in an insurrection," she determined that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment did not apply to a president.

The Colorado Supreme Court reversed that ruling.

"We do not reach these conclusions lightly," the court wrote. "We are mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions now before us. We are likewise mindful of our solemn duty to apply the law, without fear or favor, and without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we reach."

The court stayed its ruling until January, giving Trump time to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Contributing: Maureen Groppe, Sudiksha Kochi, John Fritze, Aysha Bagchi, David Jackson, Orlando Mayorquin

Home — Essay Samples — Law, Crime & Punishment — Amendment — 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments

test_template

13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments

  • Categories: Amendment

About this sample

close

Words: 372 |

Published: Jan 15, 2019

Words: 372 | Page: 1 | 2 min read

Image of Dr. Oliver Johnson

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

  • 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
  • Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

author

Prof Ernest (PhD)

Verified writer

  • Expert in: Law, Crime & Punishment

writer

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

3 pages / 1302 words

1 pages / 459 words

6 pages / 2832 words

3.5 pages / 1560 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments  Essay

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Amendment

For a democracy to function effectively, it requires a well-defined system for creating, amending, and enacting laws. This intricate process, known as "How a Bill Becomes a Law," is the cornerstone of legislative decision-making [...]

The death penalty, also known as capital punishment, has long been a subject of controversy and debate, particularly concerning its compatibility with the 8th Amendment of the United States Constitution. This essay explores the [...]

Lydia Taft was a wealthy widow, allowed to vote first time in the town meeting in Uxbridge, Massachusetts, in 1756. In the colonial era, no other women are known to have voted. The New Jersey constitution of 1776 emancipated all [...]

Freedom is more important than equality. Stop! Before you start protesting, let me tell you why. Why do immigrants come over to the United States? Not because of equality. Because of freedom! They flock here to live a free life [...]

On September 17th, 1787 after four long months of conflict and painstaking work 39 men signed the US Constitution, which from that point forward would be the supreme law of the land. The Constitution became the ultimate doctrine [...]

The first amendment in the Bill of Rights guarantees the basic civil rights, including the freedom of speech. However, this does not provide justification for Americans to strut through the streets and yell racial epithets. [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

  • Instructions Followed To The Letter
  • Deadlines Met At Every Stage
  • Unique And Plagiarism Free

essay on 14th amendment

Column: Two conservative scholars say the case isn’t close — the Constitution bars Trump from running again

A man in silhouette against colored ligths

  • Show more sharing options
  • Copy Link URL Copied!

Forget for a moment the indictments against Donald Trump, including the latest from Georgia , and about what impact they might have on his presidential candidacy. Consider instead this constitutional fact: Trump, as insurrectionist in chief, should be disqualified from office, and from being a candidate in the first place.

I’ve been nursing this opinion since Trump announced his 2024 campaign for president in November. But don’t take it from me. Two esteemed conservative scholars of constitutional law, both active members of the Federalist Society, have drafted a beefy legal treatise holding that “the case is not even close”: The former president, the Republican Party’s front-runner, is disqualified under a provision of the post-Civil War 14th Amendment that bars from state and federal office those who, having previously taken an oath of office to support the Constitution, participate in an insurrection or give support to insurrectionists.

Stipple-style portrait illustration of Jackie Calmes

Opinion Columnist

Jackie Calmes

Jackie Calmes brings a critical eye to the national political scene. She has decades of experience covering the White House and Congress.

“The bottom line is that Donald Trump both ‘engaged in’ ‘insurrection or rebellion’ and gave ‘aid or comfort’ to others engaging in such conduct, within the original meaning of those terms as employed in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment,” law professors William Baude , of the University of Chicago, and Michael Stokes Paulsen , of the University of St. Thomas, concluded in their paper , to be published next year in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review.

“All who are committed to the Constitution should take note and say so.”

Yes, let’s. As Baude and Paulsen put it: “There is a list of candidates and officials who must face judgment under Section 3” — a roster that could include Republicans in Congress and in state governments. “Former president Donald Trump is at the top of that list.”

Protesters walk through the halls of the Capital building after forcing their way in

Litman: Did the Capitol mob have inside help? If so, can a simple majority vote send the insiders packing?

The 14th Amendment says you can’t hold office and participate in insurrection, but applying it in Congress wouldn’t be easy.

Jan. 23, 2021

Indeed. The evidence amassed last year in the hearings and final report of the House Jan. 6 committee established that Trump ran afoul of the Constitution’s disqualification clause, to wit:

Lying from election day to the present that victory was stolen from him. Coercing Republican state officials, Justice Department appointees and then-Vice President Mike Pence to throw out Joe Biden’s votes. Encouraging fake presidential electors. Summoning supporters to a “wild” rally to pressure Congress and Pence not to certify Biden’s election on Jan. 6, 2021. Telling them to “fight like hell.” Failing to intervene for three hours while they ravaged the Capitol, stopped the certification and threatened the lives of Pence and lawmakers. Providing “aid and comfort” to the insurrectionists, as captured by his noxious video that evening professing his love for them and, more recently, by his promises to pardon them once he’s reelected.

Oh, and nearly a year into Biden’s presidency, calling for “termination” of the Constitution he once swore to uphold, so he could be reinstalled in the White House. (Imagine him actually being reelected, and taking the oath again — lying right off the bat.)

Still, Baude told the New York Times that he and Paulsen initially had no opinion when they decided to examine the question of whether Trump should be disqualified.

Protesters gather near the E. Barrett Prettyman U.S. Federal Courthouse, Thursday, Aug. 3, 2023, in Washington. (AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib)

Calmes: Trump isn’t victimized by a ‘two-tiered’ system of law, he’s its beneficiary

President Biden is not weaponizing the law against Trump. The former president has always used wealth and connections to skirt accountability — that’s the real perversion of justice.

Aug. 10, 2023

“We thought: ‘We’re constitutional scholars, and this is an important constitutional question. We ought to figure out what’s really going on here.’ And the more we dug into it,” he said, “the more we realized that we had something to add.”

What they added were 126 pages of airtight argument, from a conservative, originalist perspective, for the case to disqualify Trump. Federalist Society co-founder Steven G. Calabresi lauded it as “a tour de force.”

Yet making that case and enforcing it are two separate things. As a like-minded constitutional expert, Mark A. Graber , wrote in an earlier and shorter dive into Section 3, “The only question that remains is whether — and how — that will happen.”

Baude and Paulsen say the enforcers should be “anyone whose job it is to figure out whether someone is legally qualified” to hold office and to be included on state ballots — that is, state election administrators, typically the secretaries of state.

Special counsel Jack Smith speaks to the media about an indictment of former President Donald Trump, Tuesday, Aug. 1, 2023, at an office of the Department of Justice in Washington. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Calmes: Trump’s election lies got him indicted, but they’ve worked all too well

The former president’s “knowingly false claims” eroded the public trust in voting. The Aug. 1 indictment lays it out and a new poll underlines it.

Aug. 2, 2023

Well, OK, but that’s easier said than done. Given the decentralized, state-by-state administration of elections and the nation’s polarization, you can imagine officials in blue states like California being receptive to challenges to Trump’s name on the ballot, while those in states that are MAGA-hat red would give such actions the back of their hand. Baude and Paulsen do not address the chaos that our red/blue divide could bring on.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington , a good-government group, has said since Trump’s November announcement that it would contest his candidacy based on Section 3. In a 90-page paper last month, CREW wrote that Trump “is the living embodiment of the threat that the 14th Amendment’s framers sought to protect American democracy against when they barred constitutional oath-breakers from office.”

Former President Donald Trump arrives at court, Tuesday, April 4, 2023, in New York. Trump is set to appear in a New York City courtroom on charges related to falsifying business records in a hush money investigation, the first president ever to be charged with a crime. (AP Photo/Mary Altaffer)

Opinion: We’ve defended Trump’s 1st Amendment rights. But his latest claims about the Jan. 6 indictment are nonsense

Trump’s free speech rights don’t shield him from prosecution for allegedly trying to overturn the 2020 election results. The issue is his actions, not his words.

Aug. 12, 2023

CREW even provides precedent: It succeeded last year in persuading a state judge to remove from office a New Mexico county commissioner, Couy Griffin , for his role in the Jan. 6 insurrection based on Section 3.

Yet CREW also hasn’t made clear exactly how Trump’s disqualification can be enforced. The organization’s spokesman would only tell me: “We are working on a legal challenge now that we’ll file at the appropriate time.”

Let the Constitution’s protectors loose. Bring on the battle. Yes, this is uncharted ground but so too is the place we find ourselves: with an ex-president, the first to reject the voters’ will and the peaceful transfer of power, now seeking a return to the highest office.

The courts can settle the matter — though I shudder at the thought that the Supreme Court could be the ultimate decider. After all, 23 years ago, a much less conservative court than today’s put George W. Bush in the White House.

@jackiekcalmes

More to Read

WASHINGTON, DC - JANUARY 06: Pro-Trump supporters storm the U.S. Capitol following a rally with President Donald Trump on January 6, 2021 in Washington, DC. Trump supporters gathered in the nation's capital today to protest the ratification of President-elect Joe Biden's Electoral College victory over President Trump in the 2020 election. (Photo by Samuel Corum/Getty Images)

Letters to the Editor: Of course disqualifying Trump would restrict voters’ choice. That’s the point

Feb. 12, 2024

This artist sketch depicts the scene in the Supreme Court as the justices hear arguments about the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling that former President Donald Trump should be removed from the primary ballot, Thursday, Feb. 8, 2024, in Washington. Jonathan Mitchell, right, a former Texas solicitor general, argues on behalf of former President Donald Trump, as Shannon Stevenson, the solicitor general of Colorado, sits behind Mitchell, before arguing on behalf of Colorado's secretary of state. Listening from left are Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Justice Neil Gorsuch, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito, Justice Elena Kagan, Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. (Dana Verkouteren via AP)

Letters to the Editor: Trump has made the Supreme Court too afraid to uphold the Constitution

Feb. 10, 2024

FILE - The Supreme Court is seen, with a carving of Justice in the foreground, April 19, 2023, in Washington. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, File)

Five ways the Supreme Court could rule for Trump on the 14th Amendment

Feb. 9, 2024

A cure for the common opinion

Get thought-provoking perspectives with our weekly newsletter.

You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.

essay on 14th amendment

Jackie Calmes is an opinion columnist for the Los Angeles Times in Washington, D.C. Before joining The Times in 2017 as White House editor, she worked at the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, covering the White House, Congress and national politics. She served as the chief political correspondent and chief economic correspondent at each paper. In 2004, she received the Gerald R. Ford Journalism Prize for Reporting on the Presidency. Calmes began her career in Texas covering state politics and moved to Washington in 1984 to work for Congressional Quarterly. She was a fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy and at the University of Chicago Institute of Politics. She is the author of “Dissent: The Radicalization of the Republican Party and Its Capture of the Court.”

More From the Los Angeles Times

LOS ANGELES, CA - FEBRUARY 08: Lynda McGee, right, a college counselor, helps students fill FASFA application at Downtown Magnets High School, Los Angeles, CA. (Irfan Khan / Los Angeles Times)

Opinion: The college tuition system is broken. FAFSA headaches are the latest proof

Feb. 23, 2024

VACAVILLE, CA - JANUARY 26: Patricia Mason's, 51, medical bills at her home on Tuesday, Jan. 26, 2021 in Vacaville, CA. Mason works more than full time over two separate jobs - office administrative work, which she can do at home, and retail, which she can't. Patricia was hospitalized with COVID-19 from March 27 - April 20th of 2020 at NorthBay Medical Center. Her medical bill totaled $1,339,079, which her insurance covered most of it. But she still owes $42,184, which insurance won't cover, and it's gone to collections. (Gary Coronado / Los Angeles Times)

Opinion: California wants to make your healthcare less expensive

FILE - Alabama Supreme Court Justice Tom Parker announces plans to run for chief justice on the steps of the state judicial building in Montgomery, Ala., April 5, 2006. The Alabama Supreme Court has ruled Friday, Feb. 16, 2024, that frozen embryos can be considered children under state law, a ruling critics said could have sweeping implications for fertility treatments. (AP Photo/Jamie Martin, File)

Litman: Alabama’s highest court declared frozen embryos people. The U.S. Supreme Court is to blame

Feb. 22, 2024

Former US President Donald Trump speaks during a "Get Out The Vote" rally in Waterford Township, Michigan, US, on Saturday, Feb. 17, 2024. Twenty-two Republican-led states urged the US Supreme Court to delay Donald Trump's criminal trial for election interference, casting the federal prosecution as an effort to undermine his campaign to recapture the White House. Photographer: Nic Antaya/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Calmes: I watched a Trump rally so you don’t have to. But you need to know what he’s saying

What the framers said about the 14th Amendment's disqualification clause: Analysis

It is being used to challenge Trump in some states from being on the ballot.

The intent of the 14th Amendment's disqualification clause is central to the debate over whether former President Donald Trump's name should be stricken from GOP primary ballots now that the issue has landed at the steps of the Supreme Court.

Judges and officials across many states around the country are now grappling with language that was written a year after the end of the Civil War. The words "insurrection" and "rebellion" had certain meanings to those who had them added to the Constitution, and a key question for arbiters now is whether the language drafted a century-and-a-half ago should be applied to Trump's role in the Jan. 6 riot .

As it originally passed the House, the 14th Amendment's third section was not nearly as broad as the version now being invoked to strike Trump's name from the ballot. It was narrowly crafted to apply only to those who willingly took part in the Civil War, and it was only meant to deprive former confederates of their right to cast ballots in federal elections. It also had an expiration date.

PHOTO: Former President Donald Trump greets the crowd at a campaign rally, Dec. 16, 2023, in Durham, N.H.

MORE: Biden urges Congress to pass additional aid following Russia's aerial assault on Ukraine

"Sec. 3. Until the 4th day of July, in the year 1870, all persons who voluntarily adhered to the late insurrection, giving it aid and comfort, shall be excluded from the right to vote for Representatives in Congress and for electors for President and Vice President of the United States," the original, House-passed version read, according to congressional records of the era.

The Senate spent several days debating the House-passed amendment in the spring of 1866. While the birthright citizenship provisions in Section 1 earned a lot of time in debate, Section 3 was also the subject of an intense back-and-forth on the floor. The transcripts can be read in the Congressional Globe, a forerunner to the Congressional Record.

Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, who led the Republicans in debate, insisted that it wouldn't be enough to deprive the former confederates of their right to vote in federal elections -- he wanted them banished from government service altogether.

"I should prefer a clause prohibiting all persons who have participated in the rebellion, and who were over twenty-five years of age at the breaking out of the rebellion, from all participation in offices, either Federal or State, throughout the United States," Howard said on the Senate floor on May 23, 1866. "I think such a provision would be a benefit to the nation."

After about a week of discussions with colleagues, Howard offered the Sec. 3 language that was ultimately ratified. Howard's revision removed specific references to "the" rebellion and added an important qualifier: those who were to be excluded from government service would have to have violated prior oaths to defend the constitution by having "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against [it] or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

Senators rejected various attempts to re-insert the word "voluntarily," or to restrict the exclusion to those who violated their oaths during the time they were still serving in office.

There was a great deal of concern voiced in debate that Howard's exclusion clause might leave the South ungovernable, with so many confederates poised to be disqualified from serving, even in state posts. Opponents expressed fear that the provision might alienate Union-loyal supporters in state legislatures. Nevertheless, the version Howard introduced made it through the entire ratification process and became effective on July 9, 1868.

In 2024, the originalists on the Supreme Court will likely seek to determine whether the ratifiers could have had it in mind 158 years ago that Sec. 3 might not only be applied to the "late insurrection," as the House-passed version originally had it, but also to any other rebellion that might later take place.

But originalists might take note of what Sen. Peter Van Winkle of West Virginia said as he sought to have the threshold for congressional amnesty in Howard's version lowered to a simple majority, rather than two-thirds.

PHOTO: Former President Donald Trump greets the crowd at a campaign rally, Dec. 16, 2023, in Durham, N.H.

MORE: Trump ineligible to run for president in Colorado because of Jan. 6, court rules in historic move

"This is to go into our Constitution and to stand to govern future insurrection as well as the present; and I should like to have that point definitely understood," Van Winkle said at the time.

It's also worth noting that there was just a single reference in the Senate debate to the fact that the president and vice president were not explicitly mentioned in Howard's draft as "officer(s) of the United States," the way members of Congress and state officials had been itemized in the text. Would the disqualification clause of the amendment not cover the top posts in the executive branch?

"Why did you omit to exclude them?" asked Maryland Democratic Sen. Reverdy Johnson.

Maine's Lot Morrill jumped in to clarify.

"Let me call the Senator's attention to the words 'or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States,'" Morrill said, ending the discussion on that point.

Earlier this week, the Colorado Republican Party asked the Supreme Court to answer whether the office of the president is covered by the amendment. Colorado district judge Sarah Wallace ruled last month that it is not. The Colorado Supreme Court overturned her finding last week and a majority of Colorado's seven justices wrote that the former president "engaged in insurrection."

Trump is facing more than a dozen tests over his ballot eligibility under the 14th Amendment in various state and federal courts, with challenges or appeals pending in about 15 states.

Michigan , Minnesota and California have kept Trump on their ballots despite efforts to disqualify him.

In a statement Thursday following the decision by Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows ruling Trump would not appear on the Republican 2024 ballot, Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung said they would "quickly file a legal objection in state court."

He added that Bellows was a "hyper-partisan Biden-supporting Democrat who has decided to interfere in the presidential election."

Trump is expected to appeal the decision to disqualify him from the Colorado ballot to the Supreme Court.

"The Colorado Supreme Court issued a completely flawed decision tonight .... We have full confidence that the U.S. Supreme Court will quickly rule in our favor and finally put an end to these unAmerican lawsuits," Cheung said in a statement , in part, after the ruling.

Related Topics

  • Donald Trump

Top Stories

essay on 14th amendment

Ex-Trump aide says photo refutes Biden impeachment witness's claims

  • Feb 23, 9:47 AM

essay on 14th amendment

Texas woman mistaken as intruder and shot by police speaks for the 1st time

  • Feb 15, 5:26 PM

essay on 14th amendment

US couple missing in Caribbean after fugitives allegedly steal their yacht: Police

  • Feb 23, 5:28 PM

essay on 14th amendment

Jury finds NRA liable for mismanagement, says Wayne LaPierre violated duties

  • Feb 23, 8:40 PM

essay on 14th amendment

Border Patrol releases hundreds of migrants at bus stop after San Diego aid runs out

  • Feb 23, 4:12 PM

ABC News Live

24/7 coverage of breaking news and live events

The Hill

Supreme Court to confront 14th Amendment disqualification — and not just Trump’s

F ormer President Trump isn’t the only public official whose disqualification under the 14th Amendment’s insurrection ban has landed at the Supreme Court. 

Just days after the justices heard oral arguments in Trump’s historic case Thursday, they are scheduled this week to consider taking up another official’s disqualification: a New Mexico county commissioner who participated in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack. 

Before the Trump challenges gained steam, a state judge booted from office Couy Griffin, who had been found guilty of entering a restricted area during the riot. 

Griffin, the founder of Cowboys for Trump, is now urging the justices to hear his appeal, even as they begin writing their opinion in Trump’s case. Griffin’s petition is scheduled to be discussed at the justices’ closed-door conference Friday. 

“At this point about everything happening with Trump legally at the top is happening to me here at the bottom. Many things are in tandem. And most greatly compliment each other,” Griffin wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter, shortly after Thursday’s arguments in Trump’s case, which was born out of a challenge in Colorado. 

Top stories from The Hill

  • Here are the Senate Republicans who voted for the Ukraine package
  • Speaker Johnson rebuffs Senate Ukraine package
  • Senate Dems privately fear Biden’s age could cost him White House
  • Senate passes Ukraine funding in predawn vote 

Originally designed to keep ex-Confederates from returning to power, the Civil War-era provision bars people who took an oath to support the Constitution and then engaged in insurrection from returning to office. 

After falling dormant for decades, several public officials — though none more than Trump — began facing efforts after the Capitol attack to block them from office under the 14th Amendment’s insurrection clause.  

Most have been unsuccessful. A group of voters challenged Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.)’s 2022 House candidacy, ending with the Georgia Supreme Court declining to review a decision tossing the case.  

One advocacy group mounted a challenge to Arizona Republican Reps. Paul Gosar and Andy Biggs’s 2022 candidacies, but a judge tossed the case. Another man’s challenge to Rep. Scott Perry’s (R-Pa.) 2024 candidacy is ongoing.  

Trump, meanwhile, has faced dozens of lawsuits. Only two states — Colorado and Maine — kicked Trump off their Republican primary ballots, but even those decisions haven’t yet taken effect. Both are on hold pending the Supreme Court’s ruling.  

Griffin, on the other hand, was already booted from office. In response to a challenge from three New Mexico voters, filed one day before Griffin was found guilty in his Jan. 6 criminal case, a judge disqualified him in September 2022. 

The justices must now confront how to juggle the new case as they begin working on their potentially landmark opinion concerning Trump’s eligibility. 

“[N]one of the trial court’s findings are sufficient to conclude that Mr. Griffin somehow engaged in ‘insurrection’ against the United States,” Griffin’s attorneys wrote in their appeal to the Supreme Court. 

“At best, the trial court’s findings were sufficient to conclude that Mr. Griffin engaged in a riot intended to create a disturbance or a civil commotion.” 

Notably, the Supreme Court during last week’s arguments suggested an offramp to keep Trump on the ballot that could leave open whether Griffin’s disqualification should stand. 

Several justices suggested ruling that a singular state has no authority to disqualify candidates for president — or perhaps any federal office — under the 14th Amendment, which wouldn’t require the high court to opine on whether Jan. 6 was an insurrection. 

Although that resolution would doom the challenges to Trump’s eligibility, it would leave open the question of whether states can use the 14th Amendment to disqualify state-level officials. Some justices seemed to make that distinction during the recent arguments, even as Trump’s lawyer asserted that those disqualifications, too, are invalid. 

“Can states enforce the insurrection clause against their own officeholders, or can they enforce it against federal officials, or can they enforce it against the president? Those are all three different questions in my mind,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor. 

Sotomayor told Trump’s attorney at another point, “There’s a whole lot of examples of states relying on Section 3 to disqualify insurrectionists for state offices, and you’re basically telling us that you want us to go two steps further. You want to — maybe three.” 

Although Griffin appealed his disqualification to the Supreme Court well before Trump did, Griffin’s petition has proceeded at a slower pace, remaining pending for nearly a year. The justices are scheduled to discuss whether to take up Griffin’s appeal at their closed-door conference Friday. 

The justices could delay deciding whether to hear the case until after handing down the opinion on Trump’s disqualification, which could be just weeks away given that the court expedited the former president’s case. 

But the parties on both sides in Griffin’s disqualification say the Supreme Court should move ahead now. 

Beyond the overlapping issues, the parties have also sparred over a matter not at issue in Trump’s case: whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction in the first place to review Griffin’s disqualification, given the posture of his case. 

The plaintiffs, whose counsel of record also represents E. Jean Carroll in her sexual assault lawsuit against Trump, told the justices they have no power to hear the case. And even if they did, Griffin was correctly disqualified, they asserted. 

“In sum, not only does this Court lack jurisdiction over the case, and not only does Petitioner fail to satisfy any of the standard criteria for certiorari, but the contentions that he advances are all meritless,” the plaintiffs’ attorneys wrote in court papers. 

Ella Lee contributed.  

For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to The Hill.

Supreme Court to confront 14th Amendment disqualification — and not just Trump’s 

Supreme Court allows 'race neutral' Virginia high school admissions policy that bolsters diversity

Thomas Jefferson High School admitted less than 10 black students to the Class of 2024 sparking outrage and debate

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday avoided another contentious debate over race and education by turning away a challenge to an admissions policy aimed at encouraging diversity at a Virginia high school.

The high court’s decision not to intervene in the case comes just months after the conservative court ended the consideration of race in college admissions. It leaves in doubt whether the court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has the votes to strike down admissions policies that do not explicitly consider race but nevertheless lead to a more diverse class.

Two conservative justices, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, dissented, saying the court should have struck down the policy.

"We should wipe the decision off the books," Alito wrote of the lower court decision that allowed the admissions process to remain in place. The appeals court effectively concluded that "intentional racial discrimination is constitutional so long as it is not too severe," he added.

Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin, a Republican, said in a post on X that he was disappointed the Supreme Court did not take up the case.

"This nation was built on the idea of building a better future through hard work and determination and we should recommit to those ideals. Admissions should be based on merit," he added.

The latest case involved Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology, a highly selective public high school in Fairfax County, Virginia, that introduced a new admissions policy in 2022.

The school maintains that the policy, which does not consider standardized test scores and guarantees places for top students in various middle schools in the county, is race neutral.

"We have long believed that the new admissions process is both constitutional and in the best interests of our students," Karl Frisch, the chairman of the Fairfax County School Board.

The changes led to a decline in the number of Asian American students and an increase in Black and Latino students.

A group called Coalition for TJ, which opposes the policy, sued, citing evidence that the plan was implemented with an intent to “racially balance the freshman class by excluding Asian-Americans.”

The challengers say the policy violates the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which requires that the law apply equally to everyone.

"The Supreme Court missed an important opportunity to end race-based discrimination in K-12 admissions,” said Joshua Thompson, a lawyer for the plaintiffs.

He argued in court papers that the court should take up the case because other high schools have adopted similar plans that are intended to “accomplish a racial objective” while appearing on their face to be race neutral.

The school board’s lawyers argued that the new policy “removes both socioeconomic and geographic barriers” using criteria that is “race neutral and race blind.”

The Supreme Court in its June decision invalidated the admissions programs at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina on those grounds. Conservatives have long complained about affirmative action, which the Supreme Court had previously upheld on narrow grounds.

Before the recent Supreme Court ruling, a federal judge ruled against the Fairfax County School Board in the Virginia case.

In April 2022, the Supreme Court turned away a request from the challengers asking for the district court judge’s ruling to be immediately implemented.

The Richmond-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals then reversed the district court ruling in a May 2023 ruling that came just a month before the Supreme Court’s decision ending the consideration of race in college admissions. Coalition for TJ then appealed to the Supreme Court.

essay on 14th amendment

Lawrence Hurley covers the Supreme Court for NBC News.

IMAGES

  1. 14th Amendment

    essay on 14th amendment

  2. The Importance of the 14th Amendment (500 Words)

    essay on 14th amendment

  3. The Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment Essay

    essay on 14th amendment

  4. What is so important about the 14th Amendment How did it fundamentally

    essay on 14th amendment

  5. 14th amendment

    essay on 14th amendment

  6. 14th amendment essay. Essay On The 14th Amendment. 2022-10-15

    essay on 14th amendment

COMMENTS

  1. 14th Amendment: Simplified Summary, Text & Impact

    The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1868, granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States—including formerly enslaved people—and guaranteed all...

  2. Fourteenth Amendment

    Fourteenth Amendment, amendment (1868) to the Constitution of the United States that granted citizenship and equal civil and legal rights to African Americans and slaves who had been emancipated after the American Civil War, including them under the umbrella phrase "all persons born or naturalized in the United States."

  3. The Fourteenth Amendment: History, Ratification, and Reaction

    The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified on July 9, 1868. The amendment granted citizenship to those born or naturalized in the United States and guaranteed freedom, due process, and equal protection under the law to all Americans.

  4. Module 14: The 14th Amendment: Battles for Freedom and Equality

    The 14th Amendment wrote the Declaration of Independence's promise of freedom and equality into the Constitution. Ratified after the Civil War, this amendment transformed the Constitution forever and is at the core of a period that many scholars refer to as our nation's "Second Founding."

  5. Selective Incorporation and the Fourteenth Amendment

    The Fourteenth Amendment, passed in 1868 has maintained a divisive role in criminal procedure. Watson (2009) in her text states" The interpretation is that all citizens are subject to federal law, and that no state may interpret or pass laws that would conflict with specified rights listed in the Amendment federal law"(p.527).

  6. Overview of Fourteenth Amendment, Equal Protection and Rights of

    The Fourteenth Amendment was the most controversial and far-reaching of these three Reconstruction Amendment s. Topics. Citizenship; Discrimination; Slavery; War; Footnotes Jump to essay-1 Since the 1950s most professional historians have come to agree with Abraham Lincoln's assertion that slavery 'was, ...

  7. 14th Amendment

    The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is one of the most important and influential amendments in American history. It grants citizenship, equal protection, and due process of law to all persons born or naturalized in the United States. Learn more about the history, significance, and interpretation of this landmark amendment from the Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School, a ...

  8. Original Meaning and Constitutional Interpretation

    For example, it seems possible that many of the ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment would have favored segregation by race and gender. Sunstein, supra note 28, at 121. Jump to essay-30 C. Herman Pritchett, Constitutional Law of the Federal System 37 (1984).

  9. 10 Supreme Court cases about the 14th Amendment

    Lochner v. New York (17 Apr 1905) ―Lochner, a baker from New York, was convicted of violating the New York Bakeshop Act, which prohibited bakers from working more than 10 hours a day and 60 hours a week. The Supreme Court struck down the Bakeshop Act, however, ruling that it infringed on Lochner's "right to contract."

  10. The Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution Essay

    The Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution Essay Exclusively available on IvyPanda Updated: Jan 26th, 2024 Table of Contents Introduction This amendment was approved on July 1868. The amendment contained two important clauses that marked the history of Civil rights movement in the US.

  11. The Fourteenth Amendment Essay

    The Fourteenth Amendment Essay 764 Words 4 Pages On a date that will be remembered forever as a step forward for our nation, July 28, 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment became part of the U.S. Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment gave a new sense of hope and inspiration to a once oppressed people.

  12. Essay On The 14th Amendment

    Essay On The 14th Amendment 867 Words4 Pages The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) The amendments were put into place to protect the rights and civil liberties of all American citizens from the federal government. However, prior to the fourteenth amendment, there was no certainty with the constitution.

  13. Reconstruction Amendments: 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments

    Reconstruction Amendments: 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. The Reconstruction era of United States history was a time of idealism and conflict. After Congress added the Reconstruction Amendments to the US Constitution, they laid the groundwork for greater racial justice. The Reconstruction era of United States history was a time of idealism ...

  14. The Federalist and the Fourteenth Amendment—Publius in ...

    The Federalist Papers occupy a unique place among historical discussions of the federal Constitution. Internationally famous as a work of political science, the ... Lash, Kurt, The Federalist and the Fourteenth Amendment—Publius in Antebellum Public Debate, 1788-1860 (January 31, 2023). Brigham Young University Law Review, Vol. 48, No. 6 ...

  15. The Federalist and the Fourteenth Amendment â•fl Publius in Antebellum

    The Federalist Papers as an authoritative and reliable guide to understanding the meaning of the federal Constitution. What began as a modest stream of pre-1800 newspaper references soon swelled into a flood of essays and reported speeches in which both sides of every major constitutional dispute quoted the essays of Publius

  16. U.S. Constitution

    Fourteenth Amendment Explained Section 1 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.

  17. The Fourteenth Amendment

    Passed in 1868, the 14th Amendment gave Congress special powers to protect and enforce the rights of former slaves in Southern states that adopted the greatest resistance to the new set of liberties afforded African Americans through citizenship.

  18. What is the 14th Amendment, Section 3? Full text; what to know

    The 14th Amendment was thrust into public debate in recent years when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. The due process clause in the 14th Amendment has been used to defend the right ...

  19. 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments: [Essay Example], 372 words

    Get original essay. First, in the 13th amendment it states that there should be no slavery or servitudes unless a person is convicted of a crime and is instructed to. For example, "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude.". Plus if it is appointed of a crime is should exist within the US or a place that the crime was taken by their ...

  20. Opinion: Two conservative scholars say the case isn't close

    A new legal analysis argues that the former president violated the 14th Amendment's disqualification clause by engaging in and giving aid and comfort to insurrection.

  21. Civil War Amendments (Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments

    Jump to essay-1 Amdt13.1 Overview of Thirteenth Amendment, Abolition of Slavery. Jump to essay-2 Cong. Globe, 38th Cong., 2d Sess. 531 (1865). Jump to essay-3 Cong. Globe, 38th Cong., 1st Sess. 1940 (1865). Jump to essay-4 13 Stat. 774. Jump to essay-5 Amdt14.1 Overview of Fourteenth Amendment, Equal Protection and Rights of Citizens.

  22. What the framers said about the 14th Amendment's disqualification

    The intent of the 14th Amendment's disqualification clause is central to the debate over whether former President Donald Trump's name should be stricken from GOP primary ballots now that the issue has landed at the steps of the Supreme Court.

  23. How using the 14th Amendment against Trump went from a 'pipe ...

    Clamoring about the 14th Amendment increased in 2023, as the 2024 presidential cycle got in full swing. But the public conversation was largely led by anti-Trump partisans on the left.

  24. Supreme Court to confront 14th Amendment disqualification

    F ormer President Trump isn't the only public official whose disqualification under the 14th Amendment's insurrection ban has landed at the Supreme Court.. Just days after the justices heard ...

  25. Overview of Fourteenth Amendment, Equal Protection and Rights of

    In the wake of the war, the Congress submitted, and the states ratified the Thirteenth Amendment (making slavery illegal), the Fourteenth Amendment (defining and granting broad rights of national citizenship), and the Fifteenth Amendment (forbidding racial discrimination in elections).

  26. Due Process Generally

    The Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause guarantees procedural due process, meaning that government actors must follow certain procedures before they may deprive a person of a protected life, liberty, or property interest. 3. The Court has also construed the Clause to protect substantive due process, holding that there are certain ...

  27. Supreme Court allows 'race neutral' Virginia high school admissions

    The challengers say the policy violates the Constitution's 14th Amendment, which requires that the law apply equally to everyone. ... He argued in court papers that the court should take up the ...