Us Constitution: Citizen Safety Or Not?

The US Constitution gives states the inherent police power to protect public health and safety. The Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause, however, limits how much a state can impact a person's life, liberty, or property. State and local governments are constitutionally obligated to ensure public safety, but the Constitution imposes limits on this power through provisions like the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Fourteenth Amendment states that No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. This amendment gives federal courts the authority to intervene when a state threatens the fundamental rights of its citizens.

Explore related products

The Constitution of the United States of America: The Declaration of Independence, The Bill of Rights

$9.99 $9.99

The Constitution of the United States and The Declaration of Independence

$1.99 $6.95

Constitution of the United States (Books of American Wisdom)

$9.25 $9.95

Defending the Constitution behind Enemy Lines: A Story of Hope for Those Who Love Liberty (Children’s Health Defense)

$20 $26.99

Mark Twain Understanding the US Constitution Workbook, American History Books Covering Articles, Amendments, Three Branches of Government, and More, Classroom or Homeschool Curriculum

$12.07 $12.99

The Tough Luck Constitution and the Assault on Health Care Reform

$7.19 $24.99

The Fourteenth Amendment and police powers

The Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution was enacted in 1866 in the aftermath of the Civil War, alongside the Thirteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. The Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause limits how much a state can impact a person's life, liberty, or property. The due process clause reads:

> "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

The Fourteenth Amendment also contains an equal protection clause, which states:

> " [nor shall any State] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The Fourteenth Amendment limits state police powers. The US Constitution gives states inherent "police power" to protect public health and safety. State and local governments are constitutionally obligated to ensure public safety. However, the Constitution imposes limits on this power through provisions like the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Public health regulations cannot violate a person's constitutional rights.

The Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause has been interpreted in various ways by the Court. In the early years, "liberty" pertained almost exclusively to "liberty of contract". However, with the decline of liberty of contract, "liberty" took on a broader meaning, encompassing personal, political, and social rights and privileges. The Fourteenth Amendment also extends due process protections to state governments.

The Supreme Court initially gave states extraordinarily broad police powers, but over time adopted a more nuanced approach. In United States v. Lopez (1995), the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution withholds from Congress a plenary police power. In Williamson v. Lee Optical Co. (1955), the Court upheld an Oklahoma law that only allowed licensed optometrists and ophthalmologists to fit or replace optical lenses. The Court noted that it would no longer use the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause to strike down state laws relating to business and industrial conditions because they may be unwise or out of harmony with a particular school of thought.

Public health regulations and citizens' rights

The US Constitution does not explicitly guarantee safety for its citizens. However, it does outline certain rights and protections, which can impact public health regulations and citizens' rights. The Fourteenth Amendment, for instance, protects individuals' right to liberty, but this is not absolute. States have "police powers" under the Amendment, which allow them to act to promote public health and safety. This power must be exercised within the boundaries of due process, especially when individual liberty is constrained.

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought the tension between individual rights and the public good into sharp focus. Measures such as stay-at-home orders, mandatory business closures, and mask mandates have been opposed by some who feel these measures infringe on their freedom. While these measures do constrain individual autonomy, they are generally considered constitutional and ethical, especially when implemented with complementary measures to ensure equity and justice.

The success of public health measures often depends on more than just their constitutionality and ethical nature. Polarized political rhetoric can be a significant barrier to the success of evidence-based public health interventions. Public health officials must, therefore, ground their decisions in science, law, and ethics, while also acknowledging the real tension between safeguarding public health and individual rights.

The "precautionary principle" in public health ethics recognizes that individuals' rights must sometimes yield to the collective good. Public health officials have an obligation to protect populations against reasonably foreseeable threats, even under conditions of uncertainty. This principle has been the subject of long-running debates and controversies, with some arguing that the protection of public welfare has been used as a pretext for governments to curtail fundamental rights.

To navigate these tensions, public health officials must closely examine the factors that have hindered the success of certain measures, such as those implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic. By working across party lines and grounding decisions in science, law, and ethics, officials can better maintain public trust and balance the protection of public health with the preservation of individual rights.

The right to vote

The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States, regardless of race. It also prevented states from restricting the rights of citizenship, such as voting. The 15th Amendment, ratified in 1870, specifically prohibited restricting the right to vote based on race, colour, or previous condition of servitude. This amendment enfranchised African American men, many of whom were freedmen in the South. However, some states attempted to circumvent this amendment by using literacy tests and other barriers to make it harder for African Americans to vote.

The 19th Amendment, ratified in 1920, extended voting rights to women. Prior to this amendment, some states, such as Wyoming, had already granted women the right to vote, while others, like New Jersey, had revoked the vote from Black women. The 24th Amendment, ratified in 1964, explicitly banned poll taxes, which had often prevented low-income citizens of all races from voting. The 26th Amendment, ratified in 1971, lowered the voting age to 18 for all elections.

In addition to these amendments, various federal laws have been passed to protect voting rights and make it easier for citizens to exercise their right to vote. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibited voter discrimination based on race, colour, or membership in a language minority group. It also required certain places to provide election materials in languages other than English. The National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) of 1993 created new ways to register to vote.

Despite these advancements, the right to vote continues to be litigated in courtrooms across the country. The federal government and the Supreme Court have been criticised for failing to adequately protect voting rights. As a result, the responsibility for protecting voting rights has largely fallen to individual states, which have taken steps such as removing barriers to voter registration and making it easier to cast a ballot.

Explore related products

Protecting Freedom of Speech and Neighborhood Safety Under the Fair Housing Act: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee ... Congress, Second Session, September 5, 19

$31.95

Safety Law (Occupational Safety & Health Guide Series)

$43.92 $190

The Genius of America: How the Constitution Saved Our Country--and Why It Can Again

$31.54

Protecting Freedom of Speech and Neighborhood Safety Under the Fair Housing Act: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee ... Congress, Second Session, September 5, 199

$21.27 $27.97

A Simple Guide to the Second Amendment

$19.99 $19.99

Gun Violence Prevention Act of 1994: Public Health and Child Safety: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the ... Second Session, on S. 1882 ... March 23, 1994

$30.95

Citizens' privileges and immunities

The Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, Section 2 of the US Constitution states that "the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states". This clause ensures that states treat citizens of other states in a fair manner and protects the fundamental rights of individual citizens. It also prevents states from discriminating against out-of-state citizens.

The Fourteenth Amendment, which was passed after the Civil War, further strengthened citizens' privileges and immunities. It states that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States". This amendment gave federal courts the authority to intervene when states threatened the fundamental rights of their citizens, such as free speech, freedom of religion, and protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The Supreme Court has interpreted the Privileges and Immunities Clause to protect a wide range of rights, including both substantive rights (like religious liberty) and procedural rights (like the right to a jury trial). The Court has also recognised rights that are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, such as the right to privacy and the rights of minors.

In addition to these protections, citizens are also guaranteed certain privileges and immunities under the Tenth Amendment, which states that any powers not explicitly granted to the federal government belong to the states. This includes the power to promote public safety, health, morals, public convenience, and general prosperity.

The specific rights protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause have been the subject of much debate, with some scholars arguing that it protects traditional common-law rights conferred by individual states, while others focus on the right to interstate travel and the rights of out-of-state citizens.

The Supreme Court and civil rights

The Fourteenth Amendment was drafted specifically to ensure the rights of African Americans. However, in the Civil Rights Cases of 1883, Justice Joseph Bradley questioned the necessity of laws protecting Black people from discrimination. The Supreme Court's decision in these cases eliminated the Civil Rights Act of 1875, the only federal law prohibiting racial discrimination by individuals or private businesses. This decision left African Americans who faced private discrimination to seek legal recourse in state courts, which were often unsympathetic. This ruling by the Supreme Court effectively legitimised segregation and spurred the Jim Crow laws that codified the practice of racial segregation in the United States.

Justice John Marshall Harlan dissented from the Court's decision, arguing that the court had eviscerated the Fourteenth Amendment. He pointed out the bias in the judgment, as the same court had previously upheld the Fugitive Slave Acts. Harlan argued that businesses such as railroads, hotels, restaurants, and theatres performed a public function. If these businesses discriminated, they did so with the consent of the state, constituting state action that could be addressed under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court has played a significant role in interpreting and applying the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause to protect civil rights. The due process clause limits how much a state can impact a person's life, liberty, or property. The Supreme Court has used the idea that fundamental rights are not explicitly outlined in the Constitution to protect civil rights, viewing them as closely tied to life, liberty, and property.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Supreme Court weighed states' powers to address public health against other constitutional guarantees, such as freedom of religion. In Roman Catholic Diocese v. Cuomo, the Court ruled in favour of religious leaders, striking down a New York executive order that limited attendance at religious services during the pandemic.

Frequently asked questions