Omar Bennett
Equality is a fundamental principle of the US Constitution, guaranteeing equality of opportunity and legal protection for all citizens. The Fourteenth Amendment, introduced in the aftermath of the Civil War, was a significant step towards embedding equality in the Constitution, prohibiting state discrimination and ensuring equal protection under the law. This amendment has been central to landmark Supreme Court decisions, such as Brown v. Board of Education, which helped dismantle racial segregation, and Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalised same-sex marriage. Despite these advancements, equality remains a contentious issue, with ongoing debates surrounding affirmative action, LGBTQIA+ rights, and the role of women in the military. The interpretation and application of equality in the Constitution continue to evolve, reflecting the complex nature of ensuring equal rights and opportunities for all.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Equality of opportunity | Encouraged |
| Treatment of individuals | People are to be treated as individuals, not components of a particular race or group |
| Race-based favoritism | Not supported |
| Voting rights | Considered a "fundamental right" |
| LGBTQIA+ rights | Supported by the ERA, Equality Act, and the 14th Amendment |
| Women's rights | Supported by the ERA and the 14th Amendment |
| Education | Free public education should be provided regardless of immigration status |
| Employment | Employers should be able to act in the best interests of the job applicant, employer, and the American public |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The Fourteenth Amendment
The Equal Protection Clause has been central to many landmark court cases, including Brown v. Board of Education, which helped dismantle racial segregation, and Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalised same-sex marriage. Despite its broad wording, the Fourteenth Amendment did not initially achieve its intended purpose of ending racial segregation, as seen in the Plessy v. Ferguson case in 1896, where the Court ruled that "separate but equal" facilities for blacks and whites did not violate the Equal Protection Clause.
The Amendment also addressed voting rights, with Section Two providing for a reduction in a state's representation in Congress if it denied its inhabitants the right to vote for members of the state legislature. The Supreme Court has interpreted voting as a "fundamental right," requiring strict scrutiny of any discrimination in this area. The Fourteenth Amendment has had a complex history, with ongoing debates and interpretations shaping its impact on equality in the United States.
The Constitution and the Republican Party: Connected?
You may want to see also
Voting rights
Amendments to the Constitution and federal laws have since expanded voting rights. The 15th Amendment, passed in 1870, gave African American men the right to vote, although many states erected barriers to prevent them from exercising this right. The 19th Amendment, ratified in 1920, guaranteed women's suffrage. The 24th Amendment, ratified in 1964, removed another barrier to voting by prohibiting poll taxes, which had been used to disenfranchise African Americans. The 26th Amendment, ratified in 1971, lowered the voting age to 18 for all elections.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was a significant piece of legislation that prohibited voter discrimination based on race, colour, or membership in a language minority group. It required certain places to provide election materials in languages other than English and placed limits on states with a history of voter discrimination. The Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act of 1984 ensured that polling places were accessible to people with disabilities. The National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) of 1993 also created new ways to register to vote.
Despite these advancements, challenges to voting rights persist. The denial of the franchise on the basis of race or colour violates the Fifteenth Amendment, and gerrymandering or electoral practices that dilute minority voting strength are subject to Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendment challenges. The right of inmates and convicted misdemeanants to vote by absentee ballot remains unsettled, and felons can lose their voting rights in certain situations. States also have varying voter ID requirements, which can impact access to voting.
Lateral Violence: Reporting Obligations and Their Importance
You may want to see also
LGBTQIA+ rights
Despite the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaiming that "all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights", the LGBTQIA+ community has historically faced significant discrimination and a lack of legal protections. In 1990, homosexuality was finally declassified as a mental disorder by the World Health Organization, but even today, consensual same-sex relations remain criminalized in almost 70 countries.
In the United States, the LGBTQIA+ movement has made significant strides in achieving constitutional protection, with several Supreme Court cases striking down laws that limited the rights of LGBTQIA+ individuals as violations of the US Constitution. For example, in Romer v. Evans, the Supreme Court invalidated a Colorado constitutional amendment that would have prevented LGBTQIA+ individuals from gaining legally protected status. In Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), the Supreme Court held that discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity is a form of sex discrimination, thus prohibiting such discrimination under the Fair Housing Act and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.
The First Amendment also protects the right of LGBTQIA+ students to express themselves in public schools, including bringing a same-sex date to school events and discussing LGBTQIA+ topics. Additionally, the right to privacy protects students from being "outed" by their school without their permission. In terms of housing, the Fair Housing Act's protections against discrimination cover individuals with HIV/AIDS, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Equal Access Rule prohibits discrimination in HUD programs based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
However, the fight for LGBTQIA+ equality is far from over. While some countries, such as the Netherlands, have legalized same-sex marriage, same-sex relationships remain illegal in many places, and only a small number of countries offer comprehensive legal protections for LGBTQIA+ individuals. According to the United Nations High Commissioner of Human Rights, only one-third of countries legally protect people from discrimination based on sexual orientation, and only one-tenth offer protections based on gender identity. As a result, LGBTQIA+ individuals are more likely to experience human rights violations, including violence, torture, criminalization, and discrimination.
Organizations like the UNFPA are working towards a world where LGBTQIA+ people are afforded the same rights as others, including access to gender-based violence services during the COVID-19 pandemic. While progress has been made, there is still a long way to go to achieve true and lasting equality for the LGBTQIA+ community.
The Supremacy Clause: Understanding the US Constitution's Power Dynamic
You may want to see also
Explore related products
$24.99 $27.99
Racial equality
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to prevent states from discriminating against Black people. The Amendment marked a significant shift in American constitutionalism, applying more constitutional restrictions to the states. The Amendment was the basis for the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which helped dismantle racial segregation.
However, the text of the Equal Protection Clause is very broad, and its interpretation has evolved over time. In Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the Supreme Court ruled that "separate but equal" facilities for Blacks and Whites did not violate the Clause. This ruling institutionalized segregation, and it wasn't until the Civil Rights revolution of the 1950s and 1960s that formal equality for Black Americans was realized.
Even with these advancements, racial inequality persists in the 21st century. Affirmative action programs, intended to address past racial discrimination, have been constitutionally contentious. While some argue that these programs are necessary to atone for past injustices, others believe they are morally questionable and have bred racial tensions. The Supreme Court has held that non-racial classifications motivated by racial discrimination are subject to the same scrutiny as racial classifications, leaving the constitutionality of affirmative action an open question.
To further advance racial equality, a "Third Reconstruction" has been proposed, which would involve significant changes to constitutional interpretation and jurisprudence. This includes recognizing that the core purpose of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments is to end racial subordination and supremacy, and reviewing policies that implicate race with a historical and contextual understanding.
Additionally, the President has issued orders to promote equality of opportunity and meritocracy, emphasizing that citizens should be treated as individuals, regardless of race or group affiliation. These orders aim to ensure equal access to employment and encourage achievement based on merit and skill rather than irrelevant characteristics.
March 4: Constitution and the US Presidency
You may want to see also
Equality of opportunity
The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified after the Civil War in 1868, introduced the ideal of equality to the US Constitution for the first time, promising "equal protection of the laws". The Amendment directly prohibited certain actions by the states and gave Congress the power to enforce the amendment through legislation. The Fourteenth Amendment has been interpreted to apply most provisions in the Bill of Rights to the states as well as the national government, and it has been cited in more Supreme Court cases than any other part of the Constitution.
The Fourteenth Amendment marked a significant shift in American constitutionalism, applying more constitutional restrictions to the states than before the Civil War. The Amendment's Equal Protection Clause was intended to stop states from discriminating against African Americans. The text of the Clause is worded broadly, and it has evolved from its original purpose. For example, despite referring specifically to "states", the Clause has been interpreted in conjunction with the Fifth Amendment to prevent the federal government from discriminating as well.
The Equal Protection Clause has been the basis for several landmark Supreme Court decisions. In Sweatt v. Painter (1950), the Court invalidated Texas's separate law school system for blacks and whites, not because it separated students, but because the separate facilities were not equal. In Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Court ruled that racial segregation in schools was unconstitutional, helping to dismantle segregation. In Obergefell v. Hodges, the Court legalised same-sex marriage. In Bush v. Gore (2000), the Court's decision addressed the controversial recount in Florida following the 2000 presidential election.
The Equal Protection Clause has also been at the centre of debates surrounding affirmative action policies. These policies give an advantage to African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans in college admissions, employment, and winning government contracts. Many believe that the Supreme Court will end these programs in the near future.
The Constitution: Military and Federal Government Explained
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The Equal Protection Clause is part of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 after the Civil War. Its primary purpose was to prevent states from discriminating against black citizens. The Clause has been interpreted to mean that all citizens should have equal protection under the law.
The Equal Protection Clause has been used as the basis for several landmark Supreme Court decisions, including Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which helped to dismantle racial segregation, and Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalised same-sex marriage.
This has been a matter of debate. Justice John M. Harlan argued that the framers did not intend for the Equal Protection Clause to extend to voting rights, as this was already guaranteed by the Fifteenth and Nineteenth Amendments. However, the Supreme Court has held that voting is a "fundamental right" and has applied equal protection jurisprudence to voting rights.
The Constitution guarantees equality of opportunity, not equal outcomes. It promises that people are treated as individuals, regardless of race or sex, and encourages a meritocracy. However, some argue that this principle is endangered by a movement seeking to prioritise outcomes based on irrelevant characteristics over individual strengths and achievements.
The Constitution does not explicitly address the equality of LGBTQIA+ people, and there is currently no federal law prohibiting discrimination against them. However, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Equal Protection Clause to protect LGBTQIA+ rights, such as in Romer v. Evans (1996) and Lawrence v. Texas (2003). There are also ongoing efforts to pass legislation like the Equality Act to provide further civil rights protections for LGBTQIA+ individuals.
