Jonah Patel
The Constitution is a set of laws that are meant to protect the rights of citizens. However, there have been instances where the Constitution has failed to protect certain groups. For example, before the Reconstruction Amendments, American law did not extend constitutional rights to black Americans, who were considered inferior to white Americans and subject to chattel slavery. In addition, the Supreme Court has rejected abolitionism and determined that black men, whether free or in bondage, had no legal rights under the U.S. Constitution. More recently, in 2009, the court found in Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina that constitutional rules around eligibility to run for office must be non-discriminatory. While the First and Fourteenth Amendments protect certain forms of orderly group activity, there are still instances where the Constitution has not provided adequate protection for certain groups.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Race | Before the Reconstruction Amendments, black Americans were not extended constitutional rights. In the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, the Supreme Court rejected abolitionism and determined black men, whether free or in bondage, had no legal rights under the U.S. Constitution at the time. |
| Speech | Libelous utterances are not protected by the Constitution. |
| State | Article IV, Section 2, provides, “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens of several states.” This limits the ability of states to favour their own citizens and discriminate against out-of-state citizens with respect to certain fundamental rights. |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
- The US Constitution did not extend constitutional rights to black Americans before the Reconstruction Amendments
- The 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford decision rejected abolitionism and determined black men had no legal rights under the US Constitution
- The US Constitution does not protect against ex post facto laws (punishing conduct that was not illegal at the time)
- The US Constitution does not protect against bills of attainder (singling out individuals or groups for punishment)
- The US Constitution does not protect against libelous utterances
The US Constitution did not extend constitutional rights to black Americans before the Reconstruction Amendments
The Reconstruction Amendments provided the constitutional basis for the enforcement and implementation of Reconstruction and the passage of federal legislation such as the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1875 and the Enforcement Acts of 1870-71. These acts ended slavery, ensured full citizenship, civil rights and voting rights for freed African Americans, and addressed growing violence and intimidation against them in the South. The Reconstruction Acts also granted black men in southern states the right to vote and hold elected office. Once African Americans were able to participate in the political process, the 14th Amendment gained the final votes it needed in the South.
However, the Reconstruction Amendments did not succeed in empowering all African Americans. When Reconstruction collapsed with the withdrawal of Federal troops from the former Confederate states in 1877, the white supremacist wing of the Democratic Party dominated the South. Voting rights for black men in the former Confederate states were rescinded in courts and in state and local laws, and those rights were further restricted by poll taxes, literacy tests, intimidation, and fraud.
Antifederalists' Concerns: Unchecked Power and an Ineffective Constitution
You may want to see also
The 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford decision rejected abolitionism and determined black men had no legal rights under the US Constitution
The 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford decision rejected abolitionism and determined that black men had no legal rights under the US Constitution. The case was a decade-long fight for freedom by an enslaved black man named Dred Scott. Scott's case began in 1846 and was not brought to the Supreme Court until 1857. The decision was made on March 6th, 1857, by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney. The Supreme Court ruled that living in a free state and territory did not entitle Scott to his freedom because, as an enslaved man, he was not a citizen, but essentially another person's property. The decision enraged abolitionists, Republicans, and others who desired to limit slavery's expansion in the Western territories or even Northern states. Instead of removing slavery as a major political debate, the decision further exacerbated sectional tensions and became a key issue in the 1858 and 1860 political campaigns. The turmoil surrounding Dred Scott and the violence of "Bleeding Kansas" also contributed to uncertainties about the viability of financial investments in the West, leading to the Panic of 1857. Acting within these political and economic tensions, Republicans united and fought against what they called the "slave power" of the South, eventually leading to the election of the nation's first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln. The Dred Scott decision also influenced new state legislations that blocked the decision, the attempted secession of the South, the Civil War, and the eventual passing of the 13th Amendment.
Sexual Genders: Constitutional Protection or Exclusion?
You may want to see also
The US Constitution does not protect against ex post facto laws (punishing conduct that was not illegal at the time)
The US Constitution does not protect against ex post facto laws, which are laws that retroactively create a crime where none existed before. In other words, ex post facto laws punish conduct that was not illegal at the time it was performed. This is prohibited by Article I, Sections 9 and 10, of the US Constitution, which states that "no Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed".
Ex post facto laws are closely related to bills of attainder, which are legislative actions that determine guilt or impose criminal punishment on specific persons or groups without a judicial trial. However, while the two types of laws are similar, they are legally distinct. Ex post facto laws are directed only against legislative action and do not apply to erroneous or inconsistent decisions by the courts.
There are three categories of ex post facto laws: those that punish as a crime an act previously committed, which was innocent when done; those that make the punishment for a crime more burdensome after its commission; and those that deprive one charged with a crime of any defence available according to law at the time when the act was committed.
The prohibition against ex post facto laws reinforces the idea that the government cannot punish someone retroactively for an action they took that was lawful at the time. This protects citizens against potential abuses of government power and preserves the Constitution's separation of powers.
Before the passage of the Reconstruction Amendments, which included the Equal Protection Clause, American law did not extend constitutional rights to black Americans. Even black Americans that were not enslaved lacked many crucial legal protections. In the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, the Supreme Court rejected abolitionism and determined that black men, whether free or in bondage, had no legal rights under the US Constitution at the time.
Free Speech: A Constitutional Right or Privilege?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The US Constitution does not protect against bills of attainder (singling out individuals or groups for punishment)
The US Constitution does not protect against bills of attainder, which is the act of singling out individuals or groups for punishment. Article I, Sections 9 and 10, prohibit ex post facto laws (punishing conduct that was not illegal at the time it was performed) and bills of attainder.
The Constitution has not always protected the rights of all groups. Before the passage of the Reconstruction Amendments, which included the Equal Protection Clause, American law did not extend constitutional rights to black Americans. Black people were considered inferior to white Americans and were subject to chattel slavery in the slave states until the Emancipation Proclamation and the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment. Even free black Americans lacked many crucial legal protections. In the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, the Supreme Court rejected abolitionism and determined that black men, whether free or in bondage, had no legal rights under the US Constitution at the time.
The Constitution also does not protect against certain forms of speech directed at individuals or groups. If an utterance directed at an individual may be the object of criminal sanctions, then the state has the power to punish the same utterances when they are directed at a defined group. In Beauharnais v. Illinois, the Justice reviewed the history of racial strife in Illinois and concluded that the legislature could reasonably have feared substantial evils from unrestrained racial utterances. The Constitution did not require the state to accept a defense of truth, because historically a defendant had to show not only truth but publication with good motives and for justifiable ends.
The Constitution, Bodily Autonomy, and Individual Freedom
You may want to see also
The US Constitution does not protect against libelous utterances
Libel of an individual is a common-law crime and is now made criminal by statute in every state in the Union. These laws raise no constitutional difficulty because libel is within that class of speech that is not protected by the First Amendment. If an utterance directed at an individual may be the object of criminal sanctions, then no good reason appears to deny a state the power to punish the same utterances when they are directed at a defined group.
The US Constitution has not always protected all groups. Before the passage of the Reconstruction Amendments, which included the Equal Protection Clause, American law did not extend constitutional rights to black Americans. Black people were considered inferior to white Americans, and subject to chattel slavery in the slave states until the Emancipation Proclamation and the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment. Even black Americans that were not enslaved lacked many crucial legal protections. In the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, the Supreme Court rejected abolitionism and determined black men, whether free or in bondage, had no legal rights under the US Constitution at the time.
The First and Fourteenth Amendments protect certain forms of orderly group activity. This decision was followed in three cases in which the Court held that labor unions enjoyed First Amendment protection in assisting their members in pursuing their legal remedies to recover for injuries and other actions.
The Constitution and Unborn Babies: What Protections Exist?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
No, before the passage of the Reconstruction Amendments, which included the Equal Protection Clause, American law did not extend constitutional rights to black Americans.
Even black Americans that were not enslaved lacked many crucial legal protections. In the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, the Supreme Court rejected abolitionism and determined black men, whether free or in bondage, had no legal rights under the US Constitution at the time.
The US Constitution started protecting black Americans after the passage of the Reconstruction Amendments, which included the Equal Protection Clause.
