Amendments Protecting Rights Of Minorities: Understanding Constitutional Safeguards

The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, passed in 1868, was intended to achieve racial justice and protect the rights of minorities. While it did not initially succeed in its aims, it has since been used to protect the rights of all Americans, including same-sex couples, transgender students, women, and immigrants. The amendment states that no state shall make or enforce any law that abridges the privileges or immunities of US citizens, and it guarantees due process and equal protection under the law. Despite its importance, the 14th Amendment is currently under threat of being stripped of its authority, which would undermine its role as a safeguard against oppression.

Explore related products

The Gabriel of Madness: Islamic Poetry and Ethics in an Age of Hindu Nationalism (Volume 7)

$95

A People's Constitution: The Everyday Life of Law in the Indian Republic (Histories of Economic Life)

$34.98 $37

Amendment XIV: Equal Protection (Constitutional Amendments)

$43.2

The Constitutional Protection of Capitalism

$94 $110

Constitutional Protection of Human Rights in Latin America: A Comparative Study of Amparo Proceedings

$148 $70

Constitutional Law [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)

$100 $345

The 14th Amendment and citizenship

The 14th Amendment, passed by Congress on June 13, 1866, and ratified on July 9, 1868, was part of the Reconstruction program to guarantee equal civil and legal rights to Black citizens. The amendment's key provision granted citizenship to "All persons born or naturalized in the United States," which included formerly enslaved people. This amendment repudiated the concept of citizenship set by the Dred Scott holding and restored traditional precepts of citizenship by birth.

The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment states that "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 clause has been interpreted to include children born to non-citizens in the United States, such as in the case of a child born to Chinese parents who were ineligible for naturalization. However, there are exceptions to this clause, such as children of diplomatic representatives or alien enemies in hostile occupation.

The 14th Amendment also includes the Privileges or Immunities Clause, which states that no state shall make or enforce any law that abridges the privileges or immunities of US citizens. This clause has been interpreted to mean that corporations, not being citizens, cannot claim the protection of this clause. Additionally, the amendment guarantees the right to due process of law and equal protection under the law, which applies to both federal and state governments.

The 14th Amendment has been significant in extending liberties and rights granted by the Bill of Rights to formerly enslaved people. However, it has been criticized for failing to extend the Bill of Rights to the states and adequately protect the rights of Black citizens. Despite these shortcomings, citizens, particularly during Reconstruction, worked to make the promises of the amendment a reality through petitions, court cases, legislation, and executive branch enforcement.

Equal protection and race

The Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, passed by Congress on June 13, 1866, and ratified on July 9, 1868, was intended to protect the civil rights of emancipated slaves. Section 1 of the amendment states that:

> "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and 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."

The Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause was intended to prevent states from discriminating against Black citizens. The text of the clause is worded broadly, and it has evolved since its original purpose. Despite its specific reference to "states", the clause has been interpreted to apply to the Fifth Amendment, thus preventing the federal government from discriminating on the basis of race.

The Fourteenth Amendment has been central to many landmark court cases, including Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), where the Court ruled that "separate but equal" facilities for Black and White citizens did not violate the Equal Protection Clause. This ruling was later overturned in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), where the Court held that racial segregation in public education was unconstitutional.

Another important case is Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), which addressed the constitutionality of affirmative action. The Court found that race-conscious measures designed to address the effects of discrimination were presumptively unconstitutional and violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court's decision in Bakke has been criticised for its narrow interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment and its failure to recognise the ongoing racial inequality in higher education.

In addition to the Fourteenth Amendment, the Fifteenth Amendment also plays a crucial role in protecting the rights of minorities, particularly in the context of elections and voting rights. The denial of the franchise on the basis of race or colour is a violation of the Fifteenth Amendment, and gerrymandering or other electoral practices that weaken the voting strength of minorities are subject to constitutional scrutiny under both the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.

Affirmative action

However, supporters of affirmative action in education argue that race-conscious admissions policies help create a diverse student body, promote integration on college campuses, and create an inclusive educational environment that benefits all students. The Supreme Court has upheld the consideration of race in college admissions, stating that diversity is a "compelling governmental interest" and permitting schools to consider race as a contributing factor in admissions.

Outside of the United States, affirmative action policies exist in other countries as well. For example, the equality section of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms explicitly permits affirmative action legislation, and the Canadian Employment Equity Act requires employers in federally regulated industries to give preferential treatment to four designated groups: women, people with disabilities, Aboriginal peoples, and visible minorities. In Brazil, some universities have created systems of preferred admissions (quotas) for racial minorities, the poor, and people with disabilities.

Explore related products

Violence As Obscenity: Limiting the Media's First Amendment Protection (Constitutional conflicts)

$23.93 $34.95

The Glannon Guide to Constitutional Law: Learning Constitutional Law through Multiple-Choice Questions and Analysis

$71.95 $71.95

Supreme Neglect: How to Revive Constitutional Protection For Private Property (Inalienable Rights)

$17.49 $29.99

No Democracy Lasts Forever: How the Constitution Threatens the United States

$18.99 $19.99

Constitutional Law for Criminal Justice

$115.06 $170

American Constitutional Law: Introductory Essays and Selected Cases

$104.13 $150

Voting rights

The Fourteenth Amendment (1868) granted citizenship to formerly enslaved Americans, but it did not confer the right to vote. Despite the Amendment's promise of equal protection under the law, Black voters were systematically turned away from state polling places.

The Fifteenth Amendment (1870) established the constitutional right to vote for African American males, removing racial barriers to voting. However, states still found ways to prevent Black men from voting, and voter discrimination persisted.

The civil rights movement of the twentieth century aimed to secure and protect full voting rights for Black citizens. This led to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which provided federal enforcement to remove literacy tests and other tools used to disenfranchise African Americans. The Act also prevented states from unilaterally changing voting requirements or district boundaries and mandated federal oversight during elections.

The Voting Rights Act remains a crucial safeguard for Black Americans and other minority groups. It has been amended over time to enhance its protections, such as by requiring language assistance in communities with a high proportion of non-English speakers. The Supreme Court has interpreted Section 2 of the Act as prohibiting state and local officials from adopting voting laws or procedures that discriminate based on race, colour, or membership in a language minority group.

Despite these constitutional and legislative protections, the struggle for voting rights continues. Citizens, Congress, and the executive branch have all played roles in working to safeguard the voting rights of minorities, ensuring that all Americans have the power, agency, and access to vote as a fundamental civil right.

Education access

The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, passed by Congress on June 13, 1866, and ratified on July 9, 1868, has had a significant impact on protecting the rights of minorities to access public education. While the US Constitution does not expressly mention education, the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses have been used to protect public education rights.

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment states that no state shall deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. This clause has been applied to local governments and public schools, as they are considered state actors. The Supreme Court has ruled that students have a "legitimate entitlement to a public education as a property right" under the 14th Amendment's procedural due process protections. This means that public schools cannot deprive students of their right to education without providing due process protections, such as notice of the alleged violation and the opportunity for the student to be heard.

The 14th Amendment has also been used to challenge racial segregation in public schools and to protect the rights of minority students. In the case of Plyler v. Doe, the Supreme Court ruled that a Texas statute that withheld state funds for the education of undocumented children and allowed local school districts to deny their enrollment violated the Equal Protection Clause. The Court stated that while education was not a fundamental right under the US Constitution, states could not "deny a discrete group of innocent children the free public education that it offers to other children residing within its borders."

Additionally, the 14th Amendment has been invoked to address affirmative action in education. The Court has generally been divided in its response to constitutional challenges to affirmative action plans, with some cases upholding affirmative action as a remedy for past discrimination and others invalidating it. The Court has also restricted its prior holdings to situations where state action had a serious risk of causing specific injuries on account of race.

Despite its original intent to protect the rights of Black citizens, the 14th Amendment has faced challenges in recent years. There have been efforts to limit the enforcement of agencies and departments that once vigorously enforced the amendment. Additionally, judges have been selected for their antipathy towards rights secured for people of colour and other vulnerable populations. As a result, there is a realistic possibility that the 14th Amendment could be stripped of its authority to serve as a bulwark against oppression.

Frequently asked questions