The Constitutional Amendments embody graceful authority – they are words and phrases and sentences that walk slowly, shoulders back, holding themselves high. Theses sentences are this nation’s royalty. But, while they stand tall to guard the nation and the people, over time they begin revealing fallacies in their nature. The Bill of Rights, the rights and freedoms explicitly stated so that no man or woman or force of authority could come between a citizen and their civil liberties, are written to only guard the people at the federal level. We the people have the freedom of speech, of press and religion, the freedom to question our government and protest. We the people have the freedom to protect ourselves and are promised there are rules in
…show more content…
April 14, 1873, the Supreme Court decided on a case centered around a state-created monopoly in the Louisiana slaughtering business. Competing companies in the business were arguing that the monopoly given to one company was unlawfully contradicting their “privileges and immunities”, and denying “equal protection of the law” (Finkelman, 1032). When the court delivered their decision, they dismissed all claims of 14th Amendment violation, and most importantly, they interpreted the context of the Privileges and Immunities Clause to apply to national citizenship, not state citizenship (“Slaughter-House Cases”). “The net effect of this ruling was that the Privileges and Immunities Clause could not serve as the vehicle to extend the Bill of Rights to the states” (Hudson). The court essentially gutted the clause and any of its potential with the precedent set in the Slaughter-House Cases, leaving the door open for the creation of Jim Crow laws and delaying selective incorporation until years into the …show more content…
Jamal Greene declares in “Fourteenth Amendment Originalism” that the amendment was a failure. Greene argues that while the amendment is significant in “constitutional redemption,” it is insignificant in “constitutional restoration” (Greene, 981). From an originalist viewpoint, this makes logical sense; the Fourteenth Amendment does not guide us back to past American ideals of divisions in governmental reign, rather it creates controversial context in constitutional law. While I tend to lean towards an originalist view of constitutionalism, I accept that the amendment is more idealistic than practical. However, originalism only stretches so far in circumstances of grand scale. The advantage given to the federal government to regulate state laws is not idealistic – the powers are divided to protect the nation from one body reigning over it. But Amendment 14 protects the people as much as the division of powers protects the nation; its power to preside over Amendment 10 to ensure Amendments 1-9 are protected far outweigh any insecurities one may have with its ambiguity. The Fourteenth Amendment may be enigmatic, but it is guarding our right to argue against it. Greene writes that Article Fourteen was a failure, but he would fail to write that without Article
April 14, 1873, the Supreme Court decided on a case centered around a state-created monopoly in the Louisiana slaughtering business. Competing companies in the business were arguing that the monopoly given to one company was unlawfully contradicting their “privileges and immunities”, and denying “equal protection of the law” (Finkelman, 1032). When the court delivered their decision, they dismissed all claims of 14th Amendment violation, and most importantly, they interpreted the context of the Privileges and Immunities Clause to apply to national citizenship, not state citizenship (“Slaughter-House Cases”). “The net effect of this ruling was that the Privileges and Immunities Clause could not serve as the vehicle to extend the Bill of Rights to the states” (Hudson). The court essentially gutted the clause and any of its potential with the precedent set in the Slaughter-House Cases, leaving the door open for the creation of Jim Crow laws and delaying selective incorporation until years into the …show more content…
Jamal Greene declares in “Fourteenth Amendment Originalism” that the amendment was a failure. Greene argues that while the amendment is significant in “constitutional redemption,” it is insignificant in “constitutional restoration” (Greene, 981). From an originalist viewpoint, this makes logical sense; the Fourteenth Amendment does not guide us back to past American ideals of divisions in governmental reign, rather it creates controversial context in constitutional law. While I tend to lean towards an originalist view of constitutionalism, I accept that the amendment is more idealistic than practical. However, originalism only stretches so far in circumstances of grand scale. The advantage given to the federal government to regulate state laws is not idealistic – the powers are divided to protect the nation from one body reigning over it. But Amendment 14 protects the people as much as the division of powers protects the nation; its power to preside over Amendment 10 to ensure Amendments 1-9 are protected far outweigh any insecurities one may have with its ambiguity. The Fourteenth Amendment may be enigmatic, but it is guarding our right to argue against it. Greene writes that Article Fourteen was a failure, but he would fail to write that without Article