What does The 14th Amendment in simple terms mean?
The 14th amendment provides a broad definition of national citizenship, overturning the Dred Scott case, which excluded African Americans. It requires the states to provide equal protection under the law to all persons (not only to citizens) within their jurisdictions, and was used in the mid-20th century to dismantle legal segregation, as in Brown v. Board of Education. Its Due Process Clause has driven much important and controversial case law regarding privacy rights, abortion (see Roe v. Wade), and other issues. The first section formally defines citizenship and requires the states to provide civil rights. The second section establishes rules for establishing the number of representatives in Congress to states, essentially counting all residents for apportionment and reducing apportionment if a state wrongfully denies a person's right to vote.
14th amendment... please help?
The 14th amendment grants citizenship to anyone born in or naturalized in the US. This means that they are protected by the constitution. This amendment came about during the period following the Civil War known as Reconstruction. It was aimed toward giving former slaves citizenship in the US and therefore protected by our laws. This was necessary because of how the South was treating the former slaves. The amendment also attaches the number of citizen voters to the number of Representatives each state has in the House of Representatives. This, in turn, would hopefully encourage the South to allow blacks to vote so that the southern states would have more of a say in our federal government.
What does the 14th amendment mean?
Equal protection under the law, originally written to protect the rights of former slaves.
Why did the South hate the 14th amendment or in other words reject it?
The Supreme Court overturned the Ku Klux Klan Act banning violence against blacks. The reasoning was that the Fourteenth Amendment equal protections only applied to states, rather than to individuals.
How did the 14th Amendment come to include all people born in the United States when it was originally intended to give freed slaves and ethnic Native Americans citizenship?
The 14th amendment never included all people born within the borders of the US.It was never intended to cover children of parents who have allegiance to other countries. It says “all persons born and naturalized, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof…”. The term “jurisdiction” is about the allegiance of the parents, and by default the children during childhood. Children of two citizens of other nations should not be covered by the 14th amendment.At the time of it’s ratification it specifically did not cover children of diplomats, and children of American Indians living in Indian Nation territory, including reservations. Both these groups had to go through the standard immigration and naturalization process if they wished to become citizens.Today children of ambassadors continue to no be granted birthright citizenship. American Indian children however are no granted birthright citizenship.Children of American citizens who are born abroad are granted birthright American citizenship. Even if they also are granted birthright citizenship of the country they were born in. Because the 14th amendment is about the “jurisdiction” of the parents, ie their allegiance and citizenship.It is arguable that children of birth tourism and birth from illegal aliens should not be granted birthright citizenship. The problem is that the authors of the 14th amendment did not define “jurisdiction thereof” within the constitution itself. It is well known what they meant, but IMO a clarification of this amendment is needed.When enacted the children of freed slaves being denied basic rights in the south following the civil war was the trigger for proposing it. But is was written broadly, to cover all people subject to US jurisdiction.A clarification of the 14th amendment to define “jurisdiction thereof” to mean parents of 100% allegiance to the US is needed. Please see Convention of States Action for how this can be done.
If Trump changes the 14th amendment of the constitution, what possible future dangers do you see for the USA?
Let's get this straight folks.. Trump can not change the Constitution nor any of the amendments. There is nowhere in the Constitution which grants him, or Congress, any such power.. And that's intentional. It's designed to force government to honor the citizens because they're not allowed to change anything without Our explicit agreement.The process for changing our Constitution[1] is laid out and it requires what's called The Amendment Process..It is a bifurcated process which may be started by either a convention of the several States or by both houses of Congress, but it MUST end by at least 38 States ratifying* the proposed changes.*A State Ratifying an amendment means that the State and citizens of the Stare formally agree to be legally bound by the Amendment.No matter how it starts, this Ratification by a minimum of 38 States is mandated for the Amendment to be legally enforceable, and even if 37 Ratify but the rest don't the Amendment fails.As you can imagine this is an incredibly difficult thing to accomplish and that's why it happens so rarely.The odds are extremely good that were Trump to try and start such a process he would be out of office before the Ratification.Now, after writing this and a bit of pondering, I suspect what's really going here is that this is a ruse to force SCOTUS into disambiguating that “subject to the jurisdiction of” clause of the 14th Amendment. Trump knows *cough hork* well.. *snort chortle*Trump's advisors know that the Constitution can't be changed this way and the hyperbole in the order both suits Trump's ego and serves to force a SCOTUS challenge. Do they have enough of the Court to get what they want (which is a set of second class citizens that can be abused at will)?We'll see.Footnotes[1] Constitutional Amendment Process
What would happen if the 14th amendment was repealed?
Should the 14th amendment be repealed (which i doubt would happen), how many people would lose citizenship, because as i understand it, only African Americans, Native Americans, and anyone who has done the paperwork would be allowed. So would that mean that if your family is directly descended from the first colonists, you would lose citizenship?
Do you support on changing the 14th amendment????????
so republicans want to review the 14th amendment that grants who ever born in the united states an automatic citizenship. i know this is all about trying to stop illegal immigration but i mean c'mon abolishing a amendment written over 200 years ago is stupid!, it just targets even more descrimination to hispanics. both my parents came here illegally and in the 80's and by late 1991 i was born, today my paremnts are legal permanent US residents, im proud of being an american i think we need to fix this immigration problem by granting legalization for the people here illegally BUT also enforcing stricter borders laws! i strongly oppose this and sadly, most of the supporters are republicans (no surprise!) what is your opinion about this issue and arizona's law, do you support it, do you think its perfect, or should they change it? heres the article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100803/ap_on_go_co/us_republicans_birthright_citizenship