CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER CHANGE
Abstract
The United States Constitution serves as the prevailing law governing all aspects of the nations. Nonetheless, the law has undergone several adjustments to make it better than in previous years. However, many concerns arise with its interpretation, especially for amendments such as the 14th Amendment. This constitutional order change serves as the most significant alteration in American history due to its popularity in many cases. The amendment focuses on enhancing the definition of citizenship, equality, appropriate litigation, and selecting the best leadership candidates for positions in the country’s government. There have been oppositions in the implementation of the laws. However, the result has been an improvement in the legal field, especially in situations including the state of minority groups. Nevertheless, there are concerns regarding the 14Th Amendment, such as its actual intent, minimizing obstacles in the litigation process, and response to equal opportunities or equal results. The government’s critical goal is to implement an intervention to maximize the benefits of the 14th Amendment.
Keywords: Constitution, 14th Amendment, Equality, Due Process, America
In Quarrels that have shaped the Constitution, John Garraty (2009) states that “To try understand the modern Constitution without a knowledge of these judicial landmarks would be like trying to comprehend Christianity without reading the Bible” (2). His argument reckons that grasping the legal components in a country involves so much more than the mere recognition of a nation’s history. Additionally, one must understand why the ratification of a statute does not automatically translate into change. The United States’ Constitution correlates with other sovereign laws as one of the legal binds that reflect a nation’s principles and principles (Bulmer 2014, 2). These acts set political boundaries and reinforces the civilians’ identity. The Consreinforcean also defines the economic and social goals of the American people. Most importantly, these higher law safeguards the universal rights of all citizens. Consequently, the Constitution supersedes all other legislative acts (Bulmer 2014, 2). People perceive the American Constitution as one of the best set of laws ever made. Nonetheless, the progress is attributable to changes that the nation has undergone over the years. The twentieth century was a revolutionary period with events such as the World Wars altering and shaping the industrialization patterns, education systems, and population segregation. Since change is constant, the post-war era resulted in more adjustments crucial for developing the citizens of the United States. Similarly, there have been adjustments to the constitutional orders in America. For instance, the 1st Amendment secures the freedom of worship, press, speech, and questioning the government. Alternatively, there is the 5th revision that guides some part of the judicial process. In this context, an individual is at liberty to avoid self-incriminating themselves during a trial. They are therefore guaranteed fair rules for the jury and due trial procedure. These modifications are essential as they enhance this supreme rule’s strength as a flexible system aimed at handling issues facing the public about time and structural settings. Nonetheless, the 14th Amendment is the most critical alteration to constitutional order from its model motive to the United States’ current state of affairs.
The 14th Amendment is the clause that reflects on citizenship and aspects such as one’s privileges and obligations. Moreover, it addresses equality and dealing with obstacles like wars. Trying to grasp this modification’s relevance as the most crucial to the Constitution is an uphill task for many reasons. Foremost, as highlighted above, adjustment is continual. However, there is no explicit assurance that societal morals and ideals are non-dynamic. Illustratively, many individuals claim to be anti-dictatorship and pro-democracy. Nevertheless, there is no clear stretch over how much leeway is available to citizens. For instance, the government has the mandate to protect the public from diseases during a pandemic. Unfortunately, some people fail to comply with the set rules, thus increasing infection risks to their counterparts. What then can the leaders do since they cannot initiate a complete lockdown in the country? Such an action would minimize the income levels of families hence barring them from meeting their needs. On the other hand, multitudes elect politicians every so often with the hope of improving the state of their regions. Still, these elected fellows redefine democracy into an asset that helps them accomplish their interests through unfavorable conditions. This notion is subjective to some extent, but undoubtedly poor policy-making and role ambiguity have adverse effects on the nation. The economy, dependent on proper resource dissemination, fails as manufacturing plans differ with the consumer’s demands, labor availability, and financial capability. Therefore, policy interpretations, implementation, and alterations should specifically consider these core variables.
Over time, differences characterize the American political arena. The greatest of misunderstandings is usually the Constitution’s meaning, with people questioning the authenticity of the original or newer versions (Jaffa 1986, 354). Prejudicially, the 14th Amendment has altered both the interpretation and use of the Constitution. This progress is, however, detrimental to the precedents set by Framers and former judges. The former was the nation’s founding fathers and actively engaged in the American Revolution for the current change. Some of their initiatives include consenting to the Declaration of Independence and employing the constitutional convention to draft the Constitution. These individuals include George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and John Jay. In the case of Dred Scott, the judge ruled against him, citing that African Americans had the liberty of being state citizens but nationals of the United States (Garraty 2009, 78). Furthermore, the Supreme Court judge dismissed the rulings by a district court that had granted the frail Scott the freedom he needed after his master’s death. What were the “Original Intentions” of the Framers of the Constitution of the United States by Harry Jaffa (1986) clarifies that the judge ignorantly alludes that, “Any other rule of construction would abrogate the judicial character of this court, and make it the mere reflex of the popular opinion or passion of the day” (352). This faulty reasoning ignored several past rulings and presented a rigid law history instead of the flexibility accorded to the Constitution. The logic was off bigotry as it was legal to provide one with freedom and immunity availed to others in multiples states. His actions aimed at solving slavery only ended up creating an outrage as he misinterpreted the Framers’ values. Ultimately, efforts resulted in bondage abolishment in many states.
The Framers were keen on establishing legal jurisdictions that would solve societal problems while implementing sustenance principles to cater to an unknown future (Stone and Marshall 2011, 1). Their visions have a rational articulation in the Constitution with freedom and law dominating the text. They also focus on a topic such as religion, which is quite contentious. The founders noted everyone was at liberty to worship or not worship, as exhibited by their wording of Article VI (Barton 2011, 1). Some practices were, therefore, acknowledged. No one would have to subscribe to a religion to secure a political seat. Moreover, no law would be made biased towards religion. Future generations, therefore, must prudently analyze the Constitution without distorting its values. Forefront, Framers opted for a self-governing state reliant on courts to check the executive action to avert unjust intentions. In this context, the judiciary must analyze constitutional issues based on the comprehension of the constitution framers. Second, Framers were aware of the flaws in their decisions, such as advocating for a majority rule. Stone and Marshall (2011) concur that “They understood that political majorities may be tempted to enact laws that entrench their own authority; that in times of crisis people may panic and too readily sacrifice both fundamental freedoms and structural limitations; and that prejudice, hostility, and intolerance may at times lead governing majorities to give short shrift to the legitimate needs and interests of political, religious, racial, and other minorities” (1). These thoughts are useful in restricting political processes that are illegal or disadvantageous to minority groups. For instance, the court notably ruled out a compellation that necessitated sterilization for men in the Skinner V. Oklahoma case (Stone and Marshall 2011, 1). Subsequently, the judges who ruled against Dred Scott would be astonished to discover that African Americans can currently hold offices and democratically vote for their leaders. Additionally, there are less strict rules governing concerns like gun ownership, abortion, educational inclusivity, and more attempts towards combating climate change.
The stated original intent of the constitution founders ignores the lack of cooperation among some of the Constitution’s formulators. For instance, James Madison advocated for a free will to allow the public to interpret the law accordingly rather than relying on the framers (Davis, 2009, p. 1). Alternatively, Alexander Hamilton suggested the Constitution’s independence, such that it should be allowed to manage its interpretation. The third individual with a varied view was Thomas Jefferson, who alluded to constructionism’s relevance, which reserved all undelegated authority to citizens and their governments. Nonetheless, he violated his notion when he failed to amend a constitution even though it was necessary for a Louisiana Purchase. Louisiana’s procurement from the French increased the United States boundaries and reflected the relevance of granting the federal government adequate powers.
The 14th Amendment is a core basis for modern-day rulings involving racism and marginalization of groups. The law ratification occurred in 1868 as part of the three-piece legislation meant to abolish slavery (Barton 2011, 1). The reconstruction of the modification played out after the death of Abraham Lincoln when Johnson Andrew had to integrate states divided during the civil war. The new president was a democrat and hence opposed the Republicans on the reintroduction process. Two years before the 14th Amendment’s actualization, Congress thwarted the president’s veto power and passed a bill enforcing the 13th Amendment. Progressively, the leaders developed the 14th Amendment despite opposition from Johnson and Southern States. The planner, Thaddeus Stevens, aimed at utilizing the legal proposals to promote Black rights, restructure Congress representatives, and punish the Confederate States of America. The wanted the changes to fit into one constitutional order. The 14th Amendment has distinct sections. It defines a U.S. citizen as an individual attached to America either by birth or by naturalization and whose legal coverage is under the country’s jurisdiction. This clarification fails to acknowledge the ruling made against Scott, as outlined above. Moreover, the adjustment demands the respect of all rights awarded to American citizens. As such, no one should be a victim of infringement by any arm of the government. Most importantly, the 14th Amendment averts the state from taking one’s life or freedom without a certified legal procedure. This law has been a guide to most cases dealing with constituents of the Bill of Rights. The last clause ensures that everyone has equal access to laws regardless of their social stratification. Consequently, the discrimination against Black Americans is diminishing.
The additional sections of the 14th Amendment allow federal governments to enforce punishments over any set legalities violations. Anyone acting against the United States can not enroll as a candidate for any elective post in the land. The States also received a pardon against paying up debts accumulated during the Confederate leadership. The last subdivision permits Congress to act in a manner that supports the enforcement of the amendment. This authority created a rift in the relationship between the state and federal governments. Correspondingly, Congress passed complementary laws in 1964 and 1965, respectively.
The 14th Amendment is the most significant constitutional change order due to its impacts. Activists had been influential in enforcing the much-needed change in America. Still, the Supreme Court played a negative role that curtailed the progress of the Reformation (Egerton 2014, 53). Many recall the Plessy v Ferguson (1896) case as one of the scenarios with the endorsement of racial exclusion. In this incident, Homer Plessy refused to use a car designated for Black passengers deeming the segregation as a violation of his rights as an American citizen. However, the ruler clarified that a constitutional law meant to distinguish between varied races should not trigger discrimination. The court prioritized the Louisiana Separate Car Act that bound organizations to have diverse lines for each race. Plessy defied the order to gauge the system’s reaction. This action led to his arrest once he denied exiting the car (Margo 1990, 69). His use of the 14th Amendment as defense thus failed terribly. Accordingly, the Jim Crow policies on separating amenities due to races took shape.
Bittker (1995) attests that as a result, there emerged specific businesses, schools, recreational facilities, and even prisons (11). Also, insurance companies changed their premiums by inflating the rates for non-white customers. The segregated were, therefore, more apparent to bear harsh consequences in case of transgressions. This case was a clear example of how public policies influence citizens’ interactions, especially since Blacks and Southerners mixed freely before the 1880s. It shaped a relook into the authenticity of the 14th Amendment demands. The focus shifted from attaining equality into objectifying people based on their social status. The judiciary was terrorizing the public under the pretense of independent but commensurate bureaucracies. This establishment was rather knowingly excluding a community in the United States.
Luckily, a 1954 legal decision on Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) reversed the absurd Plessy v. Ferguson ruling. The state was becoming accustomed to racially segregating students. The Topeka Board of Education had set up various institutions in the population. Parents agreed to enroll the children in the nearest facilities as per the guidelines of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). Nonetheless, the schools’ administration redirected them to the excluded facilities despite the incongruence in the distances in the children’s homes and the selected institutes. Such occurrences led to scholars filing court cases such as the Sweatt v Painter, 339 U.S. 629 (1950), and McLaurin v Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637 (1950). Oliver Brown’s team affirmed that the division between White and Black learners propagated inferior services for the marginalized groups. The trail came at a time when organizations such as the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) asserted their position against the justification of vices like racism through a statement named The Race Question. The local court agreed with their sentiments that isolation resulted in adverse effects on the children.
Nevertheless, they ruled on the board’s side due to the precedence set in the Plessy v Ferguson (1896). Further, the judges inferred that the study conditions, structures, and teachers in both divisions were synonymous with one another. The plaintiffs stayed strong and referred the case to the Supreme Court. The judges in this category combined multiple related lawsuits for a joint decision. They unanimously voted in support of Brown and his colleagues. Their statement began by reflecting on the role of the 14th Amendment in offering remedies against race divisions in schools. The Supreme Court highlighted that this order was viable to change since most systems like public schools were inexistent during its inception. Respectively, the judges agreed that segregation caused diminished the opportunity of better educational quality. Sadly, the impact was majorly psychological than physical. The rulers supported their decisions with studies that proved the detrimental influence isolation had on Black children. However, the court did not find any violations of the equality clause as Blacks were making tremendous efforts to improve the situation in their schools. Contextually, segregating people due to their features violated the 14th Amendment. Having exclusive education, housing, and transport systems in the name of “separate but equal” was, in all means, unequal. Most Americans were happy with the ruling, while Southerners much opposed the move. Some schools began accepting a limited number of African Americans while the rest blatantly ignored the commands.
The negative public response was contrary to the beliefs that founded the United States, seeking to prevent further global oppression. At the time, Whites had more advantages as compared to other races. Most of the immigrants had to live in the south, which had impoverished conditions. Illustratively, in 1950, there were about 68% Blacks compared to only 27.3% of Whites (Dau-Schmidt, Kenneth, and Ryland 2013, 97). The White economy grew as a result of the labor force’s ability to migrate to new areas for better opportunities. These individuals had more employment chances than minorities. Contrarily, Black lives center on poverty and regulations that restricted their movement (Dau-Schmidt, Kenneth, and Ryland 2013, 96). Again, instead of spending time working in the outside world, more Blacks were in prison for crimes despite being innocent. The situation is currently constant as more African Americans are in jail even though some of the atrocities have since legal in some States. One significant circumstance is the possession of Cannabis Sativa. Danoff and Herbert (2011) use the speech given at an annual meeting concerning politics and morality to highlight their belief that despite the wrongs in the world systems, the leaders can still work smarter to find solutions to tussles like poverty (24).
The 14th Amendment outlines the legal boundaries addressing contraception usage, presidential elections, interracial marriages, and homosexuality in other scenarios. The Loving v Virginia 388 U.S. 1 (1967) case reconsidered the initial laws that restricted miscegenation. The plaintiffs were a white constructor and a mixed-race woman. Due to Virginia’s strict laws, they got married in Washington DC but were arrested by the Sherriff a few weeks after their joyous celebration. They accepted their charges and imprisonment verdict for one year. The judge also recommended forfeiture of the sentence if they left the state without returning for twenty-five years. An appeal to the Supreme Court resulted in a ruling that favored their marriage. Previously, some judges had supported the harsh treatment in light of the ‘fairness’ it bestowed upon Whites and Blacks. Most importantly, the state-managed any marriage rites. These practices limited the 14th Amendment’s effectiveness that gave individuals the freewill to marry and have children or not to engage in any of the two acts.
In Roe v Wade 410 U.S. 113 (1973), the court approved the 14th Amendment by stating that American citizens had the liberty of privacy and thus the ability to make decisions concerning their lives, such as whether to keep a baby or not. This line of thought links to other constitutional orders like the first, ninth, and fourth legal modifications. Therefore, the court in Texas had violated Jane Roe’s privileges that exempted abortions to situations where the mother was in great danger. Alternatively, in Bush v Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), election results were respected after George Bush and his supporters argued that the different counting systems in other regions meant that a vote’s recount would manipulate the 14th Amendment. Lastly, courts followed this significant constitutional order by legalizing gay marriages in Obergefell v Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015). These relationships are perceivable as a highlight of one’s choices regarding their lives and should be respected as long as they do not infringe on others. This autonomy justifies the equality advocated for by the 14th Amendment.
Much focus is placed on others’ treatment since human resources are critical factors for the success of any nation. A reliable workforce guarantees an organization added income that translates into the overall growth of an economy. African Americans and Latinos provide this much-needed labor force, especially for tasks that an average white person cannot handle due to preferences. The forced migration into America from their native nations allowed the government to expand its workforce and taxation levels to recover the economy. Currently, the unemployment rate is at 8.4%, with only 7.3% being White, 13% Blacks, and 10.5% being Hispanics (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2020, 2). The collaboration of these communities, therefore, results in more benefits for the country. The United States remains one of the strongest global economies with a Gross Domestic Product (GDP) valued at $22 trillion, a continued increment (Silver 2019, 1). Higgs (2012) adopts the Gross National Product (GNP) as part of the measures utilized in assessing the growth in a government (20). He notes that the rate had been consistently increasing until the Great Depression that adversely affected the livelihood of Americans. The situation became better in the post-Depression era. This economic contribution forms about 79% of the world economy (Silver 2019, 1). Therefore, it is unfortunate that disparities prevent the minority labor force from reaching their maximum potential and plunging the nation into greater heights. The government would do more good by minimizing the gaps created by capitalist ideology and gender discrimination in workplaces. Indeed, it is worth noting that the current achievements would be impossible without the 14th Amendment, which recognizes democracy and the acceptance of diverse thoughts and policies.
Despite the benefits of the 14th Amendments and its role as the most notable constitutional order change in America, the system has several flaws that limit its full implementation. Central on the list is the state’s role in regulating procedures. The 14th Amendment grants one a due process but fails to synchronize the plan. Therefore, the state entrustment relies on its definition of justice and available policies to make a ruling. In this context, these regions determine factors like court jurisdictions and the type of cases worth a quick trial. These decisions ignore prudence in matters, the stress of the litigant’s process, and the possibility of conflict. Examples of circumstances that call for the due process’s reorientation include the defenses, abatement pleas, trial commencement, and the costs and damages (FindLaw 2020, 1). Foremost, the state may deny one from accessing litigation services due to the forfeiture of set fees. The state only agrees to non-payment when handling issues such as the marital crisis leading to dissolutions. A non-resident plaintiff has to respond to any cross-filed inquiries and stay prepared in case of personam judgment. The government and relevant bodies ought to scrutinize these barriers caused by financial constraints for an advanced due process.
Secondly, there are situations where the state bars a defendant from entering the court, thereby leaving them at the judges’ hands. This decision is said to be constitutional and does not violate the rights of the individual. However, they may deem the due process ineffective, specifically when the court allows the government to take over their property (FindLaw 2020, 1). Any insistence on arguing the validity of the process allows the state the individual under the court’s jurisdiction with the risk of overruling. Thirdly, the state determines terms for any defense actions. For instance, an individual arrested for possession cannot quiet title unless there is a verdict. Similarly, the court may limit a landowner’s defenses, thus allowing tenants meant for eviction to sue for poor housing conditions instituted by the initial plaintiff (FindLaw 2020, 1). Lastly, the court determines any charges for damages compensation. The standard process demands that the settled amount not deprive an individual of their property unless a due process determines. Also, defendants must access the due process despite limitations such as the recovery of a lawyer’s legal fees. This variable affects the 14th Amendment as the court is at liberty of determining the rightful payment. Most of the reimbursement is often meant to deter future crime and may not be adequate for the plaintiff if the due procedure is unfollowed.
Apart from these concerns on the due process’s stability, the 14th Amendment fails to recognize the role of women by using gender-appropriate terms. Most women activists neglected their advocacy for equal rights in support of the Union even as the civil war ensued. These campaigners were hopeful of the possibility of an end to slavery. Nevertheless, the 14th Amendment became controversial due to its use of the word ‘male’ in explaining its views on allowing all individuals to vote. The rift was evident among the women with supporters like Lucy Stone and Julia Ward Howe, reinforcing the constitutional change (REIP 2020, 1). They were willing to accept the order’s flaws as long as it approved the better treatment of slaves. Contrastingly, others like Elizabeth Cady Stanton felt betrayed by their counterparts in the fight for gender balance. These conflicting parties formed the American Woman Suffrage Association (AWSA) and a National Woman Suffrage Association (NWSA). Fortunately, these groupings merged into what is now known as the National American Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA).
Another flaw of the 14th amendment is recognizable in addressing issues surrounding children’s custody when their parents separate or divorce. This argument majorly results from the misinterpretation of the clauses in the order. Many claims that the law grants both caregivers equal guardianship. Nonetheless, critics raise valid points over this ideology. They infer that the original intent of the 14th Amendment at eradicating bondage only provided a fair playing field for everyone regardless of their stratification (Lautenschlager 2020, 1). As such, the purpose is attaining an equal process rather than an outcome. This logic holds up that the review procedure focuses on the best interests of the child. Correspondingly, the judge may not necessarily handle the issue based on legal measures. They may decide to make decisions upon their considerations of the most suitable environment for the child. In this case, every child is observable as different from the other, and no single criteria are applicable. Therefore, no lawsuit has been valid enough to counter the effectiveness of the ‘best interests’ argument (Lautenschlager 2020, 1). Law-makers need a review that shifts the focus to the parents’ capabilities to raise their children to uphold the 14th amendment on equality. Also, every choice must rely on the preponderance of proof. The court has the mandate to review the case brought forth and deciding whether it fits a thorough custodial battle. A sub-standard analysis of available data places the child in a precarious position.
The last flaw relates to modern-day subjugation, as briefly highlighted in other sections of this paper. Despite the changing times, the state of affairs in the United States depicts the laxity in fulfilling the demands of the 14th Amendment. Evidence of inhumane treatment, especially for Blacks, differs significantly with the language adopted in the order. There is an upsurge of videos showcasing the unnecessary force on African Americans and others from minority groups. The result is a community so used to the scenes and systematic differences in service provision. For instance, Black crime suspects are treated harshly compared to Whites who may have committed transgressions. These actions raise concerns on whether a societal equilibrium is only attainable for specific races or groups. Therefore, the state needs to implement an intervention to meet the demands of the constitutional order and appease an angry public.
In conclusion, the 14th Amendment is the most notable modification of any constitutional order in the United States. This statute, sanctioned in 1868, has three primary provisions, namely the citizenship structure, due process, and the equal protection clause. The first distinction allows individuals to claim American citizenship under birth or other processes such as naturalization. Subsequently, the second one affirms everyone’s right to a fair trial, life, and property ownership. The third clause accords equally for all people within a particular jurisdiction. Other core components of the amendment include restricting candidates of elective in the American government and punitive measures for officials serving in the Confederation of States. As such, this rule gains momentum as the most referred to order by courts of laws at any jurisdiction. This constitutional order was part of the strategies aimed at abolishing slavery and has helped in dealing with many cases from the lowest court levels to the Supreme Court. Despite these benefits, there are flaws and concerns in the use of the 14th Amendment. The due process is unclear to some extent because of obstacles influencing trials. Moreover, the narrow outlines of child custody issues are due to misinterpretations of the order’s clauses. Most importantly, there is the neglect of the amendment made by the amendment since more individuals from minority communities have exposure to cruel treatment. The government needs to actualize plans with real results for a better accomplishment of the 14th Amendment requirements.
Bibliography
Barton, David. “Original Intent: The Courts, the Constitution, & Religion (Aledo, TX.” WallBuilder Press 185 (2011): 984-986.
Bittker, Boris I. “Interpreting the Constitution: Is the Intent of the Framers Controlling-If Not What Is.” Harv. JL & Pub. Pol’y 19 (1995): 9.
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)
Bulmer, W. Elliot. “What is a constitution? Principles and concepts.” (2014).
Bureau of Labor Statistics. “The Employment Situation-August 2020.” U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2020. https://www.bls.gov/bls/newsrels.htm.
Bush v Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000)
Danoff, Brian, and Louie Joseph Hebert, eds. Alexis de Tocqueville and the Art of Democratic Statesmanship. Lexington Books. (2011).
Dau-Schmidt, Kenneth Glenn, and Ryland Sherman. “The Employment and Economic Advancement of African-Americans in the Twentieth Century.” (2013).
Egerton, Douglas R. The Wars of Reconstruction: The Brief, Violent History of America’s Most Progressive Era. Bloomsbury Publishing USA, 2014.
FindLaw. “Annotation 12 – Fourteenth Amendment,” 2020. https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment14/annotation12.html.
Garraty A. John. “Quarrels that have shaped the Constitution.” New York: Harper- Perennial. (1975).
Higgs, Robert. “Crisis and Leviathan: Critical Episodes in the Growth of American Government.” (2012).
Jaffa, Harry V. “What were the “original intentions” of the framers of the Constitution of the United States.” U. Puget Sound L. Rev. 10 (1986): 351.
Lautenschlager, Ray. “14th Amendment and Custody of a Child in Divorce or For the Never Married.” Ohio Family Rights, 2020. http://ohiofamilyrights.com/Reports/White-Papers/Fatal-Flaw-in-14th-Amendment-A/fatal-flaw-in-14th-amendment-arguement.html.
Loving v Virginia 388 U.S. 1 (1967)
Margo, Robert A. Race and schooling in the south, 1880-1950: An economic history. University of Chicago Press, 1990.
McLaurin v Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637 (1950)
Obergefell v Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015)
Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537(1896)
Roe v Wade 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
Rutgers Eagleton Institute of Politics (REIP). “Controversy over the Fourteenth Amendment.” Teach a Girl to Lead, 2020. https://live-ru-tag.pantheonsite.io/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/controversy-over-the-14th-amendment.pdf
Silver, Caleb. “Top 20 Economies in the World.” Investopedia. Last modified June 7 (2019).
Stone, Geoffrey R., and William P. Marshall. “The Framers’ Constitution.” Democracy: A Journal of Ideas 21 (2011): 61.
Sweatt v Painter, 339 U.S. 629 (1950)